Environmental Impact

Statement for the Ross ISR

Project in Crook County, 

Wyoming

Supplement to the

Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for

In-Situ Leach Uranium

Milling Facilities

Final Report

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs

NUREG-1910

Supplement 5
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 Ross ISR

Project in Crook County, 

Wyoming

Supplement to the

Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for

In-Situ Leach Uranium

Milling Facilities

Final Report

Manuscript Completed: February 2014

Date Published: February 2014

Office of Federal and State Materials and

 Environmental Management Programs

NUREG-1910

Supplement 5

Abstract

iii

ABSTRACT

The United States (U.S.) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issues licenses for the 

possession and use of source and byproduct materials provided that 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 Title 10

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, which implement the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA), issuance of a license to possess and use source and byproduct materials 

during uranium recovery and milling requires an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a 

supplement to an EIS (SEIS).

In May 2009, the NRC issued NUREG–1910, Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) 

for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities. In the GEIS, the NRC assessed the potential 

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

decommissioning of in situ recovery (ISR) facilities located in four specific geographic regions of 

the western U.S. As part of this assessment, the NRC determined which potential impacts 

would be essentially the same for all ISR facilities and which would result in varying levels of 

impacts for different facilities and would therefore require further site-specific information to 

determine potential impacts. The GEIS provides a starting point for the NRC’s NEPA analyses 

for site-specific license applications for new ISR facilities as well as for applications to amend or 

to renew existing ISR licenses.

By a letter dated January 4, 2011, Strata Energy Inc. (referred to herein as Strata or the 

“Applicant”) submitted a license application to the NRC for a new Source and Byproduct 

Materials License for the proposed Ross Project. The Ross Project would be located in Crook 

County, Wyoming, which is in the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region 

identified in the GEIS. The NRC staff prepared this SEIS to evaluate the potential 

environmental impacts of the Applicant’s proposal to construct, operate, conduct aquifer 

restoration, and decommission an ISR facility at the Ross Project. This SEIS describes the 

environment that could be affected by the proposed Ross Project activities, estimates the 

potential environmental impacts resulting from the Proposed Action and two Alternatives, 

discusses the corresponding proposed mitigation measures, and describes the Applicant’s 

environmental-monitoring program. In conducting its analysis for this SEIS, the NRC staff 

evaluated site-specific data and information to determine whether the site characteristics and 

the Applicant’s proposed activities were consistent with those evaluated in the GEIS. The NRC 

staff then determined relevant sections, findings, and conclusions in the GEIS that could be 

incorporated by reference, and identified the areas that needed additional analysis. Based upon 

its environmental review, the final NRC staff recommendation is that, unless emerging safety 

issues mandate otherwise, a Source and Byproduct Materials License be issued to the 

Applicant as requested.

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.
Abstract

iv

Public Protection Notification

The 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 

current valid OMB control number.

References

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

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

NRC. “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities” 

NUREG–1910. Washington, DC: USNRC. May 2009. Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) Accession Nos. ML091480244 and ML091480188. 

NUREG-1910, Supplement 5 has been reproduced from the best available copy.
Contents

v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

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

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. xiii

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... xv 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................xvii 

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS................................................................................................ xli 

UNIT CONVERSIONS ...........................................................................................................xlvii 

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

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

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

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

1.3.1 BLM’s Purpose and Need......................................................................1-3 

1.4 Scope of the SEIS.............................................................................................1-3 

1.4.1 Relationship to the GEIS .......................................................................1-3 

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 SEIS...................................................1-7 

1.4.5 Related NEPA Reviews and Other 

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

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

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

1.6.1 NRC Licensing Process for the Ross Project........................................1-8 

1.6.2 Status of Permitting with other

 Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Agencies ...........................................1-9 

 1.7 Consultations ....................................................................................................1-9 

 1.7.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 Consultation.................................... 1-12

 1.7.2 National Historic Preservation Act 

 of 1966 Consultation ........................................................................... 1-12

 1.7.3 Coordination with Other Federal, State, 

 Local, and Tribal Agencies .................................................................. 1-15 

 1.7.3.1 Coordination with the Bureau of 

 Land Management ............................................................. 1-15 

 1.7.3.2 Coordination with the U.S. National Park Service............... 1-15 

 1.7.3.3 Coordination with the Wyoming Department

 of Environmental Quality .................................................... 1-16 

 1.7.3.4 Coordination with the Wyoming Game and

 Fish Department ................................................................ 1-16 

 1.7.3.5 Coordination with the City of Moorcroft’s

 First Responders................................................................ 1-16 
Contents

vi

Section Page

 1.7.3.6 Coordination with the Powder River Basin

 Resource Council............................................................... 1-16 

 1.7.3.7 Coordination with Localities................................................ 1-16 

 1.7.3.8 Interactions with Triblal Governments ................................ 1-17 

1.8 Structure of the SEIS ...................................................................................... 1-22

1.9 References ..................................................................................................... 1-22

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

 

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

 2.1.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action .............................................................2-3 

 2.1.1.1 Ross Project Construction.................................................. 2-13

 2.1.1.2 Ross Project Operation ...................................................... 2-28 

 2.1.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration ....................................... 2-34

 2.1.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning.......................................... 2-37 

 2.1.1.5 ISR Effluents and Waste Management............................... 2-41

 2.1.1.6 Transportation.................................................................... 2-46

 2.1.1.7 Financial Surety ................................................................. 2-47 

 2.1.2 Alternative 2: No Action...................................................................... 2-48

 2.1.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project ....................................................... 2-48

 2.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis .............................................. 2-51

 2.2.1 Conventional Mining and Milling ......................................................... 2-51

 2.2.2 Alternate Lixiviant Chemistry .............................................................. 2-53

 2.2.3 Alternate Waste Management Methodologies .................................... 2-54 

 2.3 Comparison of Predicted Environmental Impacts ........................................... 2-55 

 2.4 Final Recommendation ................................................................................... 2-55

 2.5 References ..................................................................................................... 2-56 

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

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

3.1.1 Relationship between the Proposed Project

 and the GEIS.........................................................................................3-1 

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

3.2.1 Pastureland, Rangeland, and Cropland.................................................3-3 

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

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

3.3 Transportation ..................................................................................................3-4 

3.4 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................3-8 

3.4.1 Ross Project Geology ...........................................................................3-8 

3.4.1.1 Structural Geology ...............................................................3-9 

3.4.1.2 Stratigraphy..........................................................................3-9 

3.4.2 Soils .................................................................................................... 3-14 

3.4.3 Uranium Mineralization........................................................................ 3-16
Contents

vii

Section Page

3.4.4 Seismology.......................................................................................... 3-17

3.5 Water Resources ............................................................................................ 3-18

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

 3.5.1.1 Surface-Water Features...................................................... 3-20

 3.5.1.2 Surface-Water Flow ............................................................ 3-23

 3.5.1.3 Surface-Water Quality......................................................... 3-25

 3.5.1.4 Surface-Water Uses............................................................ 3-28

3.5.2 Wetlands ............................................................................................. 3-28

3.5.3 Ground Water...................................................................................... 3-30

 3.5.3.1 Regional Ground-Water Resources .................................... 3-30

 3.5.3.2 Local Ground-Water Resources.......................................... 3-30

 3.5.3.3 Ground-Water Quality ......................................................... 3-37

 3.5.3.4 Ground-Water Uses ............................................................ 3-45

3.6 Ecology........................................................................................................... 3-46

3.6.1 Terrestrial Species .............................................................................. 3-46 

 3.6.1.1 Vegetation........................................................................... 3-46 

 3.6.1.2 Wildlife................................................................................ 3-49

 3.6.1.3 Reptiles, Amphibians, and Aquatic Species ........................ 3-56

 3.6.1.4 Protected Species............................................................... 3-57

3.7 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality....................................................... 3-67

3.7.1 Meteorology ........................................................................................ 3-67

3.7.1.1 Temperature....................................................................... 3-67

 3.7.1.2 Wind ................................................................................... 3-68

 3.7.1.3 Precipitation........................................................................ 3-70

 3.7.1.4 Evaporation ........................................................................ 3-70

 3.7.1.5 Atmospheric Stability Classification and Mixing Height ....... 3-70

3.7.2 Climatology ......................................................................................... 3-71

3.7.3 Air Quality .......................................................................................... 3-72

 3.7.3.1 Particulates ....................................................................... 3-72

 3.7.3.2 Gaseous Emissions .......................................................... 3-74

3.8 Noise .............................................................................................................. 3-75

3.9 Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources ....................................... 3-77

3.9.1 Cultural Context for the Ross Project Area .......................................... 3-78

 3.9.1.1 Prehistoric Era ................................................................... 3-79

 3.9.1.2 Protohistoric/Historic Periods ............................................. 3-80

 3.9.1.3 Historic Era ........................................................................ 3-81

3.9.2 Historical Resources ........................................................................... 3-83 

3.9.3 Cultural Resources.............................................................................. 3-88

 3.9.3.1 Culturally Significant Locations .......................................... 3-88 

3.10 Visual and Scenic Resources.......................................................................... 3-89

3.10.1 Regional Visual and Scenic Resources ............................................... 3-91

 3.10.2 Ross Project Visual and Scenic Resources......................................... 3-91

 3.11 Socioeconomics.............................................................................................. 3-94

 3.11.1 Demographics ..................................................................................... 3-94

 3.11.2 Income ................................................................................................ 3-97

3.11.3 Housing............................................................................................... 3-98 
Contents

viii

 3.11.4 Employment Structure......................................................................... 3-98

 3.11.5 Finance ............................................................................................... 3-99

 3.11.6 Education ............................................................................................ 3-99

 3.11.7 Health and Social Services................................................................ 3-100

 3.12 Public and Occupational Health and Safety .................................................. 3-100

 3.12.1 Existing Site Conditions..................................................................... 3-101

 3.12.2 Public and Occupational Health and Safety....................................... 3-115 

 3.12.2.1 Public Health and Safety................................................. 3-115 

 3.12.2.2 Occupational Health and Safety...................................... 3-116 

 3.13 Waste Management...................................................................................... 3-117 

 3.13.1 Liquid Waste Disposal....................................................................... 3-117

 3.13.2 Solid Waste Disposal......................................................................... 3-118

 3.14 References ................................................................................................... 3-118

4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES........................................4-1 

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

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

4.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action .............................................................4-3 

4.2.1.1 Ross Project Construction....................................................4-3 

4.2.1.2 Ross Project Operation ........................................................4-5 

4.2.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration .........................................4-5 

4.2.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning............................................4-5 

 4.2.2 Alternative 2: No Action........................................................................4-6 

 4.2.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project..........................................................4-6 

4.3 Transportation ....................................................................................................4-8 

4.3.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action .............................................................4-8 

 4.3.1.1 Ross Project Construction....................................................4-9 

 4.3.1.2 Ross Project Operation..................... ................... .........4-10

 4.3.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration ....................................... 4-13

 4.3.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning.......................................... 4-14 

4.3.2 Alternative 2: No Action ..................................................................... 4-15

4.3.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project........................................................ 4-15

4.4 Geology and Soils........................................................................................... 4-16

4.4.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ........................................................... 4-16

 4.4.1.1 Ross Project Construction ................................................. 4-16

 4.4.1.2 Ross Project Operation ............................................ .........4-19

 4.4.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration ....................................... 4-22 

 4.4.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning.......................................... 4-22

4.4.2 Alternative 2: No Action...................................................................... 4-23

4.4.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project........................................................ 4-24 

4.5 Water Resources ............................................................................................ 4-25 

4.5.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ........................................................... 4-25 

 4.5.1.1 Ross Project Construction.................................................. 4-30

 4.5.1.2 Ross Project Operation ...................................................... 4-34 

 4.5.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration ....................................... 4-44

 4.5.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning.......................................... 4-48 

4.5.2 Alternative 2: No Action...................................................................... 4-50

4.5.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project........................................................ 4-51
Contents

ix

 

Section Page

 4.5.3.1 North Ross Project Construction ........................................ 4-51

 4.5.3.2 North Ross Project Operation ............................................ 4-51

 4.5.3.3 North Ross Project Aquifer Restoration.............................. 4-52

 4.5.3.4 North Ross Project Decommissioning................................ 4-52

4.6 Ecology........................................................................................................... 4-52

4.6.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ........................................................... 4-53

 4.6.1.1 Ross Project Construction.................................................. 4-53 

 4.6.1.2 Ross Project Operation ...................................................... 4-59 

 4.6.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration ....................................... 4-61

 4.6.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning.......................................... 4-62

4.6.2 Alternative 2: No Action...................................................................... 4-63

4.6.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project........................................................ 4-63 

4.7 Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 4-63 

4.7.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ........................................................... 4-65 

 4.7.1.1 Ross Project Construction.................................................. 4-66 

 4.7.1.2 Ross Project Operation ...................................................... 4-71

 4.7.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration ....................................... 4-72

 4.7.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning.......................................... 4-73

4.7.2 Alternative 2: No Action...................................................................... 4-73 

 4.7.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project........................................................ 4-74 

4.8 Noise .............................................................................................................. 4-74 

4.8.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ........................................................... 4-75 

 4.8.1.1 Ross Project Construction.................................................. 4-75 

 4.8.1.2 Ross Project Operation ...................................................... 4-78 

 4.8.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration ....................................... 4-79 

 4.8.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning.......................................... 4-79 

4.8.2 Alternative 2: No Action...................................................................... 4-80

4.8.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project........................................................ 4-80

4.9 Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources ........................................ 4-80

4.9.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ........................................................... 4-81

 4.9.1.1 Ross Project Construction.................................................. 4-81

 4.9.1.2 Ross Project Operation ...................................................... 4-82

 4.9.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration ....................................... 4-82

 4.9.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning.......................................... 4-83

4.9.2 Alternative 2: No Action...................................................................... 4-83

4.9.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project ....................................................... 4-83

4.10 Visual and Scenic Resources.......................................................................... 4-84

4.10.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ........................................................... 4-84 

 4.10.1.1 Ross Project Construction.................................................. 4-84 

 4.10.1.2 Ross Project Operation ...................................................... 4-87

 4.10.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration ....................................... 4-88

 4.10.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning ......................................... 4-89

4.10.2 Alternative 2: No Action ..................................................................... 4-89

4.10.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project ...................................................... 4-90
Contents

x 

Section Page

4.11 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................. 4-90

4.11.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action .......................................................... 4-90

 4.11.1.1 Ross Project Construction ................................................. 4-90

 4.11.1.2 Ross Project Operation ..................................................... 4-93

 4.11.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration ...................................... 4-94

 4.11.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning ......................................... 4-94

4.11.2 Alternative 2: No Action ..................................................................... 4-94

4.11.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project ....................................................... 4-95

4.12 Environmental Justice .................................................................................... 4-95

4.12.1 Minority and Low-Income Population Analysis for

 the Ross Project ................................................................................. 4-96 

4.12.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action .......................................................... 4-98 

4.12.3 Alternative 2: No Action ..................................................................... 4-98 

4.12.4 Alternative 3: North Ross Project ....................................................... 4-98 

4.13 Public and Occupational Health and Safety ................................................... 4-98 

4.13.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action .......................................................... 4-99 

 4.13.1.1 Ross Project Construction ................................................. 4-99 

 4.13.1.2 Ross Project Operation ................................................... 4-100

 4.13.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration .................................... 4-108

 4.13.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning ....................................... 4-108

4.13.2 Alternative 2: No Action ................................................................... 4-109 

4.13.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project ..................................................... 4-109 

4.14 Waste Management ..................................................................................... 4-110

4.14.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ........................................................ 4-110

 4.14.1.1 Ross Project Construction ............................................... 4-114

 4.14.1.2 Ross Project Operation ................................................... 4-115 

 4.14.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration .................................... 4-117 

 4.14.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning ....................................... 4-118 

4.14.2 Alternative 2: No Action ................................................................... 4-119 

4.14.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project ..................................................... 4-120

4.15 References ................................................................................................... 4-120

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

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

5.2 Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions...................5-1 

5.2.1 Actions ..................................................................................................5-2 

 5.2.1.1 Uranium Recovery ...............................................................5-2 

 5.2.1.2 Mining ..................................................................................5-8 

5.3 Cumulative-Impacts Analysis .......................................................................... 5-13

5.3.1 EISs as Indicators of Past, Present, and Reasonable

Foreseeable Future Actions................................................................. 5-13

5.3.2 Methodology........................................................................................ 5-13

 5.4 Land Use ........................................................................................................ 5-15

 5.5 Transportation................................................................................................. 5-17

 5.6 Geology and Soils........................................................................................... 5-18
Contents

xi

Section Page

5.7 Water Resources ............................................................................................ 5-20

5.7.1 Surface Water ..................................................................................... 5-20

5.7.2 Ground Water...................................................................................... 5-23

5.8 Ecology........................................................................................................... 5-30

5.8.1 Terrestrial Ecology .............................................................................. 5-30

 5.8.1.1 Vegetation.......................................................................... 5-30

 5.8.1.2 Wildlife ............................................................................... 5-31

5.8.2 Aquatic Ecology................................................................................... 5-32

5.8.3 Protected Species ............................................................................... 5-32

5.9 Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 5-33 

5.10 Global Climate Change and Greenhouse-Gas Emissions ............................... 5-37

5.10.1 Global Climate Change ....................................................................... 5-37

5.10.2 Greenhouse-Gas Emissions................................................................ 5-38

5.11 Noise .............................................................................................................. 5-41

5.12 Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources ........................................ 5-43

5.13 Visual and Scenic Resources ......................................................................... 5-46

5.14 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................. 5-47

5.15 Environmental Justice .................................................................................... 5-49

5.16 Public and Occupational Health and Safety ................................................... 5-49

5.17 Waste Management ....................................................................................... 5-51

5.17.1 Liquid Wastes ..................................................................................... 5-52

 5.17.1.1 Disposal by Deep-Well Injection ........................................ 5-52 

 5.17.1.2 Disposal by Other Methods ............................................... 5-54

 5.17.2 Solid Wastes ...................................................................................... 5-55

5.18 References ..................................................................................................... 5-56 

6 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING ............................................6-1 

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

6.2 Radiological Monitoring.....................................................................................6-1 

6.2.1 Airborne Radiation Monitoring ...............................................................6-2 

6.2.2 Soils and Sediment Monitoring ..............................................................6-2 

6.2.3 Vegetation, Food, and Fish Monitoring ..................................................6-7 

6.2.4 Surface Water Monitoring......................................................................6-7 

6.2.5 Ground-Water Monitoring ......................................................................6-8

6.3 Physiochemical Monitoring ...............................................................................6-8 

6.3.1 Monitoring of Surface-Water Quality .....................................................6-9 

6.3.2 Monitoring of Ground-Water Quality .....................................................6-9 

 6.3.2.1 Post-Licensing, Pre-Operational

 Ground-Water Sampling and Water-Quality Analysis ......... 6-10

 6.3.2.2 Operational Ground-Water Sampling

and Water-Quality Analysis ................................................ 6-11

6.3.3 Flow and Pressure Monitoring of Wellfields and Pipelines................... 6-12
Contents

xii

Section Page

6.4 Meteorological Monitoring............................................................................... 6-12

6.5 Ecological Monitoring...................................................................................... 6-12

6.5.1 Vegetation Monitoring.......................................................................... 6-12

6.5.2 Wildlife Monitoring ............................................................................... 6-13

 6.5.2.1 Annual Reporting and Meetings ......................................... 6-13

 6.5.2.2 Annual Inventory and Monitoring........................................ 6-13

 6.5.2.3 Wildlife Species.................................................................. 6-14

6.6 References .................................................................................................... 6-15

7 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS..............................................................................................7-1 

7.1 Proposed Action ...............................................................................................7-1 

7.1.1 Ross Project Benefits ............................................................................7-1 

 7.1.1.1 Employment and Income......................................................7-1 

 7.1.1.2 Tax Revenues......................................................................7-1 

7.1.2 Ross Project Costs................................................................................7-2 

 7.1.2.1 Internal Costs.......................................................................7-2 

 7.1.2.2 External Costs......................................................................7-2 

7.1.3 Findings and Conclusions ........................................................................7-8 

7.2 Alternative 2: No Action....................................................................................7-8 

7.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project .....................................................................7-8 

 7.4 References .......................................................................................................7-9 

8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES....................................................8-1 

9 LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................................................................................9-1 

9.1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contributors...........................................9-1 

9.2 Attenuation Environmental Company Team......................................................9-1 

10 DISTRIBUTION LIST.......................................................................................................10-1 

10.1 Federal Agency Officials ................................................................................10-1 

10.2 Tribal Government Officials ............................................................................10-1 

10.3 State Agency Officials ....................................................................................10-4 

10.4 Local Agency Officials ....................................................................................10-4 

10.5 Other Organizations and Individuals ..............................................................10-4 

APPENDIX A: CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE ...................................................... A-1 

APPENDIX B: PUBLIC-COMMENT RESPONSES .............................................................. B-1 

APPENDIX C: WATER-QUALITY DATA ............................................................................. C-1

APPENDIX D: VISUAL-IMPACTS ANALYSIS...................................................................... D-1 

APPENDIX E: DRAFT ROSS PROJECT PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT.................. .... E-1 
Figures

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1 Ross Project Location.............................................................................................. 1-2 

2.1 Ross Project within the Lance District...................................................................... 2-2 

2.2 Potential Satellite Areas in the Lance District........................................................... 2-4 

2.3 Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region..................................... 2-5 

2.4 Proposed Ross Project Facility and Wellfields......................................................... 2-6 

2.5 General Layout of Proposed Ross Project Facility................................................... 2-7 

2.6 Schedule for Potential Lance District Development ................................................. 2-8 

2.7 Primary Components of a Ross Project Wellfield Module ...................................... 2-19 

2.8 Proposed Well-Installation Method 1 for Ross Project Injection 

and Recovery Wells............................................................................................... 2-20

2.9 Proposed Well-Installation Method 2 for Ross Project Injection 

and Recovery Wells............................................................................................... 2-21 

2.10 Proposed Well-Installation Method 3 for Ross Project Injection 

and Recovery Wells............................................................................................... 2-22 

2.11 Alternative 3: North Ross Facility.......................................................................... 2-50

3.1 Current Land Uses of Ross Project Area (Includes Nearest Residences)................ 3-2 

3.2 Oil and Gas Wells within Three Kilometers [Two Miles] of Ross Project Area.......... 3-5 

3.3 Existing and Planned Uranium-Recovery Facilities.................................................. 3-6 

3.4 Existing Federal, State, and County Road Network in 

Northeast Wyoming................................................................................................. 3-7 

3.5 Generalized Cross Section of Black Hills Monocline in the Oshoto Area ............... 3-10

3.6 Surface Geology of Ross Project Area .................................................................. 3-11

3.7 Regional Stratigraphic Column of Area Containing the Lance District.................... 3-12 

3.8 Mapped Soil Types at Ross Project Area .............................................................. 3-15

3.9 Probability of Earthquake with Magnitude of 

Greater Than or Equal to 6.5 in 50 years .............................................................. 3-19

3.10 Little Missouri River Basin and Surface-Water Gaging Stations ............................ 3-21 

3.11 Surface-Water Features of Ross Project Area ...................................................... 3-22 

3.12 Surface-Water Monitoring Stations at Ross Project Area ...................................... 3-24 

3.13 Predicted 100-Year Flood Inundation Boundaries ................................................ 3-26 

3.14 Stratigraphic Horizons and Hydrogeologic Units at Ross Project Area................... 3-32

3.15 Potentiometric Contours of Ground Water in Ore-Zone Aquifer............................. 3-36

3.16 Locations of 29 Water-Supply Wells within a 3-Kilometer [2-Mile] Radius 

of the Ross Project Area ....................................................................................... 3-43 

3.17 Ross Project Area Vegetation Types ..................................................................... 3-47 

3.18 Gillette Airport Wind Rose ..................................................................................... 3-69

3.19 Ross Project Area Wind Rose ............................................................................... 3-69

3.20 Regional Visual Resources Management Classifications....................................... 3-90

3.21 Roads, National Parks, National Monuments, 

and Forests in Vicinity of Ross Project Area .......................................................... 3-92 

3.22 Viewshed Analysis of Ross Project Area ............................................................... 3-95 

3.23 Light-Pollution Study Area ..................................................................................... 3-96 
Figures

xiv

Figure Page

3.24 Soil Sampling Locations at Ross Project Area..................................................... 3-112 

3.25 Air-Particulate Sampling Stations at Ross Project Area ....................................... 3-114 

4.1 Ross Project Design Components to be Decommissioned

and Land Uses to be Restored ................................................................................ 4-7 

4.2 Typical Water Balance During Operation Only....................................................... 4-27

4.3 Typical Water Balance During Concurrent Operation and Aquifer Restoration ...... 4-28

4.4 Typical Water Balance During Aquifer Restoration Only........................................ 4-29

5.1 Circular Area of a Eighty-Kilometer- (Fifty-Mile-) Radius 

around Ross Project Area........................................................................................ 5-4 

6.1 Ross Project Air-Sampling and Radiation-Monitoring Locations .............................. 6-6 
Tables

xv 

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

ExS.1 Summary of Environmental Impacts .............................................................................xxii 

1.1 Range of Expected Impacts in the GEIS’s Nebraska-South DakotaWyoming Uranium Milling Region.................................................................................1-4 

1.2 Environmental Approvals for the Proposed Ross Project............................................ 1-10

2.1 Surface Ownership at Ross Project Area.................................................................... 2-10

2.2 Permeate Water Quality ............................................................................................. 2-34

3.1 Distribution of Surface Ownership and Subsurface Mineral Ownership ........................3-3 

3.2 Traffic Volumes on Roads and Highways in Vicinity of 

Ross Project Area (2010) .............................................................................................3-8 

3.3 Soil Coverage and Characteristics at Ross Project Area ............................................ 3-16

3.4 Geologic Units, Stratigraphic Horizons, and

Hydrologic Intervals of Ross Project Area................................................................... 3-31

3.5 Ore-Zone Aquifer Hydrogeologic Characteristics........................................................ 3-34

3.6 Ground-Water Quality from the Ore-Zone (OZ) Aquifer and 

Aquifers Above (SM and SA) and Below (DM) the Ore Zone ..................................... 3-40

3.7 Ground-Water Quality of the Ore-Zone Aquifer and the 

Aquifer Above the Ore Zone at Nubeth in 1978 .......................................................... 3-41

3.8 Water-Quality Standards Exceeded in Ground Water 

at Ross Project Area (Pre-Licensing, Site-Characterization Samples) ........................ 3-42

3.9 Historical Ground-Water Use within Three Kilometers 

[Two Miles] of Ross Project Area................................................................................ 3-46

3.10 Species Diversity by Vegetation Type at Ross Project Area ....................................... 3-48 

3.11 Wildlife Species Observed on or near Ross Project Area ........................................... 3-49

3.12 Summary of Sage-Grouse Activity in Oshoto and Cap’n Bob Leks............................. 3-59

3.13 Species of Concern in Crook County and at Ross Project Area.................................. 3-59

3.14 Avian Species of Concern Observed at Ross Project Area......................................... 3-66 

3.15 Average, Minimum, and Maximum Temperatures in Ross Project Vicinity.................. 3-68

3.16 Statewide Mixing Heights for Dispersion Modeling ..................................................... 3-71

3.17 National and Wyoming Ambient Air-Quality Standards ............................................... 3-73

3.18 Historic and Cultural Properties Identified To Date 

within the Ross Project Area....................................................................................... 3-85 

3.19 Scenic-Quality Inventory and Evaluation .................................................................... 3-93

3.20 Populations in Crook County, Campbell County, and Wyoming.................................. 3-97

3.21 Range of Analytical Results of Pre-Licensing, Site-Characterization Samples.......... 3-103

4.1 Summary of Land Disturbance during Construction of Proposed Action ......................4-3 

4.2 Estimated Number of Workers and Traffic Volumes for Ross Project ..........................4-9 

4.3 Estimated Non-Production Water Use ....................................................................... 4-26

4.4 Regional Emissions Summary.................................................................................... 4-65
Tables

xvi

Table Page 

4.5 Non-Radioactive Emissions Summary ....................................................................... 4-69

4.6 Respective Noise Levels of Construction Equipment.................................................. 4-77

4.7 Estimated Major Tax Revenues ................................................................................. 4-91

4.8 Ross Project Area Race and Ethnicity Characteristics ............................................... 4-96 

4.9 Ross Project Area Poverty and Income Characteristics ............................................. 4-97 

4.10 Ross Project Waste Streams.................................................................................... 4-111

5.1 Uranium-Recovery Projects within Eighty Kilometers [Fifty Miles] 

of Ross Project Area ....................................................................................................5-3 

5.2 Active Coal Mines within Eighty Kilometers [Fifty Miles] 

of Ross Project Area ....................................................................................................5-9 

5.3 Active Bentonite Mines within Eighty Kilometers [Fifty Miles] 

of Ross Project Area................................................................................................... 5-10

5.4 Comparison of Pre-Operational and Post-Restoration 

Water Quality at Nubeth Joint Venture........................................................................ 5-28

5.5 Comparison of Annual Mass of Carbon-Dioxide Emissions by Source ....................... 5-38

5.6 Maximum Annual Greenhouse-Gas Emissions........................................................... 5-40

6.1 Summary of the Major Elements of Ross Project 

Operational Environmental-Monitoring Program...........................................................6-3 

8.1 Summary of the Environmental Consequences of the 

Proposed Action and Alternative 3................................................................................8-2 
Executive Summary

xvii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

By a letter dated January 4, 2011, Strata Energy Inc. (Strata) (also referred herein as the 

“Applicant”) submitted an application to the United States (U.S.) Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) for a new source and byproduct materials license for the proposed Ross 

Project, an in situ uranium-recovery (ISR) project to be located in Crook County, Wyoming. The 

proposed Ross Project includes a Central Processing Plant (CPP), injection and recovery wells, 

deep-disposal wells for liquid effluents, monitoring wells throughout the Ross Project area, as 

well as other various infrastructure (e.g., pipelines, roads, and lighting). 

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

Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA), authorizes the NRC to issue licenses for the possession and 

use of source material and byproduct materials. The NRC must license facilities, including ISR 

operations, in accordance with NRC regulatory requirements. These requirements were 

developed to protect public health and safety from radiological hazards and to protect common 

defense and security. The NRC’s environmental-protection regulations are found at Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51); these regulations implement 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 10 CFR Part 51 requires that the NRC 

prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a generic EIS (GEIS), or a supplement to a 

GEIS (SEIS) for its issuance of a license to possess and use source and/or byproduct materials 

for uranium milling (see 10 CFR Part 51.20[b][8]). 

In May 2009, the NRC issued NUREG–1910, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for InSitu Leach Uranium Milling Facilities. In this GEIS, the NRC assessed the potential 

environmental impacts of the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning 

of ISR facilities located in four specified geographic regions of the western U.S. The proposed 

Ross Project is located within the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region 

(NSDWUMR) identified in the GEIS. The GEIS provides a starting point for the NRC’s NEPA 

analyses for site-specific license applications for new ISR facilities. This Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) incorporates by reference information from the GEIS. 

This document also uses information from the Applicant’s license application and subsequent 

environmental report and its responses to the NRC’s requests for additional information as well 

as other publicly available sources of information.

This Final SEIS includes the NRC staff’s analysis of the environmental impacts from the 

Proposed Action (i.e., for the NRC to license the Ross Project), the environmental impacts of 

two Alternatives to the Proposed Action (i.e., the “No-Action” Alternative and the “North Ross 

Project” Alternative), and the mitigation measures that are intended to either minimize or avoid 

adverse impacts. It also includes the NRC staff’s final recommendation regarding the Proposed 

Action. 
Executive Summary

xviii

PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The 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 and 

byproduct materials license to authorize commercial-scale in situ uranium recovery at the Ross 

Project area. The purpose of and need for this Proposed Action is to provide an option that 

allows the Applicant to recover uranium and to produce yellowcake at the Ross Project. 

Yellowcake is the uranium-oxide product of the uranium-recovery and uranium-milling 

processes that are the initial steps of the commercial nuclear fuel cycle. Yellowcake would be 

sent from the Ross Project area to a gaseous-conversion plant, which would produce uranium 

hexafluoride (UF6) gas as the next step in the nuclear fuel cycle. 

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

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

environmental analysis conducted under 10 CFR Part 51 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 PROJECT AREA AND FACILITY

Strata’s Proposed Action, the Ross Project, would occupy 696 ha [1,721 ac] in the north half of 

the approximately 90-km2 [56-mi2

] Lance District, where the Applicant is actively exploring for 

additional uranium reserves. Strata has identified four uranium-bearing areas that would extend 

the area of uranium recovery in the Lance District: to the north (the Ross Amendment Area 1) 

and to the south (the Kendrick, Richards, and Barber areas). These areas are not components 

of the Proposed Action in this Final SEIS.

The Lance District is located on the western edge in the northwest corner of the NSDWUMR. It 

is situated between the Black Hills uplift to the east and the Powder River Basin to the west. 

Both of these regional features are described in the GEIS. The environment of the Proposed 

Action is described in Section 3 of this SEIS.

The Proposed Action includes the ISR facility itself and its wellfields. The ISR facility consists of 

the following:

■ A CPP that houses the uranium- and vanadium-processing equipment, drying and 

packaging equipment, and water-treatment equipment;

■ A chemical storage area as well as other storage, warehouse, maintenance, and 

administration buildings; and

■ Two double-lined surface impoundments, a sediment impoundment, and up to five Class 

I deep-injection wells.

The Proposed Action includes the option of the Applicant operating the Ross Project facility 

beyond the life of the Project’s wellfields. The facility could be used to process uranium-loaded 

resin from satellite areas within the Lance District operated by the Applicant, or from other 

offsite uranium-recovery projects not operated by the Applicant (i.e., “toll milling”), or from offsite 

water-treatment operations. With that option, the life of the facility would be extended to 14 

years or more. 
Executive Summary

xix

The Ross Project would also host 15 – 25 wellfields and would consist of a total of 1,400 – 

2,200 injection and recovery wells. The wellfields would be surrounded by a perimeter ring of 

monitoring wells.

THE IN SITU URANIUM RECOVERY PROCESS 

During the in situ uranium-recovery process, an oxidant-charged solution, called a lixiviant, is 

injected into an ore-zone aquifer (or uranium “ore body”) through injection wells. For lixiviant 

injection to take place, the ore zone must lie within that portion of the aquifer that has been 

permanently exempted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an underground 

source of drinking water per the Safe Drinking Water Act. Typically, a lixiviant uses native 

ground water (from the ore-zone aquifer itself), carbon dioxide, and sodium 

carbonate/bicarbonate, with an oxygen or hydrogen peroxide oxidant. As this solution circulates 

though the ore zone, the lixiviant oxidizes and dissolves the mineralized uranium, which is 

present in a reduced chemical state. The resulting uranium-rich solution, the “pregnant” 

lixiviant, is drawn to recovery wells by a pump, and then transferred to the CPP via a network of 

pipes buried below the frost line to prevent freezing. At the CPP, the uranium is extracted from 

the solution using an ion-exchange (IX) process. The resulting “barren” solution (i.e., uraniumdepleted) is then recharged with complexing and oxidizing agents before being re-injected to 

recover additional uranium from the particular wellfield. 

During production, the uranium-recovery solutions continually move through the aquifer from 

outlying injection wells to internal recovery wells. These wells can be arranged in a variety of 

geometric patterns depending upon the ore-body’s configuration, the aquifer’s permeability, and 

the operator’s selection based upon operational considerations. Wellfields are often 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 tapping into the ore-zone aquifer would surround the 

wellfield. In addition, monitoring wells would tap in both the overlying and underlying aquifers. 

These monitoring wells would be screened in appropriate stratigraphic horizons to detect 

lixiviant, should it migrate out of the ore zone (i.e., production zone). Uranium that is recovered 

would be conveyed and processed in the CPP into dry yellowcake. The yellowcake would be 

packaged into NRC- and U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)-approved 208-L [55-gal] 

steel drums and trucked offsite to a licensed uranium-conversion facility. 

Once uranium recovery is completed and aquifer restoration has been performed, the Applicant 

would seek ground-water-restoration approval from the NRC. NRC approval would be given

when the ground-water quality at the point of compliance within the exempted aquifer does not 

exceed the ground-water protection standards as required by 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 5B(5). These standards require that the concentration of a given hazardous 

constituent must not exceed: 1) the Commission-approved concentration of that constituent in 

the ground water; 2) the respective value given in the table included in Paragraph 5C of 

Appendix A, if the constituent is listed in the table and if the level of the constituent is below the 

value listed; or 3) an Alternate Concentration Limit (ACL) established by the Commission for the 

constituent. The point of compliance is defined in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, as the site 

specific location in the uppermost aquifer where the ground-water protection standard must be 

met. Historically, the NRC staff has assigned the point of compliance as defined in Appendix A 

as the boundary of the EPA-defined exempted aquifer. Per 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 5B(6), ACLs that are established by the NRC must be as low as reasonably achievable 

(ALARA) and not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the 
Executive Summary

xx 

environment as long as the ACL is not exceeded. Following NRC approval of the ground-water 

restoration, the facility and wellfields would be decontaminated and decommissioned in 

accordance with NRC-approved rules as well as in accordance with an NRC-approved 

decommissioning plan and/or restoration action plan. Once all of the Applicant’s 

decommissioning efforts have been completed, the NRC would affirm the decommissioning, 

and the site could then be released for unrestricted public use.

THE ALTERNATIVES 

The NRC environmental review regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, which implement NEPA, require 

the NRC to consider reasonable alternatives, including the no-action alternative, to a Proposed 

Action. The NRC staff considered a range of alternatives to the Ross Project that would fulfill 

the underlying purpose and need for the Proposed Action as described in this SEIS. From this 

analysis, a set of reasonable alternatives was developed, and the impacts of the Proposed 

Action were compared to the impacts that would result if a given alternative were implemented. 

This SEIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

and two Alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) and the North Ross 

Project (Alternative 3). Under the No-Action Alternative, the Applicant would neither construct 

nor operate a uranium recovery facility or wellfields at the proposed Ross Project. In Alternative 

3, the proposed Ross Project facility (i.e., the CPP, surface impoundments, and auxiliary 

structures) would be constructed at a site north of where it is proposed to be located in the 

Proposed Action, but the wellfields would remain in the same locations as in the Proposed 

Action. This alternative facility location would require additional, substantial earth-moving to 

construct the surface impoundments, but a containment barrier wall (CBW) (described later in 

this SEIS) would not be required. Alternatives considered and eliminated from detailed analysis 

include conventional mining and milling, conventional mining and heap leach processing, and 

alternate lixiviants. These alternatives were eliminated from detailed study because they either 

do not meet the purpose and need of the proposed Ross Project or would cause greater 

environmental impacts than the Proposed Action. 

SUMMARY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

This Final SEIS includes the NRC staff’s analysis, which considers and weighs the 

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

decommissioning of an in situ uranium recovery facility at the proposed Ross Project area and 

the two Alternatives. This SEIS also describes mitigation measures for the reduction or 

avoidance of potential adverse impacts that either: 1) the Applicant has committed to in its NRC 

license application, 2) would be required under other State or Federal permits or processes, or 

3) are additional measures that the NRC staff identified as having the potential to reduce 

environmental impacts, but the Applicant did not commit to in its license 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, 2003b), the significance of 

potential environmental impacts is categorized as follows: 

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

neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource 

considered. 
Executive Summary

xxi

MODERATE: The environmental impacts are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize, 

important attributes of the resource considered. 

LARGE: The environmental impacts are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

destabilize important attributes of the resource considered. 

Table ExS.1 provides a summary of the NRC’s evaluation of the potential environmental 

impacts of the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the Ross 

Project, followed by a brief summary of impacts by environmental resource area and lifecycle 

phase. These potential impacts are more fully described in Section 4 of this Final SEIS, where 

the magnitude of impacts by phase of the Ross Project is provided for each resource area. 
Table ExS.1

Summary of Environmental Impacts

Resource Area

Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Alternative 2:

No-ActionConstruction Operation

Aquifer 

Restoration Decommissioning

Land Use SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Transportation

SMALL

to MODERATE

to LARGE

With Mitigation:

SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL 

to MODERATE 

to LARGE

With Mitigation:

SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL

to MODERATE 

to LARGE

With Mitigation:

SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL 

Geology and Soils 

 Geology SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

 Soils SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Water Resources

 Surface Water

Water Quantity SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Water Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

 Wetlands SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

 Ground Water SMALL SMALL

to MODERATE

See 

OZ Aquifer 

Below

SMALL

to MODERATE

See 

OZ Aquifer

Below

SMALL SMALL 

Shallow Aquifers

Water Quantity SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Water Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

xxii 
Table ExS.1

Summary of Environmental Impacts (Cont.)

Resource Area

Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Alternative 2:

No-Action

Construction Operation

Aquifer 

Restoration Decommissioning

 Ground Water

(Continued)

Ore-Zone Aquifers

Water Quantity SMALL SMALL SMALL

(Long Term)

SMALL to 

MODERATE

(Short-Term 

Drawdown)

SMALL SMALL 

Water Quality SMALL SMALL

(Long-Term)

SMALL to 

MODERATE

(Short-Term 

Excursion)

SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Deep Aquifers

Water Quantity SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Water Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Ecology SMALL 

 Vegetation SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Wildlife SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Aquatic SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Protected Species SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Air Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Noise

SMALL to 

MODERATE

(Nearest 

Neighbors/ 

Short Term)

SMALL to 

MODERATE

(Nearest 

Neighbors/ 

Short Term)

SMALL

SMALL to 

MODERATE

(Nearest 

Neighbors/ 

Short Term)

SMALL

xxiii
Table ExS.1

Summary of Environmental Impacts (Cont.)

Resource Area

Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Alternative 2:

No-Action

Construction Operation

Aquifer 

Restoration Decommissioning

Historical, Cultural,

and Paleontological

Resources

SMALL to 

LARGE

(Construction 

only) 

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Visual and Scenic 

Resources

SMALL

(Long-Term)

MODERATE

(Short-Term/First 

Year)

(Nearest 

Residents)

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Socioeconomics SMALL

(Employment, 

Demographics, 

Income, 

Housing, 

Education, 

Health and 

Social Services) 

to MODERATE

(Taxes Paid

to Crook County)

SMALL 

to MODERATE

(Taxes Paid

to Crook County)

SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Environmental 

Justice

N/A

No Minority or

Low-Income

Groups

N/A

No Minority or

Low-Income 

Groups

N/A

No Minority or

Low-Income 

Groups

N/A

No Minority or

Low-Income 

Groups

N/A

No Minority or

Low-Income

Groups

Public and 

Occupational

Health and

Safety

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

xxiv 
Table ExS.1

Summary of Environmental Impacts (Cont.)

Resource Area

Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Alternative 2:

No-ActionConstruction Operation 

Aquifer

Restoration Decommissioning

Waste Management

 Liquid SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

 Solid SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

xxv 
Executive Summary

xxvi 

THE IMPACTS BY RESOURCE AREA AND PROJECT PHASE 

Land Use 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. The Ross Project area comprises a total of 696 ha 

[1,721 ac] in the north half of the approximately 90-km2 [56-mi2

] Lance District. This area is 

currently used for livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, some agriculture, and some oil production. 

A total of 114 ha [282 ac] of land, which represents 16 percent of the Ross Project area, would 

be disturbed during the construction of a CPP, surface impoundments, and other auxiliary 

structures such as storage areas and parking lots. The wellfields would be sequentially 

developed over the Ross Project lifecycle. Most disturbed areas would be fenced so that

grazing by livestock, access by wildlife, and recreational opportunities would be limited. 

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL. Land-use impacts during the operations phase would 

be similar to, or less than, those during the construction phase because the buildings, surface 

impoundments, and infrastructure would be in place. Areas where Ross Project uraniumproduction activities would take place would remain fenced, somewhat limiting grazing and 

some crop production. No new land disturbance would occur at or near the main facility (i.e., 

near the CPP and the surface impoundments), although well drilling and wellfield development 

would continue, as the wellfields are proposed to be sequentially brought online. 

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

than, those during the construction and operation phases. Wellfield access would continue to 

be restricted from other uses such as livestock grazing and crop production, as described for 

the Ross Project’s operation phase. No new facilities (e.g. no new structures or buildings) 

would be constructed that would result in additional land disturbance. 

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Land-disturbing activities would increase from 

operation to decommissioning, due to the dismantling and removal of Ross Project components 

such as the CPP, surface impoundments, and wellfields. In addition, the reclamation of the site 

would involve significant earth moving, land disturbance, and access restrictions. However, 

these impacts would occur in land that had previously been impacted during the construction 

and operation of the Ross Project, and no additional land uses would be impacted. At the end 

of the Ross Project's decommissioning and site reclamation phase, preconstruction land uses 

would be restored.

Transportation 

Construction: Impacts would be MODERATE TO LARGE on local and county roads, but 

would be SMALL on the Interstate-highway system of the U.S. With the identified mitigation 

measures, the transportation impacts on local and county roads would lessen and they would 

be SMALL to MODERATE. The highest traffic volume resulting from the Ross Project would 

occur during its construction phase, because of the large workforce (200 workers) and frequent 

supply, building material, and equipment shipments. The increased traffic is expected to be 400 

passenger cars and 24 trucks per day, which, when compared to 2010 volumes, represents a 

traffic increase of approximately 400 percent on the New Haven Road south of the Ross Project 

area. This significant increase in traffic could result in more traffic accidents as well as 

potentially significant wear and tear on the road surfaces. 
Executive Summary

xxvii 

Operation: Impacts would be MODERATE to LARGE on local and county roads, but SMALL 

on the Interstate-highway system; however, with mitigation, the transportation impacts during 

the Ross Project’s operation on local and county roads would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

Impacts such as the local road’s deterioration would be less than during construction, because 

of a smaller workforce (i.e., approximately 60 workers); however, the traffic volume associated 

with facility and wellfield operation would still be double that of 2010. The effective mitigation 

measures taken during the construction phase would continue through the operation phase.

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE on local roads, and with the 

mitigation measures that would be implemented throughout the Ross Project’s lifecycle, the 

transportation impacts of aquifer restoration would remain SMALL to MODERATE on local and 

county roads; however, the impacts to the Interstate highway system would be SMALL. 

Transportation impacts during this phase would be similar to those during the operation phase, 

although the workforce would be smaller (20 workers), but similar volumes of truck traffic would 

occur as during operation, especially if the CPP is used for recovery of uranium-loaded IX resin 

from four potential satellite areas as well as for toll milling. 

Decommissioning: Impacts would be MODERATE to LARGE on local and county roads and 

SMALL on the Interstate-highway system; thus, with the continuing mitigation measures of the 

other lifecycle phases as well as the declining workforce, the impacts would be SMALL on the 

Interstate-highway system and SMALL to MODERATE on local and county roads. The traffic 

volume during the decommissioning phase would be dominated by waste shipments for offsite 

disposal. Because of the reduced traffic volumes associated with this phase compared to the 

operations phase, there would be a reduced risk of transportation accidents. However, once the 

Ross Project has been fully decommissioned, all transportation impacts would be eliminated.

Geology and Soils 

Construction: Impacts to both geology and soils would be SMALL. Although the Ross 

Project’s design for its CPP would include a CBW, the impacts of the wall’s construction would 

be SMALL due to the relatively small and localized effects on the bedrock below it. The impacts 

on soils would occur largely during this phase of the proposed Ross Project, when most of the 

ground disturbance takes place. Potential soils impacts include soils loss (by wind and water 

erosion), soils compaction, increased salinity, soils-productivity loss, and soils contamination. 

Surface-disturbing activities would expose the soils and subsoils at the Ross Project area and 

would temporarily increase the potential for soil loss because of wind and water erosion. The 

Applicant, however, has proposed to remove vegetation only where necessary and would 

stockpile soils for reclamation during decommissioning. The Applicant has proposed to mitigate 

erosion by minimizing the required land disturbances, ensuring timely re-vegetation and 

reclamation of affected soils, and installing drainage controls. Finally, the Applicant has 

proposed to mitigate wind erosion by limiting traffic speeds, spraying unpaved roads and other 

disturbed areas, and implementing timely disturbed-area reclamation. 

Operation: Impacts to local geology and soils would be SMALL. The removal of uranium from 

the target sandstone (aquifer) during ISR operation would change the mineralogical composition 

of uranium-bearing rock formations. However, no significant matrix compression or ground 

subsidence would be expected during in situ uranium recovery. Because the proposed 

operation would result in small changes in the reservoir pressure, the operation would be 

unlikely to activate any geologic faults. The potential for spills during transfer of uranium-
Executive Summary

xxviii 

bearing lixiviant to and from the CPP would be mitigated by implementing onsite best 

management practices (BMPs), standard operating procedures, and compliance with its Source 

and Byproduct Materials License as well as its Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

(WDEQ)-permit requirements. The potential impacts from soil loss would be minimized by 

proper design and operation of surface-runoff features and implementation of BMPs.

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

ground-water sweep, ground-water transfer, ground-water treatment, and recirculation would 

not remove rock matrix or structure. The formation pressure would be managed during 

restoration to ensure that the direction of ground-water flow is into the wellfields to reduce the 

potential for lateral migration of constituents. The change in pressure would not be significant 

enough to result in matrix compression, ground subsidence, or to reactivate the fault. The spillresponse and leak-detection activities would be the same as described during the operation 

phase. 

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. The potential impacts to the geology depend 

upon the density of plugged and abandoned drillholes and wells. At the end of 

decommissioning, the wellfields (whether recently operated or decommissioned some time ago) 

would contain approximately 3,000 drillholes and wells; these would include those drillholes 

from Strata’s ore-zone delineation efforts and geotechnical investigations, ground-water 

monitoring wells used for site characterization, the injection and recovery wells from uraniumrecovery activities, and Nubeth Joint Venture (Nubeth) drillholes and wells. Although the wells 

would not be evenly distributed across the Project area, the number of wells and drillholes 

would represent an average density of approximately 4.3 wells/ha [1.7 wells/ac], which would be 

a low density with SMALL geological impact. All areas of the Ross Project would be reclaimed, 

restored, and released for unrestricted use, so the Project’s impacts on area soils would be 

SMALL as well.

Water Resources (Surface Water and Wetlands) 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL to both surface water quantity and quality as well as 

to wetlands. The Applicant intends to use surface water from either the Oshoto Reservoir or the 

Little Missouri River for dust control and construction. This equates to an annual use that is 

significantly less than the currently permitted annual appropriation for Oshoto Reservoir. Thus, 

the potential impacts of the Proposed Action’s construction to surface-water quantity would be 

SMALL. Suspended-sediment concentrations in storm water at the Ross Project area could be 

increased due to vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction of the Proposed 

Action. However, given the site-specific mitigation measures to be implemented by the 

Applicant, the potential impacts of the Ross Project’s construction to surface-water quality would 

be SMALL. The potential impacts of the proposed Ross Project’s construction to wetlands 

would be mitigated by permit requirements and would be SMALL.

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL. Surface water use during operation would be less than 

that used during construction and therefore impacts to water quantity would be SMALL. 

Release of process solutions from uranium-recovery wellheads, pipelines, module buildings, or 

process vessels; accidental discharge from surface impoundments; or release of yellowcake or 

IX resin during a transportation accident could result in surface-water contamination if the 

release(s) reached a surface-water body. Given mitigation measures that the Applicant would 

employ, however, the potential impacts to surface-water quality during the operation of the Ross 
Executive Summary

xxix

Project would be SMALL. The potential impacts during operations to the wetlands on the Ross 

Project area would be the same as discussed for construction and they would be SMALL. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Surface water use would be comparable to 

the use during the Proposed Action’s construction and operation phases. Potential risk of 

surface-water contamination associated with releases of process solutions and/or waste liquids 

as well as spills of other materials during aquifer restoration would be comparable to the 

operation phase of the Ross Project, but the uranium concentrations in such solutions would 

decline. Thus, the potential impacts of aquifer restoration to surface-water quality would be 

SMALL. The potential impacts during aquifer restoration to the wetlands on the Ross Project 

area would be the same as discussed under the Ross Project’s construction and they would be 

SMALL. 

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Surface water use during decommissioning 

would be less than that used during construction and therefore impacts to water quantity would 

be SMALL.. Potential surface-water contamination could occur from spilled or leaked fuel or 

lubricants from construction equipment and passenger vehicles that would be operated during 

decommissioning activities, although the equipment would generally be located away from 

surface-water bodies. The potential impacts from the Ross Project’s decommissioning to 

surface-water quality would be SMALL. As during all of the earlier phases, the potential impacts 

to wetlands from the Ross Project’s decommissioning would be SMALL. 

Water Resources (Ground Water) 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Any changes in ground-water levels of the shallow 

aquifer due to water usage from Oshoto Reservoir would be small and restricted to the area 

around the Reservoir. Effects on the shallow aquifer by the installation of the CBW would be 

localized. Thus, the potential impacts during construction of the Ross Project to ground-water 

quantity in the shallow aquifers would be SMALL. Also, the potential impacts of the Proposed 

Action’s construction to ground-water quality in the shallow aquifers would be SMALL. 

Based upon yields from regional and other wells, ground-water modeling indicates that the orezone and surrounding aquifers could support the projected withdrawal with little drawdown. 

Thus, the potential construction impacts on the ground-water quantity available from the 

confined aquifers (ore-zone, overlying, and underlying aquifers) would be SMALL. The potential 

for the shallow ground water to be impacted by drilling fluids and muds during construction of 

wells is minimal because of the small volume of fluids used, the nature of the material, and 

because the fluids would be contained within a mud pit in accordance with WDEQ/LQD and 

EPA requirements. Consequently, the potential impacts during construction on the groundwater quality in the confined aquifers would be SMALL. The potential impacts of construction 

on both the quantity and quality of ground water available from the deep aquifers would be 

SMALL. 

Operation: The potential short-term impacts to water quantity would be SMALL. The potential 

impacts during operations to the shallow aquifers would be the same as discussed for

construction and they would be SMALL. The lower ground-water levels in the ore-zone aquifer 

that would result from operations would be replaced by normal recharge over time. The 

Applicant would minimize water usage from that aquifer by using BMPs for water management, 

such as a two-phase reverse-osmosis (RO) unit to maximize the amount of permeate that would 
Executive Summary

xxx 

be re-injected into the aquifer. In addition, the Applicant’s Source and Byproduct Materials

License would require cessation or significant reduction of the water used for oil recovery within 

the Project area.

The potential impact to water quality would range from SMALL to MODERATE (depending upon 

whether excursions occur). To reduce the risk of pipeline failure and impact the shallow aquifer, 

the Applicant would hydrostatically test all pipelines prior to use and install leak-detection 

devices in manholes along the pipelines. The Applicant’s implementation of BMPs during Ross 

Project operation would reduce the likelihood and magnitude of spills or leaks and facilitate 

expeditious cleanup. The potential impacts from the Ross Project’s operation to ground-water 

quantity in the shallow aquifers would be SMALL.

The potential impacts of uranium-recovery operation to ground-water quality in the confined 

aquifers above and below the ore zone would be SMALL. However, the short-term potential 

impacts from uranium-recovery operation to the ore-zone aquifer itself, outside of the wellfields, 

would be SMALL to MODERATE, depending upon whether excursions occur. With respect to 

the deep aquifers into which injection of liquid byproduct materials would occur, the 

WDEQ/WQD determined by way of its issuance of the UIC Class I Permit to Strata that, at the 

depths and locations of the injection zones specified in the UIC Permit, the use of ground water 

from the Flathead and Deadwood Formations is economically and technologically impractical 

(WDEQ/WQD, 2011b). In addition, Strata projected from regional water quality data from that 

the TDS in the Deadwood/Flathead Formations will likely be greater than 10,000 mg/L and 

therefore would not be suitable as a USDW (Strata, 2011b). Monitoring of lixiviant-injection 

pressures and water quality of the injected brine are required by the UIC Class I Permit; thus, 

the potential impacts of the Ross Project’s operation to ground-water quantity and quality in the 

deep aquifers would be SMALL.

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE (due to potential short-term

drawdown in the ore-zone and confined aquifers, which would reduce ground-water quantity). 

The potential impacts to water quality would be reduced when compared to the Ross Project’s 

operation because no lixiviant would be injected, and the concentration of chemicals in the 

recovered ground water would be significantly less than during uranium recovery. In fact, rather 

than impact the water quality of the ore-zone aquifer, the water quality would improve during 

aquifer restoration. At the close of the aquifer-restoration phase, the water quality within the 

exempted aquifer would meet the ground-water protection standards required by 10 CFR Part 

40, Appendix A, which would ensure that the aquifer’s water quality would not pose a 

substantial present or future hazard to the human health or the environment.

The Applicant’s implementation of BMPs during aquifer restoration would continue, and the 

other ground-water mitigation measures would be the same as those described for the 

operation of the Ross Project. Thus, the potential impacts of aquifer restoration to ground-water 

quantity of the shallow aquifers would be SMALL. A conservative regional ground-water 

modeling analysis predicts a reduction in the available head in wells used for stock, domestic, 

and industrial use. These effects would be localized and short-lived. Consequently, the 

potential impacts of the Proposed Action’s aquifer-restoration phase to ground-water quantity of 

the confined aquifers would be SMALL to MODERATE. In the deep aquifers, the volume of 

wastes injected would be greater during the aquifer-restoration phase than during the Ross 

Project’s operation phase, but the potential impacts would be similar. The impacts of aquifer 
Executive Summary

xxxi 

restoration to ground-water quantity and quality of the deep aquifers would, therefore, be 

SMALL.

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. After uranium-recovery operation is complete, 

since most if not all of the historic, improperly abandoned wells (i.e., from previous subsurface 

explorations not associated with the Applicant or its activities) would have been properly 

plugged, the impacts to shallow aquifers during the Proposed Action’s decommissioning would 

be SMALL. As decommissioning proceeds at the Ross Project area, and the concomitant land 

reclamation and restoration activities proceed, all monitoring, injection, and production wells 

would be plugged and properly abandoned as noted above. The wells would be filled with 

cement and/or bentonite and then cut off below plow depth to ensure ground water does not 

flow through the abandoned wells. Proper implementation of these procedures would isolate 

the wells from ground-water flow. Thus, the impacts to the ore-zone and adjacent confined 

aquifers would be SMALL. The Applicant estimates that very little brine and other liquid 

byproduct material would be disposed in the UIC Class I deep-injection wells during the 

decommissioning phase (i.e., most wastes that would be generated during this phase would be 

solid). This small quantity would minimize potential impacts to ground-water quantity and 

quality during Ross Project’s decommissioning, and the impacts to the deep aquifers would be 

SMALL. 

Ecology

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Potential environmental impacts to ecology of the 

Ross Project area, including both flora and fauna, could include removal of vegetation from the 

Ross Project area; reduction in wildlife habitat and forage productivity, and an increased risk of 

soil erosion and weed invasion; the modification of existing vegetative communities as a result 

of uranium-recovery activities; the loss of sensitive plants and habitats; and the potential spread 

of invasive species and noxious weed populations. Impacts to wildlife could include loss, 

alteration, 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, pollution from fuel spills, and habitat reduction. 

However, construction of the Ross Project would be phased over time, reducing the amount of 

surface area disturbed at any one time. Thus, the impacts to terrestrial vegetation and 

terrestrial wildlife would be SMALL. Because aquatic habitats would be avoided if at all possible 

during construction, impacts to reptiles, amphibians, and fish during the Ross Project’s 

construction would also be SMALL.

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts would be similar to but less than those 

experienced during the construction phase because fewer earth-moving activities would occur 

and traffic would be less. Due to the Applicant’s implementation of mitigation measures, such 

as wellfield perimeter and surface-impoundment fencing, leak-detection protocols, and wildlife 

protection and monitoring plans, the operation of the Ross Project would cause SMALL impacts 

to terrestrial vegetation and wildlife, including protected species, and to aquatic wildlife. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. The potential impacts to ecological resources 

from aquifer-restoration activities would be similar to those experienced during the Ross 

Project’s operation phase; therefore, the potential impact to vegetation and wildlife would be 

SMALL. 
Executive Summary

xxxii 

Decommissioning: No loss of vegetative communities beyond that disturbed during the 

construction phase would occur. Pipeline removal would impact vegetation that could have reestablished itself, although this, too, would be temporary as the disturbed areas are reseeded. 

Thus, the impacts of the Ross Project’s decommissioning would not be expected to be greater 

than those experienced during its construction and would consequently be SMALL. 

Air Quality 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Combustion-engine emissions from diesel- and gaspowered equipment operation would occur during all phases of the Ross Project. The heaviest 

use of such equipment, however, would be the construction and decommissioning phases of the 

Ross Project. Fugitive dusts would also be generated by both construction, land-clearing 

activities as well as by commuters and delivery trucks. The largest workforce of the Ross 

Project’s lifecycle would be employed on the Project’s construction, and their respective 

commutes increase local traffic quite significantly. Combustion-engine emissions and fugitive 

dust would be generated by all of this traffic. However, the predominant winds (in terms of both 

speed and direction) in the region, the remote location of the Ross Project area, and the airquality control systems and the BMPs that would be implemented by the Applicant would all 

minimize the air-quality impacts of the Ross Project’s construction. In addition, the 

requirements of the Applicant’s Air Quality Permit would require the Applicant to implement 

other specified mitigation measures as well, moderating the air emissions of the Ross Project. 

All anticipated gaseous-emission and fugitive-dust impacts would be limited in duration during 

the construction phase. Thus, the impacts of the Ross Project on air quality during construction 

would be SMALL and short-term.

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL. Air-quality impacts during the Ross Project’s operation 

phase would potentially include the same as those identified earlier for its construction phase 

(i.e., combustion-engine and fugitive-dust emissions). However, the quantity of the released air 

emissions would be reduced due to the reduced number of workers during ISR operation. Also, 

construction-equipment operation would decrease because most of the Ross Project area would 

have been cleared and graded during construction, so little earth movement would occur during 

operation; only the installation of wellfields would continue to generate fugitive dust. During 

uranium-recovery operation, several point sources of non-radioactive gaseous emissions would 

be located at the CPP. These would include process-pipelines, process-vessel, and storagetank vents; emergency generators and space heaters; and other sources such as storage 

vessels and tanks containing acids and bases. However, these would all be very small point 

sources. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. The emissions associated with the use of 

combustion-engine equipment would be limited in duration and result in small, short-term effects 

during the aquifer-restoration phase of the Ross Project. Vehicular traffic would be limited to 

delivery of supplies and commuting personnel; however, the workforce at the Ross Project 

would decrease to only 20 workers during aquifer restoration and, thus, the vehicular emissions 

of commuting traffic would substantially decrease. A significant decrease in the frequency of 

offsite yellowcake shipments would also occur as aquifer restoration proceeds. 

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. In the short term, emissions could increase 

somewhat, especially particulates because decommissioning activities would generate 

particulate emissions such as fugitive dust. For example, the Applicant’s dismantling and 

demolition of buildings, structures, surface impoundments, and process equipment; removing 
Executive Summary

xxxiii 

contaminated soils; moving construction equipment to the different areas where 

decommissioning activities would take place; and the grading and re-contouring during site 

reclamation and restoration could all generate air emissions, particularly fugitive dust. 

Combustion-engine emissions would also be produced by heavy equipment as well as vehicles 

transporting workers to and from the Ross Project, where the workforce would increase at the 

initiation of the decommissioning phase. 

Noise 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Noise would be generated during 

construction activities as well as by vehicle traffic. Approximately 85 percent of the construction 

workforce (i.e., 200 workers) would commute to the Ross Project area during daytime hours. 

Heavy-equipment operation within the Ross Project area would peak during the Applicant’s 

construction of the CPP, surface impoundments, wellfields, and associated infrastructure. In 

addition, the relocation of construction equipment to and from the Ross Project area and to and 

from different locations at the Ross Project area would generate noise. Impulse or impact 

noises from certain equipment, such as impact wrenches and pneumatic attachments on rock 

breakers, could be particularly loud as well. All of this noise could occasionally be annoying to 

the closest nearby residents. The overall noise impacts during the Proposed Action’s 

construction would be SMALL to the general population, but the four closest residences to the 

Ross Project would experience MODERATE, but short-term, impacts as a result of increased

noise. The Applicant’s compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s 

(OSHA’s) noise regulations would minimize impacts to onsite workers, and such impacts would 

be SMALL.

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE, with noise generated by construction 

activities greatly diminishing. The truck traffic associated with yellowcake, vanadium, and waste 

shipments would begin during the operation phase of the Ross Project; however, commutertraffic noise would decrease due to the smaller workforce required during ISR operations (60 vs. 

200 workers during construction). However, because the county roads to and from the Ross 

Project area currently have very low average daily and annual traffic counts, there would be a 

continuing high relative increase in vehicular traffic and, thus, noise impacts to nearby residents 

would be MODERATE, but short term; the more distant local communities would experience 

only SMALL impacts. As during construction, the impacts of noise on workers present at the 

Ross Project would be SMALL, due to the Applicant’s compliance with OSHA’s noise 

regulations. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. During the Ross Project’s aquifer-restoration 

phase, potential noise impacts would diminish to SMALL and would be only temporary for 

nearby residences. The workforce employed during aquifer restoration would be smaller (i.e., 

20 workers) than during construction and operation phases of the Ross Project and, thus, there 

would be fewer workers, less traffic, and fewer noise-producing activities. The Applicant’s 

continued compliance with OSHA’s noise regulations would minimize impacts to workers. 

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Noise levels during the 

decommissioning phase of the Ross Project would be similar to those identified for the 

construction phase, for both onsite and offsite receptors. Most potential impacts to nearby 

residential receptors would occur as a result of the anticipated significantly increased commuter 

and truck traffic to and from the Ross Project area during decommissioning (i.e., 90 workers and 
Executive Summary

xxxiv 

additional waste shipments). At the Ross Project, despite the temporary nature of the 

decommissioning activities onsite, the short distance to the closest residences would make the 

noise impacts MODERATE to the nearest neighbors, but SMALL for all other receptors such as 

onsite workers and offsite populations. 

Historical and Cultural Resources 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL to LARGE. This assessment reflects the fact that the 

highest potential for adverse effects to historical and cultural resources would take place during 

the construction phase as well as the fact that efforts to evaluate historic and cultural properties 

and to determine adverse effects and mitigation measures are incomplete. Construction 

impacts beyond MODERATE would not be anticipated because every effort would be made to 

avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects to historic properties in accordance with the Ross 

Project Programmatic Agreement (PA) that is currently being developed. However, a LARGE 

impact is not impossible, depending upon the significance and integrity of, and the extent of 

adverse effects on, previously identified historic properties or those potentially inadvertently 

discovered. 

Within the area of potential effect at the proposed Ross Project, 2 sites have a consensus 

determination of eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) , 8 sites 

have a consensus determination of not eligible, and 18 sites have a consensus determination of 

unevauated. Based on the information gathered during Tribal field surveys of the Ross Project 

area, the NRC staff is seeking concurrence from the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

(Wyoming SHPO) on a determination of eligible for 13 sites, including 4 sites that currently have 

a consensus determination of unevaluated, a determination of not eligible for 3 sites, and a 

determination of unevaluated for 2 sites. 

Prior to a Source and Byproduct Materials License being granted, an PA between the NRC, the 

Wyoming SHPO, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), interested Native American Tribes, 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Applicant will be established that will 

delineate the requirements for completing Section 106 for the Project, including determining 

Project effects and developing mitigation of adverse effects. Additionally, the PA would outline 

the steps required if unexpected historical and cultural resources were to be encountered.

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL. Mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, and resolve 

adverse impacts to historical, cultural, and paleontological resources would be implemented 

prior to Ross Project construction and would be expected to continue during operation. The 

impacts of the Ross Project’s operation would be generally limited to previously disturbed areas 

(except continuing wellfield installation). 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts to historical and cultural resources 

during the aquifer restoration phase would be similar to operations. These impacts would 

primarily result from the surface disturbance associated with operation, maintenance, and repair 

of existing wellfields as part of the aquifer-restoration process. 

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Ground-disturbing activities would temporarily 

increase during the Ross Project’s decommissioning. As during the construction phase, ground 

disturbance in excess of a few feet during facility decommissioning would have an impact on the 

geologic units themselves, including the Lance Formation, which has the potential to contain a 
Executive Summary

xxxv 

variety of fossils. However, most of the decommissioning activities would focus on previously 

disturbed areas and, therefore, most of the historic, cultural, and paleontological resource

materials would already be known as a result of the investigations that would be conducted prior 

to facility construction and wellfield construction. 

Visual and Scenic Resources 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. The largest visible surface features 

of the Ross Project that would emerge during the construction phase would include wellhead 

covers and module buildings; electrical and other utility distribution lines, which are mounted on 

6-m [20-ft] wooden poles; more roads; the CPP; and the surface impoundments. There are 

protected visual resources near the Ross Project; the nearest such area is the Devils Tower 

National Monument, which is approximately 16 km [10 mi] east of the Ross Project. Although 

the Project itself would not be visible at the lower park portion of the Tower, climbers ascending 

to the top of the Tower may be able to see some of the Project’s largest attributes as well as, in 

the night sky, the lights of the Project. These lights would also be visible at residences near the 

Ross Project. The short-term visual contrasts with the characteristic landscape of the Ross 

Project area would result from construction activities. However, the construction activities 

proposed for the Ross Project would be consistent with the BLM visual classification of this 

area. The management objective of Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class III is to 

partially retain the existing character of the landscape so that the level of change to the 

characteristic landscape can be moderate. Also, prior to construction of the Ross Project, the 

Applicant would monitor potential light pollution and develop a light-pollution monitoring plan 

that would finalize the locations for both continuous and intermittent light sources. The shortterm construction activities at the proposed Ross Project would result in MODERATE visual 

impacts to the nearest four residences, as each of which has a view of the Ross Project area. 

For other nearby residences the visual impacts would be SMALL.

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL. The overall visual impacts of an operating wellfield and 

the ISR facility itself would be small. In addition, the Ross Project would be located in gently 

rolling topography, where the visibility of aboveground infrastructure would vary and would be 

relative, depending upon the location and elevation of an observer as well as on nearby 

topography, total distance, and lighting characteristics. Lighting from the Ross Project would be 

visible from five of the residences to the east and from various locations directly to the west, 

north, and southeast. Mitigation measures for local light-pollution impacts would be the same 

as those described above for the construction phase of the Ross Project. 

 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Aquifer restoration activities would take place 

sequentially in the wellfields and last approximately two years per wellfield. There would be no 

modifications to either scenery or topography during aquifer restoration. Much of the same 

equipment and infrastructure used during operation would be employed during aquifer 

restoration, so that impacts to the visual landscape would be expected to be similar to or less 

than the impacts during the Proposed Action’s operation phase. The mitigation measures 

presented above for both the Proposed Action’s construction and operation phases would 

continue to be implemented during the aquifer-restoration phase, and these would continue to 

limit potential visual impacts.

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. The Ross Project would not result in significant 

impacts to the landscape that would persist after facility decommissioning and site restoration 
Executive Summary

xxxvi 

are completed. Most visual impacts during decommissioning would be temporary and diminish 

as structures, equipment, and other facility components are removed; the disturbed land surface 

is reclaimed and restored; and the vegetation is re-established. 

Socioeconomics 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. The Ross Project would employ 

approximately 200 people during construction, and this influx of workers would be expected to 

result in socioeconomic impacts, the greatest for communities with small populations. However, 

due to the short duration of construction, these workers would have only a limited effect on 

public services and community infrastructure. The Applicant is also committed to hiring 

locally—90 percent of the construction workforce would be local hires—so the overall 

socioeconomic impacts during the construction phase of the Ross Project would be SMALL. 

However, the tax revenues paid to Crook County would be significant and, thus, that benefit 

would be a MODERATE impact of the Ross Project.

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. If the majority of the operation 

workforce is local, the potential impacts to population and public services would continue to be 

SMALL. Because the Applicant is committed to hiring locally—80 percent of the operation 

workforce is expected to be local hires—the overall socioeconomic impacts during the Ross 

Project’s operation phase would continue to be SMALL, with MODERATE impacts associated 

with the additional tax revenues that would accrue to Crook County.

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. The Applicant indicates that there would be a 

smaller workforce of only approximately 20 workers during the aquifer-restoration phase, 

without concurrent operations. The need for regulatory, management, and health and safety 

personnel would continue throughout aquifer restoration, but this need would be met by 

personnel transitioning from operation-phase work to aquifer restoration and no new personnel 

would necessarily be required. Thus, the impacts of the Ross Project’s aquifer-restoration 

phase would likely be at most the same, or, more likely, less than those noted above for the 

Ross Project’s operation phase.

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Because the size of the workforce during the 

Ross Project’s decommissioning phase would be initially be higher, but would subside as the 

decommissioning proceeds, there would be no significant socioeconomic impacts. In addition, 

socioeconomic impacts would no longer include tax revenues to Crook County during the 

decommissioning phase of the Ross Project and, thus, the earlier phases’ moderate impacts 

would be eliminated.

Environmental Justice 

All Phases: No minority or low-income populations were identified in the vicinity of the 

proposed Ross Project. Therefore, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts to minority and low-income populations from the construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning of the Ross Project. 
Executive Summary

xxxvii 

Public and Occupational Health and Safety 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Construction activities, including the use of 

construction equipment and vehicles, would disturb the topsoil and create fugitive dust 

emissions. Fugitive dust generated from construction activities would be short term (1 to 2 

years), and the levels of radioactivity in soils at the proposed Project area are low; therefore 

direct exposure, inhalation, and ingestion of fugitive dust would not result in a significant 

radiological dose to workers or the public. Construction equipment would be diesel powered 

and would exhaust particulate diesel emissions. The potential impacts and potential human 

exposures from these emissions would be SMALL because of the short duration of the release 

and because the emissions would be readily dispersed into the atmosphere.

Operation: The radiological impacts from normal operations would 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] would not be exceeded at any 

property boundary. The remote location of the proposed Ross Project site and the use of the 

proposed ISR technology coupled with the Applicant’s proposed procedures to minimize 

exposure would cause the potential impact on public and occupational health and safety from 

facility operation to be SMALL. The radiological impacts from accidents would be SMALL for 

workers (if the Applicant’s radiation safety and incident response procedures in an NRCapproved 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, would be 

SMALL if handling and storage procedures are followed.

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts would be similar to, but less than, 

those during the operations phase. The reduction or elimination of some operational activities 

would further reduce the magnitude of potential worker and public health impacts and safety 

hazards.

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts would be similar to those experienced 

during construction. Soil and facility structures would be decontaminated, and lands would be 

restored to pre-operational conditions.

Waste Management 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. No significant liquid wastes would be generated 

during the construction of the Ross Project. Most of the solid wastes expected to be generated 

during the construction phase would be general construction debris including paper, wood, 

plastic, and scrap metal. These nonhazardous solid wastes would be disposed of at a permitted 

solid-waste facility. Hazardous wastes, such as organic solvents, paints, and paint thinners, 

would be disposed of in accordance with the requirements in the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA). No byproduct wastes would be generated during the operation phase at 

the Ross Project; however, technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material 

(TENORM) wastes would be generated during well drilling, and these wastes would be 

managed onsite. No other types of wastes would be disposed of onsite.
Executive Summary

xxxviii 

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL. Wastes generated during the operation of the Ross 

Project would primarily be liquid waste streams consisting of 1) process bleed, where, after RO

treatment, some excess permeate would be produced early in the Project’s operation, and 2) 

brine would be disposed of onsite in the permitted UIC Class I deep-injection wells. In addition, 

other liquid byproduct material would be generated as spent eluate, process-drains liquids, 

contaminated reagents, filter-backwash liquids, wash-down water, and decontamination shower 

water. State permitting actions, Source and Byproduct Materials License Conditions, and the 

NRC’s inspections would ensure that proper waste-management practices are implemented by 

the Applicant to comply with safety requirements to protect workers and the public. 

Nonhazardous solid waste such as facility trash, tires, piping, valves, and instrumentation, 

would be reused, recycled, or disposed of at a nearby landfill or other waste-disposal facility, 

each of which has available disposal capacity. Domestic wastes would be treated and disposed 

of in an onsite domestic waste-water system. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Water from aquifer restoration would be 

treated through a combination of IX and RO and then would be re-injected into the ore-zone 

aquifer to limit the volume of water permanently withdrawn. Concentrated liquid effluents 

generated by these activities would be disposed of via deep well disposal. Ordinary trash would 

continue to be shipped offsite for disposal.

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. The goal of decommissioning is to reduce 

potential impacts by removing contaminants to allowable (regulatory) levels and restoring the 

land of the Ross Project area to pre-uranium-recovery conditions (i.e., available for unrestricted 

use). The Applicant proposes to decontaminate and recycle much of the process equipment or 

to reuse it at other uranium-recovery facilities. For example, the Applicant would remove sludge 

from the surface impoundments as well as the impoundment liners, and then it would dispose of 

these materials as currently dicussed in Condition No. 9.9 of the Draft Source and Byproduct 

Materials License at a disposal facility licensed (by the NRC or an Agreement State) to receive 

such byproduct material (NRC, 2014b). Pre-operational agreements with appropriately licensed 

disposal facilities (i.e., those that are licensed to accept byproduct material) would ensure the 

availability of sufficient disposal capacity for decommissioning activities. If hazardous waste is

generated by decommissioning activities, it would be handled in accordance with applicable 

requirements. 

SUMMARY OF THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

The cumulative impacts on the environment that would result from the incremental impact of the 

proposed Ross Project, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, was also considered. The NRC staff determined that the SMALL to LARGE

incremental impacts of the Ross Project would not contribute perceptible increases to the 

SMALL to LARGE cumulative impacts, due primarily to the extensive exploration taking place in 

the area for uranium, oil, and gas supplies as well as from coal mining. 

SUMMARY OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The implementation of the Proposed Action would generate primarily regional and local costs 

and benefits. The regional benefits of building the proposed Ross Project would be increased 

employment, economic activity, and tax revenues to the region around the proposed Ross 

Project area (i.e., Crook County). Costs associated with the Ross Project are, for the most part, 
Executive Summary

xxxix 

limited to the area immediately surrounding the Ross Project area and include small visual, airquality, and noise impacts. The NRC staff determined that the benefit from constructing and 

operating the uranium-recovery facility would outweigh the environmental and social costs. 

COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

Under the No-Action Alternative, Alternative 2, the NRC would not approve the license 

application for the proposed Ross Project and it would not issue a source and byproduct 

materials license. The No-Action Alternative would result in the Applicant not constructing, 

operating, restoring the aquifer of, or decommissioning the proposed Ross Project. However, 

even if the Ross Project is not licensed, the Applicant has already accomplished certain 

preconstruction activities (those activities that do not require a NRC license) at the Ross Project 

area. These previously completed preconstruction activities are evaluated as part of Alternative 

2: No Action.

Under Alternative 3, the NRC would issue the Applicant a source and byproduct materials

license for the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the 

proposed Ross Project, except that the entire ISR facility, including all buildings, other auxiliary 

structures, and the surface impoundments would be located north of where it would be situated 

for the Proposed Action. This alternate location for the ISR facility, referred as the “north site” 

by the Applicant (and referred to herein as the “North Ross Project”), was considered, but 

eliminated, by the Applicant in its license application. The north site is about 900 m [3,000 ft] 

northwest of where the facility would be located in the Proposed Action (referred to by the 

Applicant as the “south site”). An unnamed surface-water drainage feature generally divides the 

north site. To avoid the floodplain of the drainage the Applicant would likely place the CPP and 

other buildings on one side of the drainage and the surface impoundments on the other side.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION

After weighing the impacts of the Proposed Action and comparing the Alternatives, the NRC 

staff, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.91(d), sets forth its final NEPA recommendation

regarding the Proposed Action. Unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the final 

recommendation of the NRC staff to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the

Proposed Action is that a source and byproduct materials license for the Proposed Action be

issued as requested. This recommendation is based upon 1) the license application, including 

the ER the Applicant submitted, and the Applicant’s supplemental letters and responses to the 

NRC staff’s requests for additional information; 2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local agencies; 3) the NRC staff’s independent review; 4) the NRC staff’s consideration of 

comments received on the DSEIS; and 5) the assessments discussed in this FSEIS.

REFERENCES

10 CFR Part 51. Title 10, “Energy,” Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51, 

“Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory 

Functions.” Washington, DC: Government Printing Office (GPO). 

(US)NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Environmental Review Guidance for 

Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.” NUREG–1748. Washington, DC: 

USNRC. August 2003b. ADAMS Accession No. ML032450279. 
Abbreviations/Acronyms

xl

(US)NRC. “Safety Evaluation Report for the Strata Energy, Inc. Ross ISR Project, Crook 

County, Wyoming, Materials License No. SUA-1601, Docket No. 040-09091, Strata Energy, 

Inc.” Washington, DC: USNRC. 2014a. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A107. 

(US)NRC. “Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, No. SUA-1601.” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2014b. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A111.

WDEQ (Wyoming Department of Environmental Protection (WDEQ)/Water Quality Division 

(WQD). Strata Energy, Inc. – Ross Disposal Injection Wellfield, Final Permit 10-263, Class I 

Non-hazardous, Crook County, Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/WQD. April 2011b. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML111380015. 

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Technical Report, Volumes 1 through 6 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata. 2011b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130333, ML110130335, 

ML110130314, ML110130316, ML110130320, and ML110130327. 
Abbreviations/Acronyms

xli

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ACL Alternate Concentration Limit

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954

ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable

APE Area of Potential Effect

APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee

AQD Air Quality Division (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality)

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979

ASLB Atomic Safety Licensing Board

ASTM ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials)

BACT Best Available Control Technology

BCC USFWS’s Birds of Conservation Concern

bgs Below Ground Surface

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management (U.S. Department of the Interior)

BLMSS USBLM’s Sensitive Species 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor)

BMP Best Management Practice

B.P. Before Present

CAA Clean Air Act

CBM Coal-Bed Methane

CBW Containment Barrier Wall

CCS Center for Climate Strategies

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CESQG Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide 

CPP Central Processing Plant

CR County Road

CVM Contingent Valuation Method

CWA Clean Water Act

dBA A-Weighted Decibels

DFP Decommissioning Funding Plan

DM Deep-Monitoring Zone or Unit

DOC U.S. Department of Commerce

DOI U.S. Department of the interior

DP Decommissioning Plan
Abbreviations/Acronyms

xlii

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS

EC Electrical Conductivity

EIA Energy Information Administration (U.S. Department of Energy)

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EMR Emergency Medical Responder

EMT Emergency Medical Technician

EO Executive Order

EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ER Environmental Report 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FHWA Federal Highway Administration (U.S. Department of Transportation)

GCM GCM Services, Inc.

GCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

HASP Health and Safety Plan

HDPE High-Density Polyethylene

HEC Hydrologic Engineering Center

HMS Hydrologic Modeling System

ISL In situ Leach

ISR In situ Recovery

IX Ion Exchange

LOI Letter of Intent

LQD Land Quality Division (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality)

LSA Low Specific Activity

MARSSIM Multi-Agency Radiation Survey & Site Investigation Manual

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

Merit Merit Oil Company

MIT Mechanical Integrity Testing

MMP Materials Management Plan

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAC Noise Abatement Criteria

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Abbreviations/Acronyms

xliii

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

NMSS Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

NOA Notice of Availability

NOI Notice of Intent

NPS National Park Service

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture)

NRDC National Resources Defense Council

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSDWUMR Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region

Nubeth Nubeth Joint Venture

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

NWIS National Water Information System

NWP Nationwide Permit (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

NWS National Weather Service

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSHA Occupational Safety & Health Administration (U.S. Department of Labor)

OSLI (Wyoming) Office of State Lands and Investments

OZ Ore Zone (Unit, Interval, or Aquifer)

PA Programmatic Agreement

PABFh Palustrine, Aquatic Bed, Seasonally Flooded

Pb Lead

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl

PFYC Potential Fossil Yield Classification System

pH Hydrogen Ion Activity

PM10 Particulate Matter 10 Microns or Less

PM2.5 Particulate Matter 2.5 Microns or Less

POO Plan of Operations

PPE Personal Protective Equipment

PRB Powder River Basin

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PSHA Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

PVC Polyvinyl Chloride

R Range or Roentgens

RAI Request for Additional Information

RAP Restoration Action Plan

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

rem Roentgen Equivalent Man

RFFA Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

RFP Request for Proposals

RMP Resource Management Plan
Abbreviations/Acronyms

xliv

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS

RO Reverse Osmosis

ROI Region of Influence

RPP Radiation Protection Program or Plan

SA Surficial Aquifer

SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SGCN Wyoming’s Species of Greatest Conservation Need

SHWD Solid and Hazardous Waste Division

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

SEO State Engineer’s Office

SER Safety Evaluation Report

SGCN (Wyoming) Species of Greatest Conservation Need

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SM Shallow-Monitoring Zone or Unit

SMC USFWS’s Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SOW Scope of Work

SRP Standard Review Plan

SRST Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Strata Strata Energy, Inc. (Applicant)

s.u Standard Units

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

TCP Traditional Cultural Property

TDS Total Dissolved Solids 

TEDE Total Effective Dose Equivalent

TENORM Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office

TLD Thermo-Luminescent Dosimeter

TR Technical Report 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

TWG Tribla Working Group

UCL Upper Control Limit

UIC Underground Injection Control

UMTRCA Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978

U.S. United States

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USCB U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Department of Commerce)

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

USDW Underground Source of Drinking Water

USFS U.S. Forest Service
Abbreviations/Acronyms

xlv

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGCRT U.S. Global Change Research Team

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UW University of Wyoming

VRI Visual Resource Inventory 

VRM Visual Resource Management

WAAQS Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards

WARMS Wyoming Air Resources Monitoring System

WDAI Wyoming Department of Administration and Information 

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

WDWS Wyoming Department of Workforce Services

WEUMR Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

WOGCC Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

WOSLI Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments

WQD Water Quality Division (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality)

W.S. Wyoming Statute

WSEO Wyoming State Engineer's Office

WSGS Wyoming State Geological Survey

WTP Willingness-To-Pay

WWC WWC Engineering, Inc.

WWDC Wyoming Water Development Commission

WYCRO Wyoming Cultural Records Office

WYDOT Wyoming Department of Transportation

WYNDD Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

WYPDES Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

WYSHPO State of Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office

Conversion Factors

xlvii 

SI* (MODERN METRIC) UNIT CONVERSIONS 

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

Areas

mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 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 acre-feet

Mass

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or “t”) Megagrams

(or “metric ton”) 1.103 short tons(2,000 lb) T 

Temperature (Exact Degrees)

° Celsius 1.8 °C + 32 Fahrenheit °

*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be performed to comply with Section 4 of ASTM 

International’s “Standard for Metric Practice Guide.” West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: ASTM International. Revised 2003.

Introduction

1-1 

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The United States (U.S.) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared this Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS, or FSEIS if the respective section, figure, 

or table did not appear in the Draft SEIS [DSEIS]) in response to an application Strata Energy, 

Inc. (Strata) (also referred to herein as the “Applicant”) submitted on January 4, 2011, to 

develop and operate the proposed Ross In Situ Uranium Recovery (ISR) Project (herein 

referred to as the “Ross Project”), located in Crook County, Wyoming (Strata, 2011a; Strata, 

2011b). The Applicant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Peninsula Energy, Ltd. Figure 1.1 

depicts the geographic location of the proposed Ross Project. 

This site-specific SEIS supplements the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for InSitu Leach Uranium Milling Facilities (herein referred to as the “GEIS”) and was prepared in 

accordance with the process described in GEIS Section 1.8 (NRC, 2009b) and as detailed in 

Section 1.4.1 of this SEIS. 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 (CFR) Part 51 (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. 

The GEIS uses the terms “in-situ leach (ISL) process” and “11e.(2) byproduct material” to 

describe this uranium-milling technology and the primary waste stream generated by this 

process. For the purposes of this SEIS, ISR is synonymous with ISL. This SEIS also uses the 

term “byproduct material” instead of “11e.(2) byproduct material” to describe the largest-byvolume waste stream generated by this uranium-milling process to be consistent with the 

definition in 10 CFR Part 40.4. 

1.2 Proposed Action 

On January 4, 2011, Strata submitted an application for an NRC source and byproduct 

materials license to construct and operate an ISR facility and wellfields at the proposed Ross 

Project area and to conduct aquifer restoration, facility decommissioning, and site reclamation. 

Based upon Strata’s application, the NRC’s Federal action is the decision to either grant or deny 

a license. The Applicant’s proposal is described in detail in SEIS Section 2.1.1. 

1.3 Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action

The 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 and 

byproduct materials license to authorize commercial-scale ISR at the proposed Ross Project 

area. The purpose and need for the Proposed Action is to provide an option that allows the 

Applicant to recover uranium and to produce yellowcake at the Ross Project. Yellowcake is the 

semi-solid, uranium-oxides product of the uranium-milling process. Yellowcake is subsequently 

processed and later made into fuel for commercially operated nuclear power reactors. 
Introduction

1-2 

Figure 1.1

Ross Project Location

PROPOSED 

ROSS PROJECT

Source: Strata, 2011a.
Introduction

1-3 

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

findings in its safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, or 

findings in the NEPA environmental analysis that would lead the 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 BLM’s Purpose and Need

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) Federal action is either to approve the 

Applicant’s Plan of Operations (POO), subject to mitigation as included in the license application 

and this SEIS, or deny approval of the POO. The BLM’s responsibility to respond to the 

Applicant’s POO establishes the need for the action. The purpose and need for the BLM is to 

provide for orderly, efficient, and environmentally responsible recovery of uranium resources. 

Uranium resources are needed to fulfill market demands for this product for power generation 

and other needs. The proposed Ross Project area contains 16 ha [40 ac] of BLM-administered 

public lands open to mineral entry, and the Applicant has filed mining claims on them. The 

mining claimant (i.e., Strata) has the right to mine and to develop the claims as long as such 

activities can be accomplished without causing unnecessary or undue degradation of the 

environment and as such activities are in accordance with pertinent laws and regulations under 

43 CFR Part 3800.

1.4 Scope of the SEIS

The NRC staff has prepared this SEIS to analyze the potential environmental impacts (i.e., 

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts) of the proposed undertaking (i.e., to grant an NRC 

license) 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 short-term uses of the environment and longterm productivity, and the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. 

1.4.1 Relationship to the GEIS 

As described in Section 1.1, this SEIS supplements the GEIS, which was published as a final 

report in May 2009 (NRC, 2009b). The GEIS serves as the starting point for environmental 

reviews of site-specific ISR license applications. 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 four specific geographic regions of 

the western U.S. The NRC “tiers” an SEIS from the GEIS by incorporating applicable GEIS 

discussions by reference and by adopting relevant GEIS environmental impact conclusions. 

This SEIS was prepared to fulfill the requirement at 10 CFR Part 51.20(b)(8) to prepare either 

an environmental impact statement (EIS) or supplement to an EIS (SEIS) for the issuance of a 

source and/or byproduct material(s) license for an ISR facility (NRC, 2009b). The GEIS 

provides a starting point for the NRC’s NEPA analyses for site-specific license applications for 

new ISR facilities as well as for applications to amend or to renew existing ISR licenses. The 

GEIS provides criteria for each environmental resource area to be used in the assessment of 

levels of impact significance (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE). The NRC staff applied 

these criteria to the site-specific conditions at the proposed Ross Project. This SEIS tiers from, 

and incorporates by reference, the GEIS’s relevant information, findings, and conclusions 

concerning environmental impacts. The extent to which the NRC staff incorporated the GEIS’s 
Introduction

1-4 

Table 1.1 

Range of Expected Impacts in the GEIS’s

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

Ground Water 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 S to L S S S 

Visual and 

Scenic S S S S 

Socioeconomics S to M S to M S S to M

Public and 

Occupational 

Health and Safety

S S to M S S 

Waste 

Management S S S S 

 Source: NRC, 2009b. 

Notes:

S: SMALL Impact 

M: MODERATE Impact 

L: LARGE Impact 

impact conclusions depend upon the consistency between: 1) the Applicant’s proposed

facilities and activities as well as the conditions at the Ross Project area, and 2) the reference 

facility description, activities, and information in the GEIS. The NRC staff determinations 

regarding potential environmental impacts and the extent to which the GEIS’s impact 

conclusions were incorporated by reference are described in Section 4 of this SEIS. GEIS 

Section 1.8.3 described the relationship between the GEIS and a site-specific SEIS (NRC, 

2009b). 
Introduction

1-5 

1.4.2 Public Participation Activities 

The NRC staff conducted scoping activities to define the scope of the GEIS and any future 

supplements to the GEIS. The staff accepted public comments on the scope of the GEIS from 

July 24, 2007, to November 30, 2007, and held three public scoping meetings, one of which was 

in the State of Wyoming (Wyoming). Additionally, the NRC staff held eight public meetings to 

receive comments on the Draft GEIS, published in July 2008. Three of these meetings were 

held in Wyoming and one in nearby Spearfish, South Dakota. Comments on the Draft GEIS 

were accepted between July 28, 2008, and November 8, 2008. Comments received during the 

scoping meetings as well as the comments received on the Draft GEIS were made available on 

the NRC website (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html). Transcripts of the scoping 

meetings and Draft GEIS-comment meetings are available at http://www.nrc.gov/materials/ 

uranium-recovery/geis/pub-involve-process.html. A scoping summary report was provided in 

Final GEIS Appendix A, and Final GEIS Appendix G provided responses to the public 

comments on the Draft GEIS (NRC, 2009b).

The NRC is not required to conduct a scoping process when a supplement to an EIS is 

prepared. Nevertheless, the NRC staff has the discretion to decide whether to conduct scoping 

when preparing a SEIS. For the Ross Project SEIS, in addition to the scoping activities 

conducted by NRC during preparation of the GEIS, NRC published ads, soliciting scoping 

comments on the Ross Project SEIS, in four local newspapers (Moorcroft Leader, Casper Star 

Tribune, Gillette News Record, and Sundance Times). The newspaper advertisements were 

published on December 2, 2011, in the Casper Star Tribune and December 1, 2011, in the other 

three newspapers. Scoping comments were received until December 30, 2011. In total, 19 

scoping-comment letters were received containing a total of 53 individual comments. 

As part of the preparation of this SEIS, the NRC staff also met with Federal, State, and local 

agencies and authorities as well as public-interest groups during a visit to the proposed Ross 

Project area and surrounding vicinity in August 2011 (NRC, 2011a). The purpose of these 

meetings was to gather additional site-specific information to assist the NRC’s environmental 

review.

The NRC staff published a “Notice of Opportunity for Hearing” on the proposed Ross Project 

license application in the Federal Register (FR) on July 13, 2011 (76 FR 41308). A hearing 

request from Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Powder River Basin Resource 

Council (PRBRC) (herein collectively referred to as the “Petitioners”) was received on October 

27, 2011. The NRC staff published a “Notice of Intent” (NOI) to prepare both a DSEIS and then 

this FSEIS on November 16, 2011 (76 FR 71082).

On March 29, 2013, the NRC staff published a “Notice of Availability” (NOA) for the DSEIS in 78 

FR 19330. This NOA stated that public comments on the DSEIS should be submitted by May 

13, 2013. Members of the public were invited and encouraged to submit related comments 

electronically, by mail, or by facsimile. The 45-day period for public comments (i.e., from March 

29, 2013, to May 13, 2013) met the minimum 45-day comment period required under NRC 

regulations.

The NRC staff identified 1,120 comments from the 43 documents commenting on the Ross 

Project DSEIS. This FSEIS’s Appendix B details how the NRC staff systematically identified 

and responded to each comment. A response has been provided in Appendix B for each 

comment or group of comments, and each response indicates whether the SEIS was modified 

in response to the respective comment. 
Introduction

1-6 

In addition to the opportunities provided through the NEPA process, the NRC provided multiple 

opportunities for public involvement during the NRC staff’s safety review. Specifically, the NRC 

staff held 10 publicly noticed meetings and teleconferences with the Applicant from 2010 

through 2012, including 3 meetings prior to Strata’s submittal of the license application. For 

those meetings and teleconferences, the NRC staff provided opportunities for public 

participation.

1.4.3 Issues Studied in Detail

To meet its NEPA obligations related to its review of the Ross Project license application, the 

NRC staff conducted an independent, detailed, comprehensive evaluation of the environmental 

impacts that would result from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning of an ISR facility at the proposed Ross Project area and from reasonable 

alternatives. As described in Section 1.8.3, the GEIS: 1) evaluated the types of environmental 

impacts that may occur from ISR uranium-milling facilities; 2) identified and assessed generic 

impacts (i.e., the same or similar) at all ISR facilities (or those with specified facility or site 

characteristics); and 3) determined 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 site-specific analysis because the GEIS 

determined that a range in the significance of impacts (e.g., SMALL to MODERATE, SMALL to 

LARGE) could result depending upon site-specific conditions (see Table 1.1).

Based upon the GEIS analyses, this SEIS provides site-specific analyses of the following 

resource areas:

■ Land Use

■ Transportation

■ Geology and Soils

■ Water

 Surface Water

 Ground Water

■ Ecology

 Vegetation

 Wildlife

 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

■ Air Quality

■ Noise

■ Visual and Scenic Resources

■ Historic, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources

■ Socioeconomics

■ Environmental Justice

■ Public and Occupational Health and Safety

■ Waste Management

Furthermore, certain site-specific analyses not conducted in the GEIS, such as an assessment 

of cumulative impacts, are considered in this SEIS. The NRC staff has also considered the 

potential effects of the Applicant’s implementing the Proposed Action on global climate change 
Introduction

1-7 

by estimating the Project’s greenhouse gas emissions; conversely, this SEIS also describes the 

potential effects of global climate change on the Proposed Action. 

1.4.4 Issues Outside the Scope of the SEIS 

Some issues and concerns raised during the scoping process for the GEIS were determined to 

be outside the scope of the GEIS (NRC, 2009b). These issues and concerns include comments 

indicating general support or opposition for uranium milling, comments regarding the impacts 

associated with conventional uranium milling, specific comments regarding alternative sources 

of uranium-feed material, comments regarding alternative energy sources, requests for 

compensation for past mining impacts, and comments regarding the credibility of the NRC are 

all outside of the scope of this SEIS. 

1.4.5 Related NEPA Reviews and Other Related Documents

A number of NEPA documents (environmental assessments [EAs] and EISs) and other 

documents were reviewed and used in the development of this SEIS. These related documents 

are described below: 

■ NUREG–1910, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium 

Milling Facilities, Final Report (NRC, 2009b). As described previously, this GEIS was 

prepared to assess the potential environmental impacts of the construction, operation, 

aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an ISR facility located in one of four different 

geographic regions of the western U.S., including the NSDWUMR where the proposed Ross 

Project would be located. The environmental analyses in this Ross Project SEIS both tier 

from this GEIS and incorporate it by reference. NUREG–1910 has four published 

Supplements at this time; this SEIS is Supplement 5. The four earlier Supplements concern

the Moore Ranch Project, the Nichols Ranch Project, the Lost Creek Project, and the 

Dewey-Burdock Project. (This GEIS herein referred to as “the GEIS” without any additional 

identifiers.)

■ NUREG–0706, Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling 

(NRC, 1980). This GEIS provided a detailed evaluation of the impacts and effects of 

anticipated conventional uranium-milling operations in the U.S. through the year 2000, 

including an analysis of mill-tailings-disposal programs. NUREG–0706 concluded the 

environmental impacts from underground mining and conventional milling would be more 

severe than from the ISR process. As SEIS Section 2.2.1 describes, conventional mining 

and milling were considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis, in this SEIS. (This GEIS, 

when discussed in this SEIS, is always modified as ”Uranium-Milling GEIS.”)

■ 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 the ISR process 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 (i.e., mined)

economically, and the Final EIS concluded underground uranium mining would result in

more significant environmental impacts than ISR uranium recovery. 

■ Safety Evaluation Report for the Strata Energy, Inc. ISR Project, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Materials License No. SUA-1601 (NRC, 2014a). The NRC staff has prepared a 

Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the proposed Ross Project that assesses the Applicant’s 
Introduction

1-8 

proposed facility design, operational procedures, and radiation-protection programs and 

evaluates whether the Applicant’s Proposed Action can be accomplished in accordance with 

the applicable provisions in 10 CFR Part 20, 10 CFR Part 40, and 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A. The SER also provides the NRC staff’s analysis of the Applicant’s initial 

funding estimate to complete Ross Project facility decommissioning and site reclamation. 

■ Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Newcastle Resource Management Plan

(BLM, 2000). The BLM’s Newcastle Resource Management Plan EIS (the “BLM EIS” in this 

SEIS) included comprehensive analyses of alternatives for the planning and management of 

public land and resources administered by the BLM in Crook, Weston, and Niobrara 

Counties, Wyoming. The BLM EIS identified activities occurring in the region surrounding 

the Ross Project area that could either affect or be affected by the proposed Ross Project. 

1.5 Applicable Regulatory Requirements 

NEPA established national environmental policy and goals to protect, maintain, and enhance 

the environment and provided a process for implementing these specific goals for those Federal 

agencies responsible for an action. This SEIS was prepared in accordance with the NRC’s

NEPA-implementing regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and other applicable regulations that were in 

effect at the time the SEIS was being written. The GEIS’s Appendix B summarized other 

Federal statutes, implementing regulations, and Executive Orders that are potentially applicable 

to environmental reviews for the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning of an ISR facility. GEIS Sections 1.6.3.1 and 1.7.5.1 summarized Wyoming’s 

statutory authority pursuant to the ISR process, relevant State agencies that would be involved 

in the permitting of an ISR facility, and the range of State permits that would be required (NRC, 

2009b). 

1.6 Licensing and Permitting

The NRC has statutory authority through the AEA and the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 

Control Act of 1978 to regulate uranium-recovery facilities. In addition to obtaining an NRC 

license, uranium-recovery facilities must obtain the necessary permits from the appropriate 

Federal, State, local, and Tribal governmental agencies. The NRC licensing process for ISR 

facilities is described in GEIS Section 1.7.1. GEIS Sections 1.7.2 through 1.7.5 describe the 

role of the other Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies in the ISR permitting process (NRC, 

2009b). The information below in this section of the SEIS describes the NRC licenseapplication review process and summarizes the status of the NRC licensing process at the 

proposed Ross Project and the status of the Applicant’s permitting with respect to other 

applicable Federal, State, local, and Tribal requirements. 

1.6.1 NRC Licensing Process for the Ross Project

With a letter dated January 4, 2011, the Applicant submitted a license application to the NRC for

the proposed Ross Project (Strata, 2011a; Strata, 2011b). As described in GEIS Section 1.7.1, 

the NRC initially conducts an acceptance review of all of the license applications it receives in 

order to determine whether the respective application is complete enough to support a detailed 

technical review. The NRC accepted Strata’s license application for the Ross Project by a letter 

dated June 28, 2011; the application was then subjected to a very detailed technical review and 

evaluation (NRC, 2011b). 
Introduction

1-9 

The NRC staff’s detailed technical review of Strata’s license application was composed of both 

a safety review and an environmental review. These two reviews were conducted in parallel 

(see GEIS Figure 1.7-1). The focus of the safety review was to assess compliance with the 

applicable regulatory requirements at 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The 

environmental review has been conducted in accordance with the regulations at 10 CFR Part 

51. 

The NRC’s hearing process (10 CFR Part 2) applies to licensing actions and offers stakeholders 

a separate opportunity to raise concerns associated with proposed licensing actions. The NRC 

published a “Notice of Opportunity for Hearing” related to Strata’s license application for the 

Ross Project on July 13, 2011 (76 FR 41308). The NRC later received a combined request for 

a hearing from the NRDC and the PRBRC on October 27, 2011 (NRDC and PRBRC, 2011). 

Regulations in 10 CFR Part 2 specify that a petition for review and a request for hearing must 

include a showing that the petitioner(s) has(ve) standing and that the Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board (ASLB) would rule on a petitioner’s standing by considering: 1) the nature of 

the petitioner’s right under the AEA or NEPA to be made a party to the proceeding; 2) the nature 

and extent of the petitioner’s property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and 3) the 

possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the petitioner’s 

interest. The two Petitioners based their claim of standing on the possibility that the Ross 

Project would jeopardize the economic and environmental interests of at least one of their 

members (NRDC and PRBRC, 2011).

On February 10, 2012, the ASLB ruled that the NRDC and the PRBRC had demonstrated 

standing to be parties to the Ross Project licensing proceeding. The ASLB granted the 

Petitioners’ request for a hearing and admitted four contentions (ASLB, 2012).

1.6.2 Status of Permitting With Other Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Agencies

In addition to Strata’s obtaining a source and byproduct materials license from the NRC prior to 

conducting uranium-recovery operations at the proposed Ross Project area, the Applicant is 

also required to obtain all necessary permits and approvals from other Federal and State 

agencies to address: 1) the underground injection of solutions and liquid effluents from the ISR 

process; 2) the specific exemption of all or a portion of the ore-zone aquifer from regulation 

under the Safe Drinking Water Act; and 3) the surface discharge of storm water during the 

construction and operation of the Ross Project facility and wellfields. SEIS Table 1.2 lists the 

status of the permits and approvals required for Strata to conduct uranium recovery at the Ross 

Project. 

1.7 Consultations

As a Federal agency, the NRC is required to comply with the 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. As noted above, the GEIS 

programmatically reviewed the environmental impacts of ISR uranium milling within four distinct 

geographic regions and acknowledged that each site-specific review would need to include its 

own consultation process with relevant agencies. Section 7 (ESA) and Section 106 (NHPA) 

consultations that have been conducted for the proposed Ross Project are summarized in SEIS 

Sections 1.7.1 and 1.7.2, below. A list of related consultation correspondence is provided in 

Appendix A of this SEIS. Finally, SEIS Section 1.7.3 describes the NRC’s coordination with 

other Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies conducted during the development of this SEIS. 
Introduction

1-10

Table 1.2

Environmental Approvals for the Proposed Ross Project

Issuing

Agency Description Status

U.S. 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency

Approval of the exemption of an aquifer 

as an underground source of drinking 

water (USDW)

Approval received May 15, 2013

(ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13144A108). 

Wyoming 

Department of 

Environmental 

Quality

Underground Injection Control (UIC)

Class III Permit

(Injection and Recovery Wells)

(WDEQ, Title 35-11) 

Approval received as part of 

Permit No. 802 (see below, under 

“Permit to Mine”).

UIC Class I Permit

(Deep-Disposal Wells)

(WDEQ, Title 35-11) 

Application submitted June 2010

to UIC Program at WDEQ/WQD, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming,

TFN No. WYS-011-00031.

Approval received April 2011:

Permit No. 10-263.

Permit to Construct Domestic 

Waste Water System

To be prepared by Strata.

Storm Water Discharge Permit 

(Industrial/Mining) 

To be prepared by Strata.

Storm Water Discharge Permit 

(Construction)

Approval received January 2013: 

Permit No. WYR104738.

Waste Water Discharge Permit 

(Discharges during Well Installation) 

Approval received April 2012: 

Permit No. WYG720229.

Renewal received 2013 for 

a term through December 31, 2013.

Permit to Mine Application submitted January 2011 

to WDEQ/LQD, Sheridan, 

Wyoming, TFN No. 56/110. 

Approval received November 2012: 

Permit No. 802.

Mineral Exploration Permit 

(WDEQ, Title 35-11) 

Approved:

Permit No. 384DN.

Air Quality Permit Approval Received 

September 2011:

Permit No. CT-12198.

Waste-Water Surface Impoundment

Construction Permit 

(Surface Impoundments)

To be prepared by Strata.

Public Water Supply System 

Permit to Construct 

To be prepared by Strata.
Introduction

1-11

Table 1.2

Environmental Approvals for the Proposed Ross Project

(Continued)

Issuing

Agency Description Status

U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management 

Plan of Operations Application submitted to BLM, January 2011. 

Application accepted for review July 2011: 

Case File No. WYW170151.

Right of Way 

(Roads)

To be prepared by Strata.

Notice of Intent to Explore To be prepared by Strata.

U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory 

Commission 

Source and Byproduct 

Materials License

(10 CFR Part 40)

Application submitted January 2011;

Application accepted June 2011;

Application currently under review.

U.S. 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Aquifer Exemption Permit for 

Class I Injection Wells 

(40 CFR Parts 144 & 146) 

See WDEQ Permits.

(Wyoming has primacy for 

the UIC Program.)

Aquifer Reclassification for 

Class III Injection Wells 

(WDEQ, Title 35-11) 

Permit Application to 

Construct Surface 

Impoundments

(40 CFR Part 61.07) 

Public Water Supply System To be prepared by Strata.

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers

Verification of Preliminary 

Wetlands Delineation

Application submitted September 2010; 

Verification received December 2010.

Nationwide Permit 

Coverage Authorization

Preconstruction notification submitted 

January 2013.

Wyoming State 

Land & Farm

Loan Office

Uranium Minerals Mining 

Lease 

Approved:

Lease No. 0-40979. 

Wyoming 

Department of 

Environmental 

Quality and State 

Engineer’s Office 

Permit to Appropriate 

Ground Water for 

ISR Wellfield

Application submitted December 2012;

Application currently under review.

Permit to Appropriate 

Ground Water for Mine Wells

Approved:

Permit Nos. 191679 – 191702; 

192703 – 192705 

(for regional monitoring wells). 

To be prepared by Strata

(for ISR monitoring wells).

Permits to Appropriate 

Surface Water and/or 

Surface Impoundments

To be prepared by Strata.
Introduction

1-12

Table 1.2

Environmental Approvals for the Proposed Ross Project

(Continued)

Issuing

Agency Description Status

Crook County County Development Permits 

(Access Road Approach and 

Emergency-Services 

Agreement)

Memorandum of Understanding

between Crook County and Strata 

executed April 2011. 

 Source: WWC Engineering, 2013a. 

1.7.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 Consultation 

The ESA was enacted to mitigate further decline of endangered and threatened species and to 

restore those species and their critical habitats. Section 7 of the ESA requires consultation with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to ensure that actions it authorizes, permits, or 

otherwise carries out would not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or 

adversely modify designated critical habitats. 

By a letter dated August 12, 2011, the NRC staff initiated consultation with the USFWS and

requested information on endangered or threatened species and critical habitats present at the 

proposed Ross Project area. The NRC received a response dated September 13, 2011, from 

the USFWS’s Ecological Services in the Cheyenne, Wyoming, Field Office that: 1) listed the 

threatened and endangered species that could occur in the Project area; 2) provided

recommendations for protective measures for threatened and endangered species; and 3) 

conveyed recommendations concerning migratory birds (USFWS, 2011). 

The NRC staff also met with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), at its Sheridan, 

Wyoming, office on August 23, 2011, to discuss site-specific issues (NRC, 2011a). The 

WGFD/Sheridan Office staff expressed concern regarding the potential impacts to water fowl, 

migratory birds, big game, and small mammals as well as sage-grouse, a USFWS wait-list 

species for consideration as either threatened or endangered. The WGFD staff also expressed 

concern about invasive vegetation species and wildlife impacts due to powerlines, surface 

impoundments, and increased traffic. Related mitigation measures were also discussed. By a 

letter dated September 22, 2011, the WGFD provided the NRC staff with comments regarding 

the above concerns as a follow-up to the meeting in Sheridan (WGFD, 2011). 

1.7.2 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Consultation

Section 106 of the 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 to 

consider the views of all consulting parties, including the Federal agency, the State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO), Native-American Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, Tribal 

Historic Preservation Offices (THPO), local government leaders, the Applicant, cooperating 

agencies, and the public. 
Introduction

1-13

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 WYSHPO (WYSHPO) in the Section 106 process, in the case of the Ross Project 

in Crook County, Wyoming, is to advise and assist Federal agencies in carrying out their 

Section 106 responsibilities. The NRC initiated consultation with the WYSHPO by a letter dated 

August 19, 2011, requesting information from the WYSHPO to facilitate the identification of 

historic and cultural resources that could be affected by the proposed Ross Project (NRC, 

2011c). 

In developing its license application to the NRC, Strata contracted with GCM Services, Inc. 

(GCM) to conduct a Class I literature search, two Class III cultural-resource inventories, and a 

paleontological survey. The Class I literature search, the original Class III cultural-resource 

inventory (“Class III Inventory”), and the paleontological survey were conducted in 2010. GCM’s 

corresponding report was dated October 2010 and was included as Appendix 3.8-A to Strata’s 

Environmental Report (ER), which was submitted to the NRC in January 2011. Strata has also 

provided an update to Appendix 3.8-A, dated October 2011. A Supplement to Appendix 3.8-A, 

submitted by Strata in August 2012, documented the findings of additional survey work 

conducted by GCM in November 2011, May 2012, and June 2012. Finally, Strata provided 

errata to the Supplement to Appendix 3.8-A in October 2012. 

By a letter dated August 19, 2011, the NRC notified the ACHP of its intent to prepare this SEIS 

and to use the NEPA process to comply with its obligations under Section 106, in accordance 

with 36 CFR Part 800.8. The ACHP responded by a letter dated September 13, 2011, which 

stated that in using the NEPA process to comply with its obligations under Section 106, the 

NRC must also meet the standards set out in the ACHP’s regulations at 36 CFR Part 

800.8(c)(1)(i – v) for the following:

■ Identifying historic properties

■ Involving the public

■ Assessing the Project’s effects on historic properties

■ Consulting regarding the Project’s effects on historic properties with the WYSHPO, the 

Tribes that might attach religious and cultural significance to the affected properties, 

other consulting parties, and the ACHP, where appropriate, during the NEPA scoping 

process, the related environmental analyses, and the subsequent NEPA-document 

preparation

By a letter dated December 12, 2011, after receiving a letter from the Standing Rock Sioux

Tribe (SRST) THPO, the ACHP requested a status update from the NRC on the Ross Project 

Section 106 consultation with Native-American Tribes and a summary of the steps the NRC had 

taken to comply with the ACHP’s regulations. Particularly, the ACHP requested a summary of 

the NRC’s efforts to notify relevant Tribes and to provide them with appropriate information to 

facilitate their participation in the Section 106 review process. The NRC provided a response to 

the ACHP’s letter by a letter dated January 31, 2012. After receiving a letter from SRST’s 

THPO, the ACHP again contacted the NRC by a letter dated May 3, 2013, forwarding the 

concerns of the SRST THPO and requesting that the NRC provide the status of its Section 106 

consultation for the Ross Project (as well as other ISR projects in the region). The NRC 

provided a response to the ACHP with a letter dated August 13, 2013.
Introduction

1-14

After reviewing the information provided by Strata between January 2011 and October 2012, the 

NRC staff concluded that Strata would need to provide additional information to allow the NRC 

staff to make determinations on the eligibility of the sites identified in the Class III Inventory. 

Strata, in a letter to the NRC dated January 8, 2013, addressed the outstanding information 

needs that were identified by the NRC and BLM staff. On January 10, 2013, the WYSHPO 

discussed Strata’s letter with the NRC staff and suggested that the NRC recommend as 

“UNEVALUATED, pending further testing or consultation” those sites for which the NRC staff 

required additional information from Strata and provide the information for the WYSHPO to 

review. By a letter dated March 8, 2013, the NRC submitted to WYSHPO its preliminary 

determination on the effects on historic properties of its granting a license to the Applicant to 

construct and operate the proposed Ross Project. 

The WYSHPO provided a response to the NRC by a letter dated March 28, 2013. In this letter, 

the WYSHPO documented its determination regarding the eligibilities of the identified sites and 

recommended a strategy to move the consultation process forward. The WYSHPO 

recommended that the NRC develop a testing plan in consultation with the SHPO, and any 

other parties that the NRC wished to include, that would not only determine Ross Project effects 

on the two “ELIGIBLE” properties, but the plan would also test the affected “UNEVALUATED” 

sites for National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP) eligibility and Project effects at the 

same time. In a subsequent discussion, the WYSHPO indicated that it would be appropriate to 

delay consultation on a testing plan until the NRC staff determined whether the testing plan 

would need to be modified due to information that could result from the Tribal field survey that 

had been proposed at the time.

Following two Tribal field surveys held in May and June of 2013, which are described in SEIS 

Section 1.7.3.8, the NRC staff by a letter dated September 20, 2013, provided to WYSHPO its 

final eligibility determinations for the properties identified by GCM, its findings regarding Strata’s 

testing plan, and its findings regarding the NRHP eligibilities of four properties that were 

identified during the Tribal field surveys. The WYSHPO provided a response in a letter dated 

October 22, 2013.

 

The NRC is also consulting with potentially affected Native-American Tribes as part of the 

Section 106 consultation process according to 36 CFR Part 800.2(c). These interactions are 

detailed in SEIS Section 1.7.3.8. 

The NRC staff, in consultation with the WYSHPO, also determined that a programmatic 

agreement (PA) should be developed. The Ross Project-specific PA, a draft of which included 

in this SEIS as Appendix E, defines the consultation process to be undertaken when an 

unevaluated site is to be tested is deferred until such time as the NRC determines that the areas 

where these sites are located would be impacted by the proposed Project activities as well as 

the mitigation planning for any eligible sites later identified. The NRC staff held six webinars to 

develop a draft Ross Project PA and distributed that draft to those who have participated in its 

composition. The draft was provided by the NRC on January 17, 2014, for a 30-day comment 

period. By letters dated September 19, 2013, the NRC staff invited the BLM, the WYSHPO, the 

ACHP, the Ross Project Consulting Tribes, the Crook County Museum District, and the Alliance 

for Historic Wyoming to participate in the development of the PA. Webinar participants included 

the NRC, the WYSHPO, the Applicant, the BLM, ACHP, National Park Service (NPS) (Devils 

Tower), the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma THPO, the Chippewa Cree Tribe 

THPO, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe THPO, the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes THPO, 

and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe THPO. 
Introduction

1-15

1.7.3 Coordination with Other Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Agencies

The NRC staff interacted with Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies during preparation of 

this SEIS to gather information on potential issues, concerns, and environmental impacts 

related to the proposed Ross Project. The consultation and coordination process has included 

discussions with the BLM, the NPS, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

(WDEQ), the WGFD, the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (SEO), local organizations (e.g., 

PRBRC, City of Moorcroft’s First Responders, and Crook County) as well as Tribal 

governments. 

1.7.3.1 Coordination with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management

In its letter dated January 27, 2011, the BLM indicated its intent to serve as a cooperating

agency in the NEPA evaluation and licensing process for the proposed Ross Project, with the 

NRC serving as the lead agency. The proposed Ross Project area contains approximately 16 

ha [40 ac] of BLM-administered surface land. The BLM also has jurisdiction over 65 ha [160 ac] 

of subsurface mineral rights under privately owned land within the proposed Project area. As 

discussed in SEIS Section 1.3, the BLM’s responsibility for the proposed undertaking is to fulfill 

its statutory responsibilities to regulate mining on Federal lands as described in 43 CFR Part 

3809. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NRC and the BLM (75 FR 1088), 

signed by the BLM on October 16, 2009, and by NRC on November 30, 2009, provides the 

framework for the cooperating-agency relationship. A new MOU was signed by the BLM on 

February 12, 2013 and by the NRC on February 4, 2013. 

The BLM is responsible for administering the National System of Public Lands and the Federal 

minerals underlying these lands. The BLM is also responsible for managing so-called “split 

estate” situations, where Federal minerals underlie a surface that is privately held or owned by 

State or local government(s). In these situations, operators on mining claims, including 

uranium-recovery facilities, must submit a POO and obtain the BLM’s approval before beginning 

operations beyond those for casual use (for surface disturbance of more than 2 ha [5 ac]). 

The NRC has coordinated with the BLM during its preparation of this SEIS. Regular conference 

calls and meetings have been held. The NRC staff met with the staff of the BLM’s Newcastle, 

Wyoming, Field Office on August 24, 2011, to discuss the Applicant’s POO for the proposed 

Ross Project. The BLM staff has familiarized the NRC staff with the POO review process and 

has shared some of the comments and concerns that the BLM staff had received from 

individuals commenting on the POO. 

1.7.3.2 Coordination with the U.S. National Park Service

The NRC staff met with NPS staff at Devils Tower National Monument (“Devils Tower” or “Bear 

Lodge”) on August 25, 2011 (NRC, 2011a). The NPS staff discussed the use of Devils Tower

by various Native-American Tribes for cultural activities, prayers, and other religious and 

spiritual purposes. The NPS staff shared its concerns about the night-sky viewshed and noise 

as well as potential impacts to ground-water quality. The NPS is a commenting agency for this 

SEIS and, as such, was provided a copy of the DSEIS and an opportunity to comment during 

the public-comment period. The NPS at Devils Tower is also participating in the development of 

the Ross Project PA. 
Introduction

1-16

1.7.3.3 Coordination with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

The NRC staff met with the WDEQ staff in Sheridan, Wyoming, on August 23, 2011, to discuss 

the WDEQ’s role in the NRC’s environmental-review process for uranium-recovery facilities 

(NRC, 2011a). The WDEQ staff participating in this meeting included representatives from the 

Land Quality Division (LQD), Water Quality Division (WQD), and the Air Quality Division (AQD). 

Topics discussed during the meeting included the WDEQ air-quality review and permitting as 

well as other required WDEQ permits. The WDEQ staff expressed concern regarding the 

proposed location of the Central Processing Plant and the surface impoundments in addition to 

fugitive-dust and gaseous emissions. 

The NRC staff also met with personnel from the WDEQ in Casper, Wyoming, on August 24, 

2011 (NRC, 2011a). The WDEQ staff participating in this meeting included representatives 

from the WQD as well as the Solid and Hazardous Waste Division (SHWD). The WDEQ 

explained the permitting process for land application of waste water and discussed solid-waste 

management. 

1.7.3.4 Coordination with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department

The WGFD is responsible for controlling, propagating, managing, protecting, and regulating all 

game and nongame fish and wildlife in Wyoming under Wyoming Statute (W.S.) 23-1-301-303 

and 23-1-401. Regulatory authority given to the WGFD allows for the establishment of hunting, 

fishing, and trapping seasons as well as the enforcement of rules protecting nongame and 

State-listed species. 

The NRC staff met with a representative of the Sheridan Regional WGFD office on August 23, 

2011 (NRC, 2011a). As discussed in SEIS Section 1.7.1, the WGFD staff expressed concerns 

about migratory birds, raptors, big game, and small mammals that could be affected by the 

proposed Ross Project and suggested mitigation strategies to minimize or eliminate impacts. 

1.7.3.5 Coordination with the City of Moorcroft’s First Responders 

The NRC staff met with the City of Moorcroft’s First Responders on August 25, 2011 (NRC, 

2011a). The First Responders briefed the NRC staff on the availability of local emergency 

equipment, personnel, and medical facilities. The First Responders discussed their need for 

additional training with respect to, especially, radioactive materials. The availability of land-use 

plans and socioeconomic data was also discussed.

1.7.3.6 Coordination with the Powder River Basin Resource Council 

The NRC staff met with PRBRC representatives on August 23, 2011 (NRC, 2011a). The 

PRBRC representatives shared several concerns regarding the proposed Ross Project, 

including concerns about the Applicant’s uranium-recovery experience; potential direct and 

cumulative impacts to water quality, air quality, and ecology from the Project’s operation; the 

potential for accidents and long-term effects; and aquifer restoration and excursion monitoring. 

1.7.3.7 Coordination with Localities 

The NRC staff also met with Crook County officials and staff on August 25, 2011, including 

representatives from the Crook County Sheriff’s Office, Crook County District Attorney’s Office, 

Crook County Road and Bridge Department, Crook County Natural Resource District, Crook 
Introduction

1-17

County Weed & Pest Manager, Crook County Commissioners, Crook County Community

Development Department, and Crook County Emergency Management Department (NRC, 

2011a). The Crook County officials and staff shared several concerns and asked many 

questions about the proposed Ross Project. Topics discussed included the chemical and 

radiological hazards associated with the Ross Project, the management of drillholes and wells, 

the potential for drinking-water contamination, the use of ground-water supplies, financial 

assurance, the management of solid wastes, the mitigation of invasive vegetation species, the 

decommissioning of the facility and the reclamation of the site itself, and the cumulative 

environmental impacts.

1.7.3.8 Interactions with Tribal Governments

Pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA, the NRC staff initiated discussions with potentially 

affected Native-American Tribes that possess potential religious, spiritual, and cultural interests 

at the proposed Ross Project area. On November 19, 2010, the NRC sent a letter to 14 Tribes, 

notifying them of Strata’s intent to submit an application for a license for the Ross Project and 

soliciting input from these Tribes (NRC, 2010). The NRC then sent letters, dated February 9, 

2011, to the following 24 Tribes, inviting the Tribes to participate in formal consultations for the 

proposed Ross Project (NRC, 2011d):

■ Apache Tribe of Oklahoma

■ Blackfeet Tribe

■ Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma

■ Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

■ Crow Tribe

■ Crow Creek Sioux Tribe

■ Eastern Shoshone Tribe

■ Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe 

■ Fort Belknap Community

■ Fort Peck Assiniboine/Sioux Tribe

■ Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma

■ Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

■ Northern Arapaho Tribe

■ Northern Cheyenne Tribe

■ Oglala Sioux Tribe

■ Rosebud Sioux Tribe

■ Salish, Pend d’Oreille, and Kootenai Tribes (Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes)

■ Santee Sioux Nation

■ Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe

■ Spirit Lake Tribe

■ Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

■ Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation)

■ Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians

■ Yankton Sioux Tribe

The NRC staff continued its efforts to engage in consultation with the Tribes that might be 

affected by the Ross Project with follow-up telephone calls and by e-mail.

On April 15, 2011, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe notified the NRC via e-mail that it was interested in 

consultation and had concerns about the proposed Project (Rosebud Sioux Tribe, 2011). On 

April 29, 2011, the SRST notified the NRC via e-mail of its desire to consult (Standing Rock 
Introduction

1-18

Sioux Tribe, 2011). On May 5, 2011, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe notified the NRC via e-mail 

of its interest to consult (Northern Cheyenne Tribe, 2011). On May 17, 2011, the Cheyenne 

River Sioux Tribe notified the NRC via e-mail of its interest to consult on the proposed Project 

(Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, 2011). 

By a letter dated April 14, 2011, the THPO for the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians 

informed the NRC that it does not likely have any traditional cultural properties that would be of 

National-Register significance in the Ross Project area (Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa 

Indians, 2011). The NRC was notified by e-mail on August 19, 2011, that the Apache Tribe of 

Oklahoma was not interested in consultation on the Ross Project (Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, 

2011). The Salish, Pend d’Oreille, and Kootenai Tribes notified the NRC by e-mail on 

December 29, 2011, that these Tribes would defer to Tribes which are nearer to the Project 

area for consultation on the Ross Project (Salish, Pend d’Oreille, and Kootenai Tribes, 2011). In 

an attachment to an e-mail dated October 11, 2013, and in response to an invitation from the 

NRC to participate in the preparation of the Ross Project PA, the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe 

notified the NRC that it has no objections to the Ross Project. However, the correspondence 

also requested that construction stop immediately and the appropriate persons (State and Tribal 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act [NAGPRA] representatives) be notified 

if human skeletal remains and/or any objects falling under NAGPRA are uncovered during 

Project construction.

By a letter dated September 2, 2011, the Tribal Archaeologist for the SRST responded to the 

NRC’s February 9, 2011, Section 106 consultation-initiation letter and provided comments on 

the Class III Inventory by GCM dated December 2010. The letter stated that the SRST does not 

agree with the determination of “INELIGIBLE” for Sites 48CK2070, 48CK2076, and 48CK2087. 

The SRST Archaeologist also stated that Site 48CK2082 should be evaluated by Tribal 

representatives to determine whether the outcropping of sandstone is cultural in origin and that 

sites which contain ortho-quartzite fire-cracked rock, particularly Sites 48CK2089, 48CK2090, 

and 48CK2091, should also be evaluated by Tribal representatives. The letter included other 

general comments as well, including a comment that site-identification efforts should include a 

survey of the Ross Project area to identify properties of traditional and religious significance to 

the SRST. By an e-mail dated October 6, 2011, the THPO for the Yankton Sioux Tribe informed 

the NRC that the Yankton Sioux’s THPO concurs with the findings and concerns of the SRST as 

indicated in the SRST’s September 2, 2011, letter. 

The NRC staff, along with BLM staff and the Applicant, conducted a site visit with 

representatives from the Northern Arapaho, the Northern Cheyenne, and the Fort Peck 

Assiniboine Sioux Tribes on September 13, 2011. The NRC and BLM staffs participated in a 

consultation meeting with the Northern Arapaho and the Northern Cheyenne Tribes on

September 14, 2011, after the site visit. On November 2, 2011, the NRC and BLM staffs as well 

as the NPS staff for Devils Tower and the Applicant conducted a second site visit with 

representatives from the Chippewa Cree, Crow Creek Sioux, and the Fort Peck Assiniboine 

Sioux Tribes and the Santee Sioux Nation. On November 3, 2011, the NRC, BLM, and NPS 

staffs participated in a consultation meeting with representatives from the Crow Creek Sioux

and the Fort Peck Assiniboine Sioux Tribes as well as the Santee Sioux Nation. The Chippewa 

Cree Tribe, not formerly invited, expressed interest in consulting during planning for the second

consultation meeting. 

During the September 2011 and November 2011 consultation meetings, the Tribes requested 

that a survey for properties of religious and cultural significance (or a traditional cultural property 

[TCP] survey) of the Ross Project area be conducted. By a letter dated February 1, 2012, the
Introduction

1-19

THPO for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe expressed concern for potential adverse effects to the 

cultural resources within the Project area as well as adverse effects to the viewshed of 

Matotipila (Devils Tower or Bear Lodge) and the Missouri Buttes. The THPO for the Rosebud 

Sioux Tribe also indicated that the Tribe supported a TCP survey of the Project area. During 

the November 2011 site visit, Strata indicated that it would be willing to support such a Tribal 

field survey. On December 6, 2011, the NRC sent a letter to Strata requesting a written 

proposal to acquire TCP information. Strata responded with a letter, dated January 12, 2012, in 

which it stated that in lieu of submitting a proposal for a TCP survey of the Ross Project area, 

Strata would like to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) from consultants to conduct the TCP 

survey, identification, and evaluation. During conversations with several THPOs, the NRC staff 

was informed that the Tribes did not wish to work with a third-party consultant hired by the 

Applicant. Therefore, the NRC staff enlisted support from its own third-party consultant to work 

with the Tribes to obtain information on potential TCPs in the Project area. 

At this time, the NRC staff was also working with many of the same Tribes to obtain TCP 

information for other uranium-recovery projects under the NRC staff’s review. The Tribes 

consulting on the Ross Project suggested using a Scope of Work (SOW) that was being 

prepared for one of the other ISR projects under NRC review and revising it to be applicable for 

the Ross Project. The Tribes requested introductory information on the Ross Project area to 

assist them in developing a draft SOW for a TCP survey of the Ross Project area. This 

information was provided to the Tribes via e-mail on July 25, 2012. In August 2012, the NRC’s 

third-party consultant began contacting the Tribes via telephone and e-mail to invite them to 

meet in Bismarck, North Dakota, in early September to discuss the SOW (many of the Tribes 

were planning to be in Bismarck at that time for a meeting with another agency). Strata 

provided a draft SOW to the NRC to be shared with the Tribes during the meeting. Sixteen 

Tribal representatives indicated that they would attend the meeting.

On September 4, 2012, the NRC’s third-party consultant met with representatives from the 

SRST and the Three Affiliated Tribes in Bismarck, North Dakota. The SRST representative 

indicated during this meeting that the Tribes did not wish to use the SOW developed by Strata 

and would develop a draft SOW for the Ross Project on their own. The Tribal representatives 

also indicated that a separate cost proposal would need to be developed for the TCP field 

survey. In October and November 2012, the NRC staff worked with the representatives from 

the SRST to revise a SOW provided to the NRC by the Tribes for another uranium-recovery 

project that was currently under NRC review. The Tribes indicated that this latter SOW could be 

made to be applicable to the Ross Project. Also, on October 23, 2012, Strata hosted three 

representatives from Makoche Wowapi (a separate company) at the Ross Project area to 

facilitate that company’s preparation of a cost proposal for a TCP survey. Makoche Wowapi 

had submitted a cost proposal for a TCP survey for another uranium-recovery project that was 

also currently under NRC review, and many of the THPOs had been discussing naming that 

company as the preferred consultant to conduct a TCP survey at the Ross Project area. 

On November 13 and 14, 2012, the NRC staff provided the draft SOW for the TCP survey to the 

THPOs and Strata, respectively, via e-mail for review and comment. The THPOs held a 

teleconference to discuss the draft SOW on November 14, 2012, and invited the NRC staff to 

participate and to answer questions. During the November 14, 2012, teleconference several 

THPOs indicated that the draft SOW was acceptable and indicated that Makoche Wowapi 

should be made their preferred consultant to conduct the TCP survey.

The NRC staff shared the final SOW with the consulting THPOs via an e-mail on November 30, 

2012. After no comments were received, the NRC staff also shared the final SOW with 
Introduction

1-20

Makoche Wowapi on December 4, 2012. On December 12, 2012, Makoche Wowapi submitted 

a cost proposal for the TCP survey to the NRC. Strata notified the NRC staff, by an e-mail 

dated February 15, 2013, that its negotiations with Makoche Wowapi had come to an end and 

an agreement had not been reached. 

The Ross Project Section 106 consultation is the third in a series of consultations, including 

those for the Crow Butte and Dewey-Burdock Projects, during which the NRC staff attempted to 

follow this process, which the staff calls the “SOW approach.” As with the Dewey-Burdock 

Project, the SOW approach came to an end for the Ross Project when the Applicant and the 

Tribes’ preferred contractor, Makoche Wowapi, could not reach an agreement on the cost 

proposal. 

The NRC staff considered other alternatives for the Ross Project after the SOW approach had 

proven unsuccessful for the Crow Butte and Dewey-Burdock Projects, recognizing that it might 

likely prove unsuccessful for the Ross Project as well. The NRC staff anticipated that resolving

cost differences would be time consuming and delay the field-survey work (which is limited in 

time to late spring, summer, and early fall—approximately six months—due to the harsh winters 

in Wyoming). However, because of differences between the Projects, such as the total Project 

area, and because the Ross Project’s consulting parties worked toward the SOW approach, the 

NRC staff remained optimistic and continued in this manner until the process eventually came to 

the same end. 

At that point, the NRC staff had become aware that an alternative approach could be 

successful. This alternative approach, which the NRC staff calls the “open-site approach,” 

involves a project area being made available for a specific time period, during which each 

consulting Tribe may send representatives to the project site to conduct a field survey. The 

respective license applicant would provide compensation to the Tribe(s) and reimburse the 

individual Tribal representatives for expenses, and the Tribe would provide a subsequent survey 

report. This approach was being used for the Crow Butte and Dewey-Burdock Projects and had 

been used successfully by another Federal agency. Therefore, after Strata informed the NRC 

that it had not reached an agreement with Makoche Wowapi, the NRC staff requested that 

Strata provide a compensation plan and dates that the Ross Project area could be open to the 

Tribes. The NRC staff requested this information from Strata in order to recommend the opensite approach to the Ross Project Consulting Tribes.

The NRC staff incorporated many key aspects of the former SOW into an open-site-approach 

proposal that was sent to the Tribes with a letter from the NRC staff dated March 11, 2013. 

Specifically, the SOW described the methodology of the field survey and the required contents 

of the survey report. Below are the aspects of the SOW that also appeared in the open-siteapproach proposal offered to the Tribes:

■ Survey of the entire 696-ha [1,721-ac] Ross Project area

■ Compensation provided to the Tribes by the Applicant

■ Field-survey representatives and monitors to make up the field-survey crew provided by 

the Consulting Tribes

■ Field-survey participants reimbursed for lodging, meals, mileage, and incidental 

expenses by the Applicant

■ Consulting Tribes to provide a written summary of the field survey after a certain drafting 

period following completion of the survey, including an identifying label (e.g., TCP-1), 

location, and description of all identified sites of Tribal significance
Introduction

1-21

■ Provisions for confidentiality of TCP sites and other information

■ Recommendations concerning the NRHP eligibility of identified sites by the Consulting 

Tribes

Several Consulting Tribes expressed interest in conducting a survey after reviewing the opensite-approach proposal provided by the NRC; however, this proposal was not put forth as a last 

and final option. The NRC staff intended to be responsive to continuing consultation with any 

Tribes that did not wish to follow the open-site approach. As such, the NRC staff communicated 

with the SRST THPO in March 2013 regarding alternative approaches, and, in April 2013, the 

SRST’s THPO provided an alternative-approach template to the NRC staff. The NRC staff and 

the SRST call this alternative approach the “Tribal-working-group (TWG) approach.” This 

approach uses a work plan that allows several Tribes to form a TWG to conduct a field survey. 

The TWG approach differs from the open-site approach in its compensation and reimbursement 

specifications and in its reporting requirements, including the stipulation that the NRC staff 

would be responsible for initially drafting and distributing a “Tribal field survey report” to the 

TWG following the field survey.

The NRC staff revised the work-plan template that was provided by the SRST’s THPO to make 

it appropriate for the Ross Project and shared it with the SRST THPO and with Strata. The 

NRC staff, the SRST THPO, and Strata agreed on all aspects of the work plan except the 

requirement that the Tribal field-survey participants be hired by either Strata or the NRC as 

temporary employees. This requirement was included in the work plan by the TWG in order to 

ensure that Tribal field-survey participants, who are not necessarily employees of a specific 

Tribe, would be insured against any injuries that could potentially occur or damage that they 

might cause to private property during a survey. Instead of being hired as temporary 

employees, the NRC staff recommended that the Tribal field-survey participants obtain 

insurance to protect themselves from the costs that could be associated with these types of 

incidents. Unfortunately, after extensive back and forth negotiation between the parties, the 

NRC staff and the SRST were not able to resolve this issue, and the SRST notified the NRC 

staff that the Tribe declined to participate in a Ross Project field survey.

The Tribal field survey of the Ross Project area was conducted by 27 Tribal members 

representing 10 Tribes. Tribes that elected to participate in a field survey had the option to 

participate in either the open-site approach or the TWG approach. The first Tribal Field Survey 

was conducted during the period of May 13 – 17, 2013, and included 6 Tribes, 4 of which 

conducted the Survey according to the TWG approach. The second Tribal Field Survey was 

conducted during the period of June 3 – 7, 2013, and included 4 Tribes, all of which conducted 

that Survey in accordance with the open-site approach. Certain aspects of the TWG approach, 

such as Strata’s providing lodging and transportation to and from the Project area each day, 

were incorporated into the open-site approach during the second Survey as well because these 

aspects worked well during the first Tribal Field Survey. Each multi-Tribe field-survey crew 

worked together with the support of the NRC and Strata staffs to plan the site-specific survey 

methodology used in addition to the approach provided in the open-site and TWG proposals. 

Strata provided compensation and per diem in accordance with the two approaches as well as 

maps, work space, and transportation in the field. The NRC Project Managers, with an NRC 

third-party subconsultant, provided global positioning system (GPS) support for both field-survey

crews as well as planning and oversight. The NRC staff and its third-party subconsultant 

prepared and distributed a preliminary Tribal Field Survey Report to the TWG Tribes for their 

input. The NRC staff also received Field Survey Reports from the Cheyenne and Arapaho 

Tribes of Oklahoma and the Northern Arapaho Tribe. The NRC staff and its subconsultant 

prepared a final Tribal Field Survey Report, which documents the NRC staff’s eligibility 
Introduction

1-22

determinations for the identified TCPs. This Report will be provided to the WYSHPO for 

concurrence. Any sites of Tribal interest that are determined to be eligible TCPs by the NRC in 

consultation with the WYSHPO will be addressed in accordance with the final PA for the Ross 

Project.

1.8 Structure of the SEIS 

As noted in SEIS Section 1.4.1, the GEIS evaluated the broad impacts of ISR projects in a fourstate region where such projects are anticipated (NRC, 2009b), but it did not reach site-specific 

decisions for new ISR projects. The NRC staff has evaluated the extent to which the 

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 impacts beyond those evaluated in the GEIS.

SEIS Section 2 describes the Proposed Action and the reasonable Alternatives considered for 

the proposed Ross Project; Section 3 presents the affected environment (i.e., as the Ross 

Project area is today); and Section 4 evaluates the environmental impacts of the Applicant’s 

implementing the Proposed Action and two Alternatives. Section 5 presents the potential 

cumulative impacts of the Ross Project, while Section 6 describes the environmental 

measurement and monitoring programs proposed for the Ross Project. A cost-benefit analysis 

is provided in Section 7, and the environmental consequences as a result of the Proposed 

Action and Alternatives are summarized in Section 8.

1.9 References 

10 CFR Part 2. Title 10, “Energy,” Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2, “Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office (GPO). 

10 CFR Part 20. Title 10, “Energy,” CFR, Part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.” 

Washington, DC: GPO. 

10 CFR Part 40. Title 10, “Energy,” CFR, Part 40, “Domestic Licensing of Source Material,” 

Washington, DC: GPO.

10 CFR Part 40. Title 10, “Energy,” CFR, 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: GPO.

10 CFR Part 51. Title 10, “Energy,” CFR, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for 

Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” Washington, DC: GPO. 

75 Federal Register (FR) 1088. Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 1497, p. 1088, “Notice of 

Availability of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

and the Bureau of Land Management.” January 8, 2010. 

76 FR 41308. Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 134, p. 41308-41312. “Strata Energy, Inc. Ross In 

Situ Recovery Uranium Project, Crook County, WY; Notice of Materials License Application, 

Opportunity to Request a Hearing and To Petition for Leave To Intervene, and Commission 

Order Imposing Procedures for Document Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 
Introduction

1-23

Information for Contention Preparation.” July 13, 2011. Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML111940012.

76 FR 71082. Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 221, p. 71082-71083. “Strata Energy, Inc., Ross 

Uranium Recovery Project; New Source Material License Application; Notice of Intent to 

Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.” November 16, 2011.

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma. “Re: Ross Consultation.” E-mail (August 19) from L. Guy to A. 

Bjornsen, Project Manager, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Anadarko, OK: Apache Tribe 

of Oklahoma. 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11336A224.

ASLB (Atomic Safety and Licensing Board). “Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Standing and 

Contention Admissibility).” In the Matter of Strata Energy, Inc. (Ross In Situ Recovery Uranium 

Project). Docket No. 40-9091-MLA. ASLB Proceeding No. 12–915–01–MLA–BD01. February 

10, 2012. ADAMS Accession No. ML12041A295.

BLM (U.S. Bureau of Land Management). Final Environmental Impact Statement for the

Newcastle Resource Management Plan. Newcastle, WY: USBLM. 2000. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML12209A101.

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. “Re: Section 106 Process to the Ross Project.” E-mail (May 17) 

from S. Vance to A. Bjornsen, Project Manager, Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Eagle Butte, SD: 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11336A442.

(US)FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Letter from R.M. Sattelberg, Field Supervisor, 

Wyoming Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlilfe Service to K. Hsueh, Branch Chief, Office of 

Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. September 13, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML112770035.

Northern Cheyenne Tribe. “Re: Ross Letter Inviting Section 106 Consultation.” E-mail (May 5) 

from C. Fisher to A. Bjornsen, Project Manager, Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Lame Deer, MT: 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe. 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11337A064.

(US)NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). NUREG–0706. “Final Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling Project M-25.” Washington, DC: USNRC. 

September 1980. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML032751663, ML032751667, and ML032751669.

(US)NRC. NUREG–1508. “Final Environmental Impact Statement to Construct and Operate the 

Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mine Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico.” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. February 1997. ADAMS Accession No. ML082170248.

(US)NRC. NUREG–1910. “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In Situ Leach Uranium 

Milling Facilities—Final Report.” Washington, DC: USNRC. May 2009b. ADAMS Accession 

Nos. ML091480244 and ML091480188.

(US)NRC. “Notification of Proposed Facility—Strata Energy, Inc., Ross Uranium In Situ 

Recovery Facility, Oshoto, Crook County, Wyoming.” Washington, DC: USNRC. 2010. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML103160580.
Introduction

1-24

(US)NRC. “Site Visit and Informal Information Gathering Meetings Summary Report for the 

Proposed Ross In Situ Recovery Project (Docket No. 040-09091).” Memorandum (November 

28) to K. Hsueh, Branch Chief from A. Bjornsen, Project Manager, Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental Management Programs. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2011a. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML112980194.

(US)NRC. “Acceptance for Review of Materials License Application, Strata Energy, Inc., Ross 

In Situ Recovery Uranium Project, Crook County, Wyoming (TAC J00640).” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2011b. ADAMS Accession No. ML111721948.

(US)NRC. “Initiation Of Section 106 Consultation For Strata Energy, Inc’s Proposed Ross 

Uranium Recovery Project—License Request (Docket 040-09091).” Washington, DC: USNRC. 

2011c. ADAMS Accession No. ML112150393.

(US)NRC. “Invitation For Formal Section 106 Consultation Pursuant To The National Historic 

Preservation Act Regarding the Strata Energy, Inc. License Application for the Proposed 

Uranium In-Situ Recovery Facility, in Oshoto, Crook County, Wyoming, to Cheyenne River 

Lakota Tribe (ML110040131), Blackfeet Tribe (ML110040076), Yankton Lakota

(ML110040312), Spirit Lake Tribe (ML110040484), Apache Tribe (ML110310152) Oglala Sioux 

Tribe (ML110400125),Three Affiliated Tribes (ML110400293), Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux 

Tribe (ML110400344), Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (ML110400258), Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

(ML110400199), Cheyenne and Arapaho of OK Tribe (ML110400090), Flandreau Santee 

Lakota Tribe (ML110400285), Crow Creek Sioux Tribe (ML110400225), Northern Cheyenne 

(ML110400529), Santee Sioux Nation (ML110400181), Fort Belknap Community Tribe 

(ML110400311), Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate (ML110400222), Northern Arapaho Tribe 

(ML110400508), Rosebud Sioux Tribe (ML110400154), Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribe (ML110400176), Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Tribe (ML110400279), Crow Tribe 

(ML110400256), Kiowa (ML110400461), and Lower Brule Tribe (ML110400489).” Washington, 

DC: USNRC. 2011d.

(US)NRC. “Safety Evaluation Report for the Strata Energy, Inc. Ross ISR Project, Crook 

County, Wyoming, Materials License No. SUA-1601, Docket No. 040-09091, Strata Energy, 

Inc.” Washington, DC: USNRC. 2014a. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A107. 

NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) and PRBDC (Powder River Basin Defense 

Council). “Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing by the Natural Resource Defense 

Council and Powder River Basin Resource Defense Council.” Washington, DC: NRDC. 2011. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML11300A188.

Rosebud Sioux Tribe. “Re: Ross Uranium ISR Project.” E-mail (April 15) from R. Bordeaux to A.

Bjornsen, Project Manager, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Rosebud, SD: Rosebud Sioux 

Tribe. 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML111220299.

Salish, Pend d’Oreille, and Kootenai Tribes. “Re: December 6th Letter.” E-mail (December 29) 

from F. Auld to A. Bjornsen, Project Manager, Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pablo, MT: 

Salish, Pend d’Oreille, and Kootenai Tribes. 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML120050552.

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. “[Re:] Strata Energy Ross LA.” E-mail (April 29) from W. Young to 

A. Bjornsen, Project Manager, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 
Introduction

1-25

Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Fort Yates, ND: Standing Rock 

Sioux Tribe. 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11337A071.

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.) Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Environmental Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata Energy, Inc. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130342, 

ML110130344, and ML110130348.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, Technical 

Report, Volumes 1 through 6 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 

2011b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130333, ML110130335, ML110130314, ML110130316, 

ML110130320, and ML110130327.

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians. “Re: Consultation with Turtle Mountain Band 

Regarding Ross Uranium In Situ Recovery Project.” E-mail (April 14) from K. Ferris to A.

Bjornsen, Project Manager, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Belcourt, ND: Turtle Mountain 

Band of Chippewa Indians. 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML111080059.

WWC Engineering. “Re: Request Update of ER Table 1.6-a.” E-mail (February 1) from B. 

Schiffer to J. Moore, Project Manager, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Sheridan, WY: WWC 

Engineering. 2013a. ADAMS Accession No. ML13035A012.

WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department). Cheyenne, WY: WGFD. 2011. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML112660130.

In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-1 

2 IN SITU URANIUM RECOVERY AND ALTERNATIVES

This section describes the Proposed Action, which is 

to issue a United States (U.S.) Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) source and byproduct materials 

license to Strata Energy, Inc. (Strata or the 

“Applicant”), for the proposed Ross Project in 

northeastern Wyoming. Strata would use its license in 

connection with the construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed 

Ross Project. This section also discusses alternatives 

to the Proposed Action, including the No-Action 

alternative as required under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 

Figure 2.1 indicates the proposed location of the 

Ross Project. Section 2.1 of this Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS, or FSEIS if the respective section, figure, or table did 

not appear in the Draft SEIS [DSEIS]) describes the Alternatives that are included for detailed 

analysis, including the Proposed Action; Section 2.2 describes those alternatives that were

considered but eliminated from detailed analysis; Section 2.3 summarizes the potential 

environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and the two Alternatives; and Section 2.4 

discusses the NRC staff’s final recommendation that the NRC issue a source and byproduct 

materials license for the Proposed Action unless safety issues mandate otherwise. 

2.1 Alternatives Considered for Detailed Analysis

In addition to the Proposed Action, two alternatives to the Ross Project are also considered in 

this SEIS. All alternatives are evaluated with regard to the four phases of a uranium-recovery 

operation: construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning. The range of 

alternatives has been established based on the purpose and need statement as described in 

Section 1.3 of this SEIS. In addition, this SEIS adopts many of the conclusions reached in the 

GEIS that was prepared for in situ recovery (ISR) projects (NRC, 2009b).

Alternatives examined in this SEIS are:

■ Alternative 1 is the Proposed Action, as described in the Applicant’s license application. 

The Proposed Action is described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.

■ Alternative 2 is the No-Action Alternative, as required by NEPA, where the Applicant 

would not construct, operate, restore the aquifer, or decommission the Ross Project. 

Alternative 2 is described in SEIS Section 2.1.2.

■ Alternative 3 is the same as the Proposed Action, except that the Ross Project facility 

(i.e., the central processing plant [CPP], auxiliary and support buildings and structures, 

and the surface impoundments) would be situated at a different location to the north of 

the Proposed Action (i.e., at the “north site”). Alternative 3 is identified in this SEIS as 

the “North Ross Project” and is described in SEIS Section 2.1.3.

The sources of information used in the development of this SEIS include the following: the 

Applicant’s license application, including its Environmental Report (ER) (Strata, 2011a) and its 

Technical Report (TR) (Strata, 2011b) as well as its Responses to Requests for Additional

What is source material?

“Source material” means either the 

element thorium or the element uranium, 

provided that the uranium has not been 

enriched with the radioisotope uranium235.

What is byproduct material?

“Byproduct materials” are tailings or 

wastes generated by extraction or 

concentration of uranium or thorium 

processed ores, as defined under

Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act 

(AEA)

What is source material?

“Source material” means either the 

element thorium or the element uranium, 

provided that the uranium has not been 

enriched with the radioisotope uranium235. 

What is byproduct material?

“Byproduct materials” are tailings or 

wastes generated by extraction or 

concentration of uranium or thorium 

processed ores, as defined under

Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act 

(AEA).
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-2 

Figure 2.1

Ross Project within the Lance District

Source: Strata, 2011a.

PROPOSED ROSS PROJECT 

LICENSE BOUNDARY
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-3 

Information (RAIs) (Strata, 2012a; Strata, 2012b); the information and scoping comments 

gathered during the NRC staff’s and NRC consultants’ site visit in August 2011 (NRC, 2011); 

information independently researched by the NRC staff from publicly available sources; 

multidisciplinary discussions held among NRC staff and various stakeholders; and the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) itself (NRC, 2009b).

2.1.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, the NRC would issue the Applicant a source and byproduct 

materials license. The Applicant would use its license to construct, operate, restore the 

respective aquifers, and decommission the Ross Project facility and wellfields as described in its 

license application (Strata, 2011a; Strata, 2011b). Also, under the Proposed Action, the U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would approve the Applicant’s Plan of Operations (POO). 

The Ross Project would occupy 696 ha [1,721 ac] in the north half of the approximately 90-km2

[56-mi2

] Lance District, an area where the Applicant is actively exploring to determine whether 

there are additional uranium deposits. As Figure 2.2 shows, Strata has identified four other 

uranium-bearing areas that would potentially extend the area of uranium recovery in the Lance 

District itself to the north (the potential Ross Amendment Area 1) and to the south (the potential 

Kendrick, Richards, and Barber areas) (Strata, 2012a).

The Lance District is located on the western edge in the northwest corner of the NebraskaSouth Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region (NSDWUMR) (see Figure 2.3). It is situated 

between the Black Hills uplift to the east and the Powder River Basin to the west (Strata, 

2011a). Both of these regional features are described in the GEIS (NRC, 2009b). However, the 

Powder River Basin has been described as part of the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region 

(WEUMR) and the Black Hills uplift as part of the NSDWUMR. The uranium ore zone at the 

Ross Project is situated in the Upper Cretaceous Fox Hills and Lance Formations. Although 

these stratigraphic units are not specifically described in the GEIS, they share key attributes that 

are important for ISR with the uranium-hosting Wasatch Formation in the Powder River Basin 

described for the WEUMR and the Inyan Kara Group described for the NSDWUMR (NRC, 

2009b). These key attributes include alternating layers of permeable sandstone, which allow 

hydraulic connection within an ore zone, and shale layers, which prevent fluid migration outside 

of an ore zone. The present-day environment of the Proposed Action is described in SEIS

Section 3, Affected Environment. 

The Proposed Action includes the uranium-recovery facility itself and its wellfields (see Figures 

2.4 and 2.5). The ISR facility consists of the following:

■ A CPP that houses the uranium- and vanadium-processing equipment, drying and 

packaging equipment, and water-treatment equipment.

■ A chemical storage area as well as other storage, warehouse, maintenance, and 

administration buildings.

■ Two double-lined surface impoundments, a sediment impoundment, and up to five Class 

I deep-injection wells.

The schedule for the Proposed Action is shown in Figure 2.6. The Proposed Action includes the 

option of the Applicant’s operating the Ross Project facility beyond the life of the Project’s 

wellfields. 
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-4 

Figure 2.2

Potential Satellite Areas in the Lance District

Source: Strata, 2012a.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-5 

Figure 2.3

Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region

Source: NRC, 2009b.

Wyoming-South Dakota-Nebraska 

Uranium Milling Region

LEGEND

Uranium-Recovery Population

Milling Sites
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-6 

Figure 2.4

Proposed Ross Project Facility and Wellfields

LINED

SURFACE

IMPOUNDMENTS

PROPOSED ROSS PROJECT

LICENSE BOUNDARY

Source: Strata, 2011b.

PROPOSED UIC DEEP-DISPOSAL WELL

NUBETH
Figure 2.5

General Layout of Proposed Ross Project Facility

SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS

SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS

Source: Strata, 2011b.

Note: Strata has proposed a modification of the facility design. The configuration would be revised to construct the CBW only a

the south boundary of the facility itself (Strata, 2013b). 

2-7
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-8 

Figure 2.6

Schedule for Potential Lance District Development

ROSS PROJECT 

POTENTIAL LANCE 

DISTRICT PROJECTS

Source: Strata, 2012a.

Note: Decommissioning of the Ross Project’s CPP would be completed after the last of the uranium from the Ross 

Project wellfields and satellites that may be developed within the Lance District are processed or after approximately

14 years from the time that all regulatory approvals are in place. Although Strata considers this schedule to be a 

“reasonably foreseeable development scenario,” the actual development plans would depend upon a number of 

factors, including the results of ongoing exploration drilling, surface- and mineral-acquisition efforts, environmental 

pre-licensing, site-characterization studies for potential license-amendment areas, and the time required to acquire 

the necessary permits and licenses (Strata, 2012a).

The overlap of operation and 

aquifer-restoration phases creates 

three periods: 1) operation only; 2) 

operation concurrent with aquifer 

restoration; and 3) aquifer 

restoration only. All of these are 

described in Sections 4.5 and 4.14. 

 
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-9 

The facility could be used to process uranium-loaded resin from satellite projects within the 

Lance District operated by the Applicant, or from other offsite uranium-recovery projects not 

operated by the Applicant, or from offsite water-treatment operations. In this case, the life of the 

facility would be extended to 14 years or more (Strata, 2012a). 

The Ross Project would host 15 – 25 wellfield modules and would consist of a total of 1,400 – 

2,200 recovery and injection wells (Strata, 2011a). Groups of specific wells within a wellfield are 

called “wellfield modules.” The wellfield modules would be connected with piping to a central 

collection facility called a “module building,” or a “header house.” The wellfields would be 

surrounded by a perimeter ring of monitoring wells.

This type of uranium extraction, in situ uranium recovery, consists of native ground water to 

which chemicals have been added, referred to as “lixiviant,” that is injected into the aquifer 

bearing the uranium ore (the “ore zone” or 

“ore body”) (see Section 2.1.1.2). The 

chemicals in the lixiviant dissolve the 

uranium from the rock within the aquifer. 

Ground water containing dissolved 

uranium is then pumped from the orezone aquifer, processed through ionexchange (IX) columns to remove the 

uranium from the lixiviant, and then the uranium is precipitated into a solid material called 

“yellowcake” (U3O8). Most of the water is then reused for uranium recovery.

ISR is not hydraulic fracturing or “hydrofracking.” Hydrofracking is a technique that is used by 

oil companies to increase the production of petroleum and natural gas by creating cracks in tight 

rocks containing oil and gas. A hydraulic fracture is formed by a fracturing fluid that is pumped 

into a well at a rate sufficient to increase pressure in the well, so that it exceeds the in situ 

pressure of the rock. The fracturing fluid is a slurry of water, chemicals to aid in cracking, and a 

proppant, a material such as sand grains or ceramic particulates that keep the fractures open 

when the injection is stopped and oil recovery occurs. In contrast, ISR operates at much lower 

pressure in an injection well. In-situ pressures in ISR injection wells are maintained at less than 

the fracture pressures of the formations in which uranium-recovery is occurring. In addition, ISR 

is only used in aquifers with sufficient porosity and permeability to allow water flow from an 

injection well with a slightly positive pressure to the recovery well with a slightly negative 

pressure. This difference in pressure causes the ground water to move toward the recovery 

well. Finally, the chemicals in the water injected in ISR are for the purpose of dissolving the 

uranium, not to affect the porosity or permeability of the rock as are those during hydrofracking.

The Ross Project would be located in Crook County, Wyoming, 35 km [22 mi] north of the town 

of Moorcroft and Interstate-90 (see Figure 2.1). Other nearby towns and approximate direct 

distances to the Ross Project area include Pine Haven (27 km [17 mi] southeast), Gillette (53 

km [33 mi] southwest), and Sundance (48 km [30 mi] southeast). The Ross Project area is 

adjacent to the unincorporated ranching community of Oshoto. The Oshoto community includes 

11 residences within 3 km [2 mi] of the Proposed Action’s boundary. Access to the Ross 

Project area is by either County Road (CR) 68 (D Road) or CR 164 (New Haven Road), both of 

which proceed north.

The Ross Project encompasses approximately 696 ha [1,721 ac] in portions of Sections 7, 17, 

18, and 19, Township 53N, Range 67W, and portions of Sections 12, 13, and 24, Township 

53N, Range 68W.

What is lixiviant?

A solution composed of native ground water and 

chemicals added during the ISR operations. Lixiviant 

is then pumped underground to mobilize (dissolve) 

uranium from a uranium-bearing ore zone, or the ore 

body.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-10

Source: Table 1.2-1 in Strata, 2011a.

Surface ownership within the Ross Project area is primarily private, with small tracts of land 

owned by the State of Wyoming (Wyoming) and the BLM (Strata, 2011a). Approximately 16 ha 

[40 ac] are BLM land. The Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments (WOSLI) 

administers 127 ha [314 ac]. In addition to the surface ownership, the BLM manages the 

subsurface mineral rights under 65 ha [160 ac] of privately owned land. Table 2.1 indicates the 

respective landowners of the Ross Project area. Current land uses are discussed in Section 

3.2.

The Ross Project area is located in the upper reaches of the Little Missouri River, which flows 

northeasterly into southeastern Montana, through northwest South Dakota, and into North 

Dakota where it empties into the Missouri River at Lake Sakakawea. The area is characteristic 

of northeastern Wyoming: It is sparsely populated rangeland used primarily for grazing and 

some dryland agricultural production. Oil development from the Minnelusa Formation in 

western Crook County began in the 1970s. There are three oil-recovery wells within the Ross 

Project area; oil production from these wells peaked in 1985 – 1986, but production has 

generally declined since then (Strata, 2011a). The current status of oil and gas production is 

fully described in SEIS Section 5.2.1.2.

As noted earlier, uranium targeted for production within the Ross Project is located in permeable 

sandstones of the Upper Cretaceous Lance and Fox Hills Formations. The uranium in the 

Oshoto area resides in roll-front deposits typical of those across the Powder River Basin as 

described in the WEUMR (NRC, 2009b). Roll fronts are formed in sandstone formations when 

uranium-bearing ground water, moving down-gradient, encounters changing conditions. As the 

aquifer changes from oxygenated to oxygen-deficient, uranium precipitates as a coating on 

sand grains. The precise geometry of the uranium-ore deposits is controlled by the site-specific 

characteristics of the host sandstones. At the Ross Project area, the ore zones are generally 

thicker and more massive in the deeper Fox Hills compared to the deposits in the Lance 

Formation (Strata, 2011a). The top of the ore zone is approximately 76 m [250 ft] deep at the 

eastern edge of the Project area and 200 m [650 ft] deep at the Project’s western edge (Strata, 

2011a). The thickness of the ore zone ranges from 30 m [100 ft] to 55 m [180 ft]. 

Table 2.1

Surface Ownership at Ross Project Area

Surface 

Ownership

Total Acres 

within Ross 

Project Area

Acres 

Disturbed 

During Year 

Preceding 

Operation

Acres 

Disturbed 

Over Life of 

Proposed 

Action

U.S. Bureau 

of Land 

Management

40.0 1.3 1.3

State of 

Wyoming 314.1 40 80

Private 1,367.2 69 199

TOTAL 1,721.3 110.3 280.3
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-11

Exploration of uranium deposits in the Lance Formation began in late 1970 (Strata, 2011a). The 

Nubeth Joint Venture (Nubeth), a joint venture between Nuclear Dynamics (later named ND 

Resources, Inc.) and Bethlehem Steel, received a License to Explore (No. 19) from the 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality’s (WDEQ’s) Land Quality Division (LQD) in 

August 1976, with subsequent modifications to accommodate research and development 

activities in 1978 (Strata, 2011a). ND Resources, Inc. filed for an NRC source material license 

in November 1977, and that license was approved in April 1978. Nubeth constructed a 

research and development operation in Section 18 of Township 53 North, Range 67 West, 

which is located within the Ross Project area (see Figure 2.1).

The research and development operation consisted of a single five-spot well pattern, with four 

injection wells and one recovery well, and a small facility with an IX column, elution, and 

precipitation circuit capable of producing yellowcake slurry (Nubeth, 1977). The research and 

development facility could process 340 L/min [90 gal/min] of uranium-bearing lixiviant. 

Hydraulic control during the operation was accomplished with “buffer” wells, which were meant 

to form a hydraulic barrier to keep the lixiviant within the well pattern. Nubeth operated from 

August 1978 through April 1979 and recovered small amounts of uranium. No precipitation of a 

uranium product took place, and all of the recovered uranium was stored as a solution. The 

operation was shutdown prematurely because of difficulties in operation’s not being able to 

achieve desired injection rates (Strata, 2011a). The limitations on injection rates were attributed 

to the build-up of fines and organic material in the wellfield.

After uranium-recovery tests were completed, the single five-spot used in the test was restored. 

Restoration was completed in February 1983 and Nubeth was notified by the WDEQ on April 

25, 1983 that the restoration was satisfactory. Final approval for the research and development 

operation’s final decommissioning was granted by the NRC and WDEQ/LQD during the time 

period from 1983 through 1986 (Strata, 2011b; ND Resources, 1985a; ND Resources, 1985b).

A summary report on production feasibility estimated that uranium production could average 

about 360 kg/d [800 lb/d] in a facility sized to process 11,000 – 15,000 L/min [3,000 – 4,000 

gal/min] (Strata, 2011a). However, due to the declining price of uranium at the time, 

commercial-scale licensing, construction, and operation did not occur. Two of Nubeth’s wells 

(Well 789V and 19XX) have been used by oil companies since 1980 as water-supply wells 

(Strata, 2011b); currently, the Merit Oil Company (Merit) is operating these two wells in addition 

to one more on the Ross Project area to withdraw approximately 169 L/min [44.6 gal/min] from 

the aquifer in the Fox Hills Formation for enhanced oil recovery (Strata, 2012c). 

The Applicant notes that information obtained from the Nubeth research and development 

operation was used in its decision to develop the Ross Project at the location described in this 

SEIS (Strata, 2011a). Nubeth’s operation contributed the following information:

■ Demonstration of the probability of an aquifer exemption of the mineralized zone. 

■ Determination of strong geologic confinement above and below the identified ore 

body(ies). 

■ Confirmation of fundamental hydrogeologic hypotheses regarding ground-water flow and 

behavior. 

■ Validation of information on potential regulatory and operational technical issues. 

■ Determination of site geology, hydrology, soils, ecology, climate, and Project area

radiological conditions. 
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-12

■ Decrease of disturbance to both the surface and subsurface based upon data collected 

in the past. 

■ Demonstration of successful ground-water restoration and site reclamation. 

Peninsula Energy, Ltd. (formerly Peninsula Minerals, Ltd.) initiated acquisition of mineral rights 

in the Lance District in 2007 and 2008 (Peninsula, 2011). Exploration drilling programs, which 

were conducted in 2008 and 2009, confirmed significant uranium resources in the Ross Project 

area. Strata was then incorporated in 2009, and by a letter dated January 2011, Strata then 

submitted a two-volume license application for a source and byproduct materials license to the 

NRC. It also submitted an application for a Permit to Mine to the WDEQ/LQD and a POO to the 

BLM. The WDEQ/LQD approved Strata’s Permit to Mine application in November 2012, and

the BLM is currently reviewing Strata’s POO. The BLM is also participating as a cooperating 

agency to the NRC under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Ross Project.

The Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program administered by the WDEQ/LQD regulates 

the design, construction, testing, and operation of all injection and recovery wells (WDEQ/LQD, 

2005a). The WDEQ has primary regulatory authority for such actions as delegated by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Wells for uranium extraction (i.e., uranium recovery) 

are classified under the WDEQ’s UIC program as Class III wells. As part of its Permit to Mine 

issued by the WDEQ/LQD, the Applicant also acquired a UIC Permit to use Class III injection 

wells. The Permit to Mine would include maximum and average injection volumes and/or 

pressures necessary to ensure that fractures are not initiated in the confining zones; injected 

fluids do not migrate into any unauthorized zone; and formation fluids are not displaced into any 

unauthorized zone. Operating requirements of the WDEQ Permit-to-Mine would, at a minimum, 

specify that fluid and fracture pressures in the production zone be calculated to ensure that the 

pressure in the production zone during injection would not initiate new fractures or propagate 

existing fractures. In no case, would injection pressure initiate fractures in the confining zone, if 

confinement is present, or cause the migration of injection or formation fluids into an 

unauthorized zone. In addition, License Condition No. 10.14 would require that, during wellfield 

operations, injection pressures would not exceed the maximum operating pressures as 

specified in the Applicant’s license application (Strata, 2011b; NRC, 2014b). 

Before uranium-recovery operation can begin at any wellfield, however, the Applicant will also 

be required by license condition to provide the NRC with documents clearly delineating the 

approved aquifer-exemption areas (NRC, 2014b), as the portions of an aquifer designated for 

uranium recovery must be exempted as an underground source of drinking water (USDW) by 

the EPA and reclassified by the WDEQ/Water Quality Division (WQD) in accordance with the 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Outside of the aquifer-exemption boundary, the aquifer is still 

protected as a source of drinking water because the governing regulations regarding 

underground injection found at 40 CFR Part 144.12 prohibit the movement of any contaminant 

into the underground source of drinking water which is located outside the aquifer-exemption 

boundary. In these regulations, a “contaminant” is defined broadly 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) waterquality requirements. Wyoming’s rules for “in situ mining” require that the exempted aquifer be 

restored to its premining class of use after operations are complete (WDEQ/LQD, 2005). The 

requirement by the WDEQ at “Noncoal In Situ Mining,” Rules and Regulations, Chapter 11 for 

restoration of the area within the boundary of the exempted aquifer is more stringent than the 

EPA’s regulations (at 40 CFR Part 144.12) that require that ground-water protection standards 

be met only at the aquifer-exemption boundary.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-13

In Section 2 of the GEIS, the four stages in the life of an ISR facility are described: 1) 

construction, 2) operation, 3) aquifer restoration, and 4) decommissioning (NRC, 2009b). The 

decommissioning phase would include facility decontamination, dismantling, demolition, and 

disposal as well as site reclamation and restoration. Although the NRC recognizes that these 

four phases could be performed concurrently, and in practice early wellfields would undergo 

aquifer restoration while other wellfields are being installed, the GEIS determined that 

describing the ISR process in terms of these stages aids in the discussion of the ISR process 

and in the evaluation of potential environmental impacts from an ISR facility.

2.1.1.1 Ross Project Construction

Construction of the Ross Project would be consistent with the general construction activities 

described in Section 2.3 of the GEIS (NRC, 2009b). The Applicant discusses certain 

preconstruction activities that could be performed prior to its receiving its source and byproduct 

materials license from the NRC (Strata, 2011a; NRC, 2014b); however, for the purposes of this 

evaluation of environmental and other impacts, this SEIS assumes that these preconstruction 

activities would occur at the same time as the Proposed Action such that the impacts of the 

preconstruction activities are considered as part of Alternative 1: Proposed Action. These 

preconstruction activities could include site excavation and preparation, such as clearing, 

grading, and constructing design components intended to control drainage and erosion as well 

as other mitigation measures; erection of fences and other access control measures that are not 

related to the safe use of, or security of, radiological materials; support-building construction; 

infrastructure construction, such as paved roads and parking lots, exterior utility and lighting 

systems, domestic waste-water facilities, and transmission lines; and other activities which have 

no measurable relationship to radiological health and safety nor common defense and security. 

In addition, the Applicant has indicated its intent to construct one Class I deep-injection well to 

better characterize the hydrologic and geochemical properties of the targeted geologic formation 

(i.e., Deadwood and Flathead Formations) (Strata, 2011a; NRC 2011b). No radioactive material 

would be present at the Ross Project during preconstruction activities. As described in SEIS 

Section 3.13.1, drilling fluids and muds as well as soil cuttings from drilling during 

preconstruction activities are defined and regulated by the EPA as technologically enhanced 

naturally occurring radioactive materials (TENORM).

After some or all of these activities, actual construction of the Proposed Action would begin and 

include: 1) the ISR facility that would consist of the CPP as well as administration, warehouse, 

and maintenance buildings, including storage and other structures, and lined surface 

impoundments; 2) wellfields including piping and module buildings; and 3) deep-disposal wells 

(see Figure 2.5) (Strata, 2011b; Strata, 2012b).

The Applicant anticipates construction of the facility and initial wells within one year of receiving 

its Source and Byproduct Materials License (see Figure 2.6). Main access roads would be 

constructed at the same time as the facility (Strata, 2011a). Secondary wellfield access roads 

would be constructed as necessary, as each wellfield is developed. It is estimated that the 

facility would encompass 21 ha [51 ac] (Strata, 2011b). A total of 45 ha [110 ac] would be 

disturbed by construction activities during the year preceding ISR facility operation and 114 ha 

[282 ac] over the life of the Proposed Action (see Table 2.1) (Strata, 2011a).

The Ross Project would employ approximately 200 people during construction. The Applicant 

anticipates that most employees would be from Crook and Campbell Counties (Strata, 2011a). 

Further information on employment and other socioeconomic issues are described in Section 

3.11.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-14

Ross Project Facility

The Applicant proposes to construct and operate a single facility to serve the Ross Project as 

well as other potential ISR satellites (i.e., wellfields) within the Lance District. It could also 

process uranium-loaded resin from other ISR and water-treatment operations, which would be 

trucked into the facility (Strata, 2011a). The facility would include an administration building of 

900 m2 [10,000 ft2

], 1,400 m2 [15,000 ft2] of warehouse and maintenance space, 4,200 m2

[45,000 ft2

] of parking, and a 3,400 m2 [37,000 ft2] for a domestic waste-water drainfield as well 

as the CPP.

The proposed CPP would be a large, 6,900 m2 [74,000 ft2

] pre-engineered metal building. The 

size of the CPP is about twice the size of a typical processing facility described in the GEIS 

(NRC, 2009b). Adjoining the CPP would be 2,800 m2 [30,000 ft2

] of chemical storage space 

and 4,770 m2 [51,300 ft2

] of storage and work space (see Figure 2.5). The CPP would contain a 

control room housing the master-control system to allow remote monitoring and control of ISR 

process operations, wellfield operations, and deep-well disposal (Strata, 2011b). Operators in 

the CPP control room, who would be present 24 hours a day, would use a computer-based 

station to command the control system.

Proposed operations in the CPP 

would be generally consistent with 

typical processing involving three 

primary stages as described in the 

GEIS (NRC, 2009; Strata, 2011b):

■ Uranium would be mobilized 

by the distribution of “barren” 

(containing no uranium) 

lixiviant from the CPP to 

injection wells and return of 

“pregnant” (containing 

dissolved uranium) lixiviant 

from the recovery wells to the 

CPP for processing.

■ Dissolved uranium would be processed to yellowcake through a multi-step process 

involving uranium-loaded IX resin, elution, precipitation, washing, drying, and packaging 

which would produce waste water.

■ Waste water would be treated as necessary and then recirculated as lixiviant. 

This uranium-recovery process would be continued in a particular wellfield until the uranium 

concentration in the recovered solution becomes uneconomical.

The IX circuit proposed by the Applicant would be designed for a maximum of 28,400 L/min 

[7,500 gal/min] of pregnant lixiviant from Ross Project wells (Strata, 2011a). The elution and the 

precipitation circuits as well as the drying and packaging circuits within the CPP would be 

designed to process approximately 1.4 million kg/yr [3 million lb/yr] of yellowcake (Strata, 

2011b), which is about four times the capacity necessary to recover uranium from only the Ross 

Project. The proposed yellowcake capacity of 1.4 million kg/yr [3 million lb/yr] would be the 

same as the licensed capacity at the Moore Ranch uranium-recovery facility (NRC, 2010). The 

excess capacity in the yellowcake-production process would allow processing of uraniumWhat is yellowcake?

Yellowcake is the product of the uranium-recovery and milling 

process; early production methods resulted in a bright yellow 

compound, hence the name “yellowcake.” The material is a 

mixture of uranium oxides that can vary in proportion and in 

color from yellow to orange to dark green (blackish) 

depending upon the temperature at which the material was 

dried (level of hydration and impurities). Higher drying 

temperatures produce a darker, less soluble material. 

Yellowcake is commonly referred to as U3O8 and is assayed 

as pounds U3O8 equivalent. This fine powder is packaged in 

210-L [55-gal] drums and sent to a conversion plant that uses 

yellowcake to produce uranium hexafluoride (UF6) as the next 

step in the manufacture of nuclear fuel.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-15

loaded IX resin delivered to the Ross Project from other uranium-recovery or water-treatment 

facilities. As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1 (Figure 2.6), the Ross Project’s CPP could be 

used to process source material from other areas within the Lance District only if Strata were to

seek an appropriate license amendment, and if that amendment were approved by the NRC. 

The estimated yellowcake-production quantities from the potential satellites in the Lance District 

are discussed in SEIS Section 5.2.1.1, and the respective potential environmental impacts of 

the increased yellowcake production at the CPP after a license amendment are examined as 

cumulative impacts in the same section.

The Applicant also proposes a vanadium-recovery circuit within the CPP to recover vanadium 

from uranium-depleted solutions (Strata, 2011b). The GEIS did not include vanadium recovery 

in its discussion of a typical uranium-recovery operation (vanadium recovery is discussed in 

Section 2.1.12 of this SEIS). However, the recovery of vanadium would not alter any of the 

components of the Ross Project.

In addition to the uranium- and vanadium-recovery circuits, the CPP would house the watertreatment circuit for ground-water reuse. Water treatment would utilize an IX column to remove 

the uranium, followed by two reverse-osmosis (RO) units in series. The circuit would be 

designed for a maximum flow rate of 4,200 L/min [1,100 gal/min]. Operation of the first RO 

stage is expected to return approximately 70 percent of the flow as “permeate” (relatively clean 

water) and 30 percent of the flow as “brine” (water containing high concentrations of salts, which 

would have been mostly introduced to water to form the lixiviant, and contaminants, which were 

picked up during the lixiviant’s residence time in the aquifer). When the remaining brine is run 

through the second RO stage, it would generate 50 percent permeate and 50 percent brine. 

Only 15 percent of waste water would be brine after the two-stage RO circuit. 

The ISR process requires chemical storage and feeding systems to introduce chemicals at 

various stages in the lixiviant extraction and processing as well as during the waste-treatment 

processes. Space for chemical storage would be built adjacent to the CPP (see Figure 2.5) 

(Strata, 2011a). The chemical-storage area would be constructed with secondary containment, 

which would consist of a concrete berm as part of the floor area that would be able to contain at 

least 110 percent of the volume of the largest tank (Strata, 2011b). The space would be divided 

into two areas, one inside the CPP and one outside. Chemicals stored outside would include 

oxygen, ammonia, and carbon dioxide (CO2). Chemicals stored inside would include some or 

all of the following: sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, hydrogen peroxide, 

sodium chloride, and sodium carbonate.

The proposed location for the facility is currently on a relatively flat, currently used, dryland 

hayfield. To route surface storm-water runoff around the facility, a diversion structure consisting 

of a berm, concrete-box culvert, and drainage channel would be constructed east of the 

proposed ISR facility. This system would be designed to manage runoff from a 100-year, 24-

hour runoff event (Strata, 2011b; Strata, 2012b).

The Applicant’s design calls for paving the areas adjacent to the CPP. Paved areas would be 

sloped to direct runoff water to slot drains. From the slot drains, storm water would be 

conveyed through pipes to a smaller, sediment-settling surface impoundment also designed to 

contain the runoff from a 100-year, 24-hour runoff event. The sediment impoundment would be 

constructed with the same double-liner and leak-detection configurations as the larger surface 

impoundments that would be used to store permeate and brine. After a significant storm event, 

water in the sediment impoundment would be immediately routed to the deep-disposal well 

(Strata, 2011b).
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-16

The facility is proposed to be located in an area of shallow ground water (Strata, 2012b). 

Shallow ground water directly beneath the facility could present construction and operational 

issues and create a higher risk of ground-water contamination in the event of a spill. To mitigate 

these concerns, the Applicant’s proposed facility design would include a containment barrier 

wall (CBW). The CBW and associated dewatering system would be designed to prevent 

contaminated liquids from entering and contaminating shallow ground water outside of the 

facility, in the event of a process solution spill, hazardous-chemical spill, or a disposal-system 

failure. The CBW would restrict the flow of ground water from traveling beneath the facility and 

any water that seeps or flows into the area would be drained away. The CBW design calls for 

the wall to be constructed along the south end of the facility’s boundary (Strata, 2013b). The 

CBW would be 0.6 m [2 ft] wide and extend from the ground surface to a minimum of 0.6 m [2 ft] 

into the bedrock; it would be constructed of a soil-bentonite mixture. The configuration of the 

CBW is shown in Figure 2.5 and is described in Addendum 3.1-A of the TR (Strata, 2012b). 

Three French drains (i.e., trenches filled with very porous material, such as gravel) would be 

installed to drain the area within the CBW, when needed (Strata, 2011b; Strata, 2012b). The 

Applicant proposes approximately eight wells to monitor water levels and water quality inside 

and outside the CBW (Strata, 2012b). Any seepage and/or spillage collected on the facility side 

of the CBW would be discharged to the surface impoundments for storage or disposal with 

excess permeate and brine (Strata, 2011b). Construction of a CBW to mitigate impacts to 

shallow ground water beneath impoundments is not included in the GEIS’s description of a 

typical ISR facility design (NRC, 2009b).

The Proposed Action would also include the construction of two double-lined surface 

impoundments (a.k.a “retention ponds” or “ponds”) over a 6.5 ha [16 ac] area; these 

impoundments would be used for process-solution and waste-water management (Strata, 

2011b). Each surface impoundment would include three cells, built with common containment 

berms. At full capacity the two impoundments’ surface area would be about 5.3 ha [13.2 ac]. 

Interconnected pipes between the cells would allow the controlled transfer of solutions or water 

between cells. The impoundments would have double geomembrane liners and a leakdetection system. The design for the impoundments, including the liners, leak-detection 

systems, freeboard requirements, reserve capacities, and average size of an individual 

impoundment are in accordance with the GEIS (NRC, 2009b).

The surface impoundments would be designed to meet the requirements of NRC Regulatory 

Guide 3.11 (NRC, 1980a), all conditions established by the NRC in the Source and Byproduct 

Materials License, and all requirements found in Wyoming Water Quality Rules and 

Regulations, Chapter 11, for lined waste-water surface impoundments (Strata, 2011b; Strata, 

2012b; WDEQ/WQD, 1984). Condition No. 12.16 of the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials 

License would require the Applicant to submit, for NRC’s review and approval, a ground-water 

detection monitoring plan for the impoundments that meets the requirements of Criteria 5 and 

7A of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, prior to construction of the surface impoundments (NRC, 

2014b). 

The Applicant’s surface-impoundment design calls for rectangular cells with maximum internal 

slopes of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (Strata, 2011b; Strata, 2012b). The impoundments would be 

4.6 m [15 ft] deep with 1 m [3 ft] of freeboard and a maximum hydraulic depth of 3.6 m [12 ft]. 

The primary liner would be impermeable high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or polypropylene, 

with a minimum thickness of 36 mils (0.9 mm [0.036 in]). The secondary liner would be a 

geosynthetic material with a minimum thickness of 36 mils (0.9 mm [0.036 in]). The leakdetection system would be installed between the primary and secondary liners. The system 

would consist of a permeable drainage layer such as sand and perforated collection pipes.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-17

The primary purpose of the surface impoundments would be to manage liquid, byproduct 

material (i.e., the permeate and brine described above) to optimize disposal techniques, and to 

provide capacity for liquid-waste storage in the event of “upset,” or accident, conditions. In 

addition, the impoundments would provide some evaporation of stored brine. Under normal 

operating conditions, the water levels in the surface-impoundment cells would be maintained 

such that the volume of liquid in any one cell can be transferred to one of the other two cells to 

facilitate leak repair.

Ross Project Wellfields

Wellfields are the areas over the ore zone(s) where the injection and recovery wells for uranium 

recovery would be located. The proposed wellfields of the Ross Project are expected to 

encompass approximately 65 ha [160 ac] in portions of Sections 7, 17, 18, and 19, in Township 

53N, Range 67W and in portions of Sections 12 and 13 in Township 53N, Range 68W. The 

Applicant notes that the final areal extent of the constructed wellfields is expected to be greater 

as additional ore-zone delineation occurs (Strata, 2011b). However, the maximum area of the 

wellfields would not exceed the total area of the exempted aquifer; this area has been approved 

as 150 m [500 ft] from the outer edges of the wellfields indicated in SEIS Figure 2.4 (EPA, 

2013).

The proposed wellfields would consist of 1,400 – 2,200 recovery and injection wells in addition 

to 140 – 250 monitoring wells. The wellfields would be organized into two uranium-recovery 

units (Strata, 2011b). Each unit would be divided into 15 – 25 modules with approximately 40 

recovery wells per wellfield module (Strata, 2011b). The flow capacity of each wellfield module 

would range from 2,300 L/min [600 gal/min] to 3,800 L/min [1,000 gal/min]. The wellfields would 

be fenced to exclude livestock.

Condition No. 10.19 in the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License would not allow 

wellfields to be installed south of the Little Missouri River until Merit’s use of the oil-field watersupply wells have ceased or diminished to an acceptable level (NRC, 2014b). In addition, 

Strata has amended its Permit to Mine application with WDEQ to specify that, if necessary, 

Strata would provide Merit with an alternative water source (WWC, 2012).

Wells would be constructed to recover uranium from ore deposits found in permeable sand 

zones in stacked roll fronts and tabular ore zones described as “stratabound” deposits in the 

GEIS (NRC, 2009b). The geology of the ore zone at the Ross Project area is described in SEIS 

Section 3.4.1. The average depth to the top of the ore zone ranges from less than 90 m [300 ft] 

to more than 210 m [700 ft] with an average depth of 149 m [490 ft] (Strata, 2011b). The orezone thickness averages 2.7 m [8.9 ft]. The sand units hosting uranium are saturated with 

ground water and are confined aquifers (Strata, 2011b). The hydrogeology of this area is 

described in SEIS Section 3.5.3.

The features and design of the wellfields proposed by the Applicant are generally consistent 

with the wellfields described in the GEIS (NRC, 2009b). 

The primary components of a wellfield module are illustrated in Figure 2.7; these are:

■ Injection wells to introduce lixiviant into the ore zone. 

■ Production (or “recovery”) wells to recover the uranium-enriched (or “pregnant”) lixiviant for 

subsequent processing at the CPP. 
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-18

■ Module buildings (or “header houses”) to manage the pipes (or “flow lines”) that route the 

lixiviant between the injection and recovery wells within a module and the “feeder lines” that 

carry fluids between the module building to a manhole containing a valve. 

■ Valve manholes to manage the pipes to the module buildings, to the CPP, and to other 

valve manholes (or “trunk lines”). 

■ Perimeter-monitoring wells to detect excursions of lixiviant outside the exempted portion of 

the aquifer from which uranium is recovered, should they occur. 

The Applicant proposes three well-construction methods that would each comply with 

WDEQ/LQD requirements (see Figures 2.8, 2.9, and 2.10) (Strata, 2011b).

These methods all conform to the typical well-completion standards described in the GEIS 

(NRC, 2009b). Wells would be constructed of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or fiberglass with a 

sufficient pressure rating to withstand the maximum anticipated injection pressure, the 

maximum external collapsing pressure, and the maximum pressure of cementing; they would be 

constructed in accordance with WDEQ/LQD rules (WDEQ/LQD, 2005a). The casings would be 

joined using an O-ring and spline locking system. Well spacing would range from 15 – 46 m [50 

– 150 ft]. The Applicant proposes that wells configured in a line-drive pattern would likely 

require increased aquifer-restoration efforts because the liklihood of lixiviant outside the 

recovery wells would be greater from a line-drive arrangement than from 5-spot or 7-spot 

patterns; therefore, the Applicant would make limited use of line-drive patterns. Where it is not 

possible to avoid the use of line-drive patterns, the Applicant would perform additional computer 

modeling to determine the most efficient well spacing so as to facilitate aquifer restoration.

Consistent with the typical design described in the GEIS (NRC, 2009b), the Applicant proposes 

that each wellhead would be covered by an insulated fiberglass box in order to provide freeze 

protection and spill containment (Strata, 2011b). The protective box would include a solid base 

with access tunnels for well casing, electrical, and water-flow lines as well as a leak-detection 

system. Each recovery well would contain a submersible pump properly sized to carry solutions 

from the well to the module building. Injection wells would be equipped with air-release valves 

to permit relief of any excess pressure that could occur in the wells.

In the event that recovery, injection, and/or monitoring wells must be located within a floodplain, 

engineered controls and instrumentation would act to prevent leakage to the environment or 

contamination to the wells from a flood event (Strata, 2011b). The well seals would prevent 

inflow of flood waters down the well casing, while the fiberglass structure and bottom 

containment feature would limit exposure of the well to the environment. Erosion-control

measures, such as rip-rap, grading, contouring, and water bars, would be utilized where 

appropriate in order to reduce sediment mobilization and runoff velocities.

Following installation, the well would be “developed” by pumping, air lifting, jetting, and/or 

swabbing to clean it and improve its hydraulic efficiency. The goal of these activities would be 

to remove drilling fluids and any small, fine particulates from the well-completion zone, to 

provide good hydraulic communication, and to maintain the natural geochemical conditions. To 

avoid the situation encountered by Nubeth, in which fine particles settled into the aquifer and 

reduced the rate of injection, the Applicant has proposed an improved design of the filter pack 

that would be installed in wells as well as improved well-development methods to ensure 

removal of fine particles prior to operation.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-19

Figure 2.7

Primary Components of a Ross Project Wellfield Module

Source: Strata, 2011a.
2-20

Figure 2.8

Proposed Well Installation Method 1 for Ross Project Injection and Recovery Well

 

Source: Strata, 2011b. Source: Strata, 2011b.
2-21

Figure 2.9

Proposed Well Installation Method 2 for Ross Project Injection and Recovery 

Source: Strata, 2011b. Source: Strata, 2011b.
2-22

Figure 2.10

Proposed Well Installation Method 3 for Ross Project Injection and Recovery 

Source: Strata, 2011b. Source: Strata, 2011b.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-23

The Applicant expects that the water produced during well development would meet Wyoming’s 

temporary Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WYPDES) standards, which 

would allow well-development water to be discharged directly to the ground surface

(WDEQ/WQD, 2007). The ground water the Applicant discharged during its earlier well-testing 

activities, which it accomplished for its license application and for site characterization, did meet 

the standards for Strata’s temporary WYPDES Permit at that time and, thus, additional 

discharges during well development would be expected to meet the same discharge standards. 

Additional information on expected discharges of ground water under Strata’s WYPDES Permit 

is provided in SEIS Section 2.1.1.5.

As indicated by Condition No. 10.5 of

the Draft Source and Byproduct 

Materials License (NRC, 2014b), prior 

to well operation, the integrity of each 

well would be verified by a pressurebased mechanical-integrity test (MIT) 

that conforms to the procedure 

described in the GEIS and required by 

the WDEQ (NRC, 2009; Strata, 2011b; 

WDEQ/LQD, 2005a). After initial 

testing by the Applicant, each well 

would be retested at five-year intervals. 

In addition, the MIT would be repeated 

if any well were to be entered by a 

drilling bit or an under-reaming tool, or 

if well damage were to be suspected for 

any reason. The well-integrity test 

results would be documented and filed 

onsite as well as provided to 

WDEQ/LQD on a quarterly basis. 

During the intervening time between 

the initial MIT test and the retesting in 

five years, any leak in a well would be

detected by the daily measurements of 

pressure and flow rate of the injection wells, as indicated by Condition No. 10.14 of the Draft 

Source and Byproduct Materials License (NRC, 2014b). Moreover, all monitoring wells 

designed to detect fluid excursions would also identify leaks in the wells themselves.

The Applicant proposes that MIT be conducted by placing inflatable packers or a comparable 

device near the top of the casing and above the screened interval (Strata, 2011b). The packers 

are inflated, and the interval between the packers is pressurized with water to the designated 

test pressure (maximum allowable injection pressure plus a safety factor of 25 percent). This 

pressure must be maintained within 10 percent for 10 minutes in order for the well to pass the 

MIT. A well-integrity record would be completed for each tested well. If a well demonstrates an 

unacceptable pressure drop during the MIT, the packers would be reset, the equipment checked 

for leaks, and the test repeated. If in subsequent tests the well passes the integrity 

requirements, the well would be deemed acceptable for use as an injection, recovery, or 

monitoring well. If a well continues to fail the MIT, it would be plugged and properly abandoned 

What is mechanical integrity testing (MIT)?

After each well is completed, and before the well is 

brought into service, all injection, extraction, and 

monitoring wells are tested for mechanical integrity. A 

“packer” is set above the well screen and near the 

ground surface, and the well casing is filled with water. 

At the surface, the well is pressurized with either air or 

water to 125 percent of the maximum operating 

pressure, which is calculated based upon the strength 

of the casing material and depth. The well pressure is 

monitored to ensure significant pressure drops do not 

occur through drillhole leaks. A pressure drop of no 

more than 10 percent in a period of 10 – 20 minutes 

indicates that the casing and grout are sound (i.e., do 

not leak) and that the well is fit for service. Wellintegrity tests are also performed if a well has been 

damaged by nearby surface or subsurface activities or 

has been serviced with equipment or procedures that 

could damage the well casing, such as insertion of a 

drill bit or cutting tool. Additionally, each well is retested 

periodically (once each five years or less) to ensure its 

continued integrity. If a well casing fails an MIT, the well 

is taken out of service, repaired, and retested. If an 

acceptable test result cannot be obtained after repairs, 

the well is plugged and properly abandoned.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-24

(Strata, 2011b). Any well excluded due to MIT failure, or any that have arrived at the end of 

their useful life, would be properly abandoned. A well-abandonment record would be included 

in the wellfield data package, as would be required by License Condition 10.12 (NRC, 2014b). 

The Applicant’s proposed design for pipes and module buildings is consistent with the industry 

standard described in the GEIS (NRC, 2009b). Module buildings (referred to as pump and 

header houses in the GEIS) would be located throughout the wellfield and would be 

approximately 4.6 m x 12 m [15 ft x 40 ft] in size (see Figure 2.7) (Strata, 2011b). Piping from 

the module building to the CPP is referred to as feeder lines and trunk lines. Flow to injection 

wells and from recovery wells would be conveyed through 2.5 – 5 cm [1 – 2 in] HDPE pipelines 

(flow lines) that are connected through a manifold in the module building. Pipes inside the 

module buildings would be HDPE, PVC, or stainless steel rated for an operating pressure 

greater than the proposed maximum injection pressure. Feeder-line and trunk-line junctions 

would be contained in valve manholes located along the trunk lines. Each module building 

would have the capability of being isolated from the trunk lines by manually operated butterfly 

valves contained in the valve manholes. Piping would be buried below the frost line.

Each well flow line would have a meter to record the total flow passing through each flow line, 

pressure transmitter, and manual valve to control the flow rate. A small sample-collection valve 

for each well would be included on the recovery flow lines. The recovery-well flow lines would 

enter a manifold on one side of the module building, and the injection well lines would enter a 

manifold on the other side. A manifold building would house: 1) electrical equipment required to 

control the recovery pumps; 2) a pressure-limiting valve, a pressure transmitter, and equipment 

to add the oxidant to lixiviant on the injection manifold; and 3) flow meters that would indicate 

rate and totalizer readings on the trunk lines (Strata, 2011b). Each module building would have 

a manhole to access flow lines and feeder lines (see Figure 2.7). The manholes would also 

contain leak-detection systems. 

The Applicant would test for leaks with fresh water on the pipelines prior to their burial, in order 

to ensure the pipelines’ mechanical integrity (Strata, 2011b). The tests would be conducted in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations or industry standards during 

construction. In the event of leakage from pipelines or fittings, the defective component would 

be replaced. Prior to backfilling the trench dug to install a pipeline, the Applicant would perform 

a final inspection of all pipes and valves, the quality of the pipe embedment material, and the 

suitability of the backfill. Pipeline installation and trench backfilling would follow standard 

procedures that would be designed to ensure the quality of the installation and backfilling 

(Strata, 2011b). These procedures include the Applicant’s:

■ Laying of pipe at required grades and lines. 

■ Minimizing accumulation of water during laying or backfilling. 

■ Limiting lateral displacement with use of embedment material. 

■ Preventing contamination of the trench with foreign, unsuitable material. 

■ Covering pipe with at least 0.6 – 2 m [2 – 6 ft] of material. 

■ Using insulated tracer wire and warning tape. 

■ Using properly sized and placed bedding material. 
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-25

■ Using proper backfill material, which would not impose undue shock or unbalance to the 

pipe (i.e., frozen soils, mud, or snow). 

■ Using trench plugs at the appropriate spacing, particularly at or near areas of shallow 

ground water. 

Condition No. 11.3 of the 

Draft Source and 

Byproduct Materials 

License would require 

the Applicant to install a 

monitoring-well ring 

around the perimeter of 

each wellfield as well as

monitoring wells in the 

underlying and overlying 

aquifers (NRC, 2014b); 

this monitoring-well ring 

would be used to detect 

horizontal and vertical 

excursions of uraniumrecovery solutions during 

uranium-recovery 

operation (see SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.2) (Strata, 

2011b). Prior to 

commencing ISR 

operations, these wells 

would allow sampling 

and analysis of ground

water—in this SEIS, this type of monitoring is called “post-licensing, pre-operational.” The 

resulting post-licensing, pre-operational concentration-based levels would be used to calculate, 

using robust statistical procedures, groundwater protection standards called the Ross Project’s 

upper control limits (UCLs). These post-licensing, pre-operational values and the calculated 

UCLs would be established for each separate uranium-recovery unit (these will be specified in 

the Source and Byproduct Materials License). During uranium-recovery wellfield operation, the 

Applicant would then sample ground water from the monitoring wells and compare the analytical 

values to the NRC-specified UCLs to determine whether an excursion of any solution (such as 

lixiviant) into the surrounding aquifers has occurred. The Applicant would use Methods 2 or 3 

(shown in Figures 2.9 and 2.10) to install these ground-water monitoring wells.

The Applicant’s site-characterization efforts, which were conducted prior to its licenseapplication submittal to the NRC, established “pre-licensing, site-characterization” values of 

certain ground-water constituents; these values represent the constituent concentrations 

currently present in the ground water under the Ross Project area (Strata, 2011a; Strata, 

2011b). (See the text box above.) Later, prior to actual uranium-recovery wellfield operation, 

but after the Source and Byproduct Materials License is issued for wellfield construction, the 

ground water in each wellfield would be analyzed for the post-licensing, pre-operational 

concentrations of constituents specified by the NRC (NRC, 2003a; NRC, 2014b).

What is pre-licensing, site-characterization vs. post-licensing, preoperational ground-water monitoring? 

As described in the NRC's Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium 

Extraction License Applications, NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003a), a license 

applicant, in support of its application, must provide information regarding the 

area or site proposed for uranium recovery. This requires an applicant to 

collect environmental-media samples and have those samples analyzed for 

certain constituents, or parameters. As part of what are called in this SEIS 

“pre-licensing, site-characterization” efforts, ground-water monitoring wells 

are installed and ground-water samples are obtained for at least four quarters 

of the one year prior to license-application submission. These samples are 

analyzed for certain water-quality constituents that are important to the 

characterization of existing conditions at a particular site.

After the NRC has issued a license to an applicant, the licensee begins 

construction of its facility as well as installation of its uranium-recovery 

wellfields. A single wellfield consists of many ground-water wells; when all of 

these wells have been installed, water-quality samples are obtained from 

these new wells and are analyzed for the constituents that the NRC specifies 

in the license, before any uranium-recovery may occur. These sampling and 

analysis efforts, and the data values that are established as a result of these 

efforts, are called in this SEIS, “post-licensing, pre-operational.” These postlicensing, pre-operational data, after some statistical analysis, are the values 

to which excursion-detection and/or aquifer-restoration monitoring are 

compared.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-26

In addition to the perimeter-well ring and the wells monitoring the aquifers above and below the 

uranium-recovery aquifer, the Applicant would sample representative wells in the ore zone 

(which may be also used for production) before they are put into operation in order to collect 

post-licensing, pre-operational water-quality data from the ore-zone aquifer. Within each 

wellfield, the well spacing that the Applicant proposes is in accordance with the basic 

requirements described in the GEIS for wellfield design including monitoring wells (NRC, 

2009b). Typical well spacing for a five-spot or seven-spot pattern is between 12 – 46 m [40 – 

150 ft] apart. As indicated in Condition No. 11.3 of the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials 

License, a minimum of 1 injection or recovery well per 0.8 ha [2 ac] would be required to be 

sampled for post-licensing, pre-operational water quality in the ore-zone aquifer of each wellfield 

prior to its operation (NRC, 2014b). Wells completed in the aquifer underlying the ore zone and 

wells completed in the aquifer overlying the ore zone would be installed at an density of 1 well 

per 1.6 ha [4 ac] of wellfield to detect vertical migration (Strata, 2011b). The Applicant also 

proposes a spacing of the perimeter-monitoring wells of 120 m [400 ft] apart and at a distance of 

approximate 120 [400 ft] from the edge of the respective wellfield to allow the Applicant to detect 

potential horizontal excursions. As indicated in Condition No. 11.3B of the Draft Source and 

Byproduct Materials License, wells would not be allowed to be installed outside the exempted 

aquifer (NRC, 2014b). Computer modeling by the Applicant has demonstrated that the 

proposed spacing would detect hydraulic anomalies as manifested by unexpected water-level 

changes (see SEIS Section 4.5.1.2) before the lixiviant has moved beyond the active uraniumrecovery area.

To reduce the possibility of excursions, Condition No. 10.12 of the Draft Source and Byproduct 

Materials License and WDEQ/LQD indicates that all previously drilled exploration and/or orebody delineation drillholes that can be located within a monitoring-well ring would be re-drilled to 

the total depth of the drillhole and sealed with cement slurry or bentonite grout (NRC, 2014b; 

Strata, 2011b). These historical exploration and/or delineation drillholes would be located 

through the use of a hand-held metal detector that would locate the brass cap associated with 

each drillhole, usually with its identification number. After a drillhole is located, to properly 

abandon it, a small drilling rig would be set up over the drillhole to ream it out to its total depth. 

A cement slurry or bentonite grout would then be introduced from the bottom up to the ground 

surface along the entire drillhole length. Details of each drillhole’s abandonment would be 

documented in a record (examples in Strata, 2011b, Addendum 2.7-F). These would be filed at 

Strata’s Oshoto Field Office in the appropriate drillhole file and would be provided with the 

respective “hydrologic-test data package” (NRC, 2014b). 

Deep-Injection Wells

The Applicant plans to dispose of liquid effluent generated during uranium-recovery operations 

via UIC Class I deep-injection disposal wells. The Applicant has received a ten-year permit 

(UIC Permit No. 10-263), dated April 4, 2011, for up to five UIC Class I deep-disposal wells from 

WDEQ (WDEQ/WQD, 2011b). This Permit authorizes the injection of non-hazardous liquids 

into the Flathead and Deadwood Formations within specified intervals at depths of about 2,488 

– 2,669 m [8,163 – 8,755 ft] below ground surface (bgs); these formations are at least 150 m 

[500 ft] below the lowermost potential USDW (i.e., the Madison Formation).
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-27

Under the terms of the UIC Class I 

Permit, the Applicant is allowed to 

inject into the Class I deep-disposal 

wells the following: operation bleed 

streams, yellowcake wash water, 

sand-filter and IX-resin wash water, 

onsite laboratory waste water, RO 

brine, aquifer-restoration ground 

water, facility wash-down water, 

wash waters used in cleaning or 

servicing waste-disposal-system 

equipment, and storm water—all 

generated during uranium-recovery 

activities—as well as fluids produced 

during the drilling, completion, 

testing, or stimulation of wells or test 

drillholes related to uraniumrecovery operations, or during the 

work-over or abandonment of any 

such well, and drilling-equipment 

wash water. Under the terms of the 

UIC Permit, the Applicant is also 

prohibited from injecting certain 

materials into these wells. For 

example, hazardous wastes as 

defined by EPA or WDEQ cannot be 

injected into these wells 

(WDEQ/WQD, 2011b). Well 

construction, operation, MIT 

inspection, and proper well 

abandonment techniques and 

requirements, are defined in this 

Permit as well. The Applicant would 

need to obtain written acceptance of 

financial-assurance methods from 

WDEQ prior to construction of each 

of the proposed wells.

The Applicant proposes that each 

well location would consist of a 76 m 

x 76 m [250 ft x 250 ft] pad with a 

storage tank (Strata, 2011b; Strata, 

2012b). Surface equipment for the 

deep-disposal wells would include 

storage tanks, pumps, filtration 

systems, instrumentation and control 

systems, and equipment for injection 

of process chemicals (Strata, 2011b). Pads would either be asphalt pavement or gravel and 

would be retained through the life of the disposal well in order to conduct maintenance. Access 

What are underground injection control permits?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 

delegated authority to the State of Wyoming (the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality [WDEQ]) to administer 

its own Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permits. State’s 

with delegated authority from EPA have regulations that 

meet or are more stringent than those of the EPA. Class I 

and III wells under the UIC program are most applicable to in 

situ uranium recovery.

■ Aquifer Exemption: UIC criteria for the exemption of 

an aquifer that might otherwise be defined as an 

underground source of drinking water are found at 40 

CFR Part 146.4. These criteria include whether the 

aquifer is currently a underground source of drinking 

water (USDW), whether the water quality is such that it 

would be economically or technologically impractical to 

use the water to supply a public water system, and 

whether the aquifer contains minerals that are expected 

to be commercially producible. An aquifer exemption is 

granted by the WDEQ and requires EPA approval. 

Wyoming’s rules for In-Situ Mining require that the 

exempted aquifer be restorated to its pre-mining class of 

use after the operations are complete (WDEQ/LQD, 

2005). This requirement is more stringent than EPA’s 

rules which only require that ground-water protection 

standards be met at the aquifer-exemption boundary 

(i.e. contaminants cannot migrate from an exepted 

aquifer to the surrounding USDW).

■ Industrial and Municipal Waste Disposal Wells (UIC 

Class I): Wells in this Class are used for the deep 

disposal of industrial, commercial, or municipal waste 

below the deepest USDW. This type of well uses 

injection and requires applied pressure. For in situ 

uranium recovery, this type of UIC permit is necessary to 

use deep-well injection for disposal of non-hazardous 

liquid wasteswaste. The WDEQ is responsible for 

Wyoming’s UIC Program and, therefore, it is the agency 

that approves Class I permits for UIC wells.

■ Mining Wells (UIC Class III): This type of UIC permit 

governs the injection wells used in the recovery of 

minerals. They include experimental-technology wells; 

underground coal-gasification wells; and wells for the in 

situ recovery of materials such as copper, trona, and

uranium. For in situ uranium recovery, this type of UIC 

permit applies to wells that inject lixiviant into a uraniumbearing aquifer. The corresponding monitoring and 

recovery wells are regulated through the WDEQ by both 

its Water Quality Division (WQD) and Land Quality 

Division (LQD), which cooperate through a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which facilitates 

in situ uranium-recovery oversight by the WDEQ/LQD.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-28

roads to well sites with widths up to 4.3 m [14 ft] would be constructed on existing roads where 

possible. The supply pipelines to the wells would be 15 – 25 cm [6 – 10 in] HDPE plastic.

Pressures and flow rates for the pipes and disposal wells would be constantly monitored at the 

CPP. Instrumentation details for the deep-disposal wells are provided in Addendum 4.2-A of the 

TR (Strata, 2011b). System instrumentation would provide the necessary measures to ensure 

safe operation of the disposal system. At a minimum, instrumentation would include a flow 

totalizer, flow meter, pressure regulator, pressure indicator, pressure switch, annular tank level 

indicator, and injection pressure chart recorder. Water quality, fluid quantity, and injection rates 

would be reported to the WDEQ/LQD UIC program as required by the UIC Permit.

Injection rates up to the maximum are controlled by surface-injection pressures that are limited 

to the fracture pressure. Exceeding the limiting surface pressure set forth in the permit or 

creating or propagating fractures within the receiving zone would be a permit violation. The 

permit requires the installation of a kill switch on the injection tubing to preclude violation of the 

pressure limits. 

2.1.1.2 Ross Project Operation

As shown by the proposed schedule in Figure 2.6, uranium recovery during the proposed Ross 

Project would follow a “phased” approach, where one group of wellfield modules could be in 

operation, while preceding wellfield modules are being engaged in aquifer restoration (Strata, 

2011b). During the operation phase, three major phases would occur involving the wellfields: 

an operation-only phase, a concurrent operation- and aquifer-restoration phase, and an aquiferrestoration-only phase. All three operating phases are discussed in further detail in SEIS 

Section 4.5.1.

Uranium Mobilization

The Applicant proposes the use of an alkaline lixiviant to dissolve the uranium as described in 

GEIS Section 2.4 (NRC, 2009; Strata, 

2011b). Gaseous oxygen (O2) or 

hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is used as 

the oxidant and sodium bicarbonate 

(NaHCO3) or CO2 is added to aid in 

keeping uranium in its dissolved state. 

Native ground water would be fortified 

with sodium bicarbonate at the CPP 

and then pumped to the module 

buildings where the oxidant and, 

potentially, CO2 would be added at the 

injection manifolds located inside the 

module buildings (see Figure 2.7).

The Applicant proposes the carbonate/bicarbonate lixiviant because of its compatibility with 

minerals within the ore zone. In addition, carbonate/bicarbonate lixiviants are generally 

considered more amenable to aquifer restoration than acidic lixiviants (NRC, 2009b). 

Preliminary leach testing performed by the Applicant in 2010 demonstrated that this type of 

What are the basic steps of uranium mobilization?

■ Ground-Water Injection

Uranium mobilization is accomplished by the injection of

a non-uranium-bearing (“barren”) solution, or “lixiviant,”

through “injection” wells into the uranium-bearing ore 

zone. The lixiviant moves through pores in the ore-zone 

aquifer, dissolving uranium and other metals.

■ Ground-Water Extraction

Recovery, or “production,” wells extract the now 

“pregnant” lixiviant, which contains uranium and other 

dissolved metals, and the solution is then pumped to a 

central processing plant (CPP) for further uranium 

recovery and purification.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-29

lixiviant successfully mobilized uranium into solution. Comparison of the Applicant’s expected 

concentration ranges of chemical constituents in the pregnant lixiviant with the typical lixiviant 

chemistry presented in Table 2.4-1 of GEIS Section 2.4.1.1 shows the two as consistent, except 

for higher concentrations of uranium and vanadium that could be present in the pregnant 

lixiviant at the Ross Project (Strata, 2011b; NRC, 2009b).

As described in Section 2.4.3 of the GEIS, the recovery wells extract slightly more water than is 

injected into the ore-containing aquifer, which creates a “cone of depression” within the 

respective wellfield and, thus, maintains an inward flow of ground water. This inflow prevents 

migration of lixiviant toward the perimeter-monitoring wells. The excess water, referred to as 

“production bleed,” is a byproduct material that must be properly managed and disposed (NRC, 

2009b). For the Ross Project, the Applicant proposes a production-bleed range from 0.5 

percent to 2 percent, and averaging 1.25 percent of the injection volume (Strata, 2011b). At the 

maximum flow rate, approximately 360 L/min [94 gal/min] of production bleed would be 

generated.

The Applicant proposes to use actual wellfield data and reservoir-engineering software to 

predict a sufficient bleed rate to minimize water consumption while the potential for hydraulic 

anomalies outside of the uranium-recovery area is minimized (Strata, 2011b). The wellfield 

flows would be balanced to produce appropriate bleed based upon the module-injection and 

recovery feeder-line meters. The individual well-flow targets would be determined on a perpattern basis to ensure that local wellfields are balanced on at least a weekly basis. 

The Applicant proposes a maximum injection pressure of 970 kPa [140 lb2

/in] measured at the 

injection manifold. This pressure is less than the formation-fracture pressure, which is 

approximately 2,240 kPa [325 lb2

/in] at the Ross Project and less than the pressure rating for 

operation of the pipes and other equipment (Strata, 2011b). Although injection pressures are 

initially expected to be relatively low, pressure requirements within a specific wellfield generally 

tend to increase with time. The Applicant suggests that, in order to maintain flow rates and 

wellfield balance, some wells would require flexibility in their allowable injection pressure. To 

specifically avoid the injection-restriction problems that plagued the Nubeth operation, the 

Applicant has proposed several improvements to well design, well development, and filtration 

(Strata, 2011a; Strata, 2011b).

Flows and pressures for the injection and recovery pipeline network would be monitored 

continuously at the module building, valve manhole, and CPP; the pressures would also be 

displayed in the CPP’s control room (Strata, 2011b). Changes in flow or pressure that are 

outside of normal operating ranges would result in the activation of visual and audible alarms in 

the CPP, and eventual automatic sequential shutdown of pumps and control valves, if the 

condition is not corrected promptly.

In addition, the leak-detection sensors that would be located in the module-building sumps and 

the valve manholes would trigger audible and visual alarms at that location and in the CPP if 

fluid is detected (Strata, 2011b). The Applicant could also utilize dual leak detection in these 

areas, which would consist of two sensors at high and low levels within a module building. If 

fluid is detected by the low-level sensor, an audible and visual alarm would be triggered at that 

location and in the CPP. If fluid is detected by the high-level sensor, automatic pump shutdown 

would occur to prevent the fluid from overflowing the containment system and contaminating the 

surrounding environment.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-30

Pipe and fitting leaks at the wellheads would be detected by sensors located in the wellhead 

sumps. In addition, a system would be instituted in the facility’s operating plan for personnel to 

inspect the interior of each wellhead sump on a weekly basis. Minor leaks or other problems 

would be detected in this manner and then promptly repaired to reduce the likelihood of major 

releases.

As noted in SEIS Section 2.1.1, NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, as well as in 

Condition Nos. 11.3, 11.4, and 11.5 in the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, would 

require Strata to institute an operational monitoring-well system to detect excursions (NRC, 

2014b). NRC guidance defines an excursion as occurring when two or more excursion 

indicators or parameters in a monitoring well exceed their UCLs or if one excursion parameter 

exceeds its UCLs by 20 percent (NRC, 2009b). GEIS Section 2.4.1.4 describes how ISR 

operations can potentially affect the ground-water quality near an ISR facility when, during an 

excursion, lixiviant escapes the zone where uranium-recovery is underway and is not recovered 

by the intended recovery wells (NRC, 2009b). This would result in either a vertical or horizontal 

excursion. Excursions can be caused by an improper water balance between injection and 

recovery wells, undetected high-permeability geological strata or faults, improperly plugged or 

abandoned drillholes, discontinuity within the confining layers, poor well integrity, or unintended 

fracturing in the uranium-recovery zone or surrounding geological strata (NRC, 2009b). The 

monitoring of water levels in the perimeter-monitoring wells would be performed by the 

Applicant as indicated in Condition No. 10.7 of the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials 

License to ensure that a net inward hydraulic gradient is maintained (NRC, 2014b). A continual 

inward gradient would serve to reduce the potential of an excursion. Concentrations of waterquality indicators in the ground water from monitoring wells would be used to establish initial 

excursion indicators (i.e., post-licensing, pre-operational concentrations), and these indicators 

would be used to detect whether an excursion has occurred.

The NRC will require that the Applicant conduct sampling of its monitoring wells twice each 

month and analyze those samples for the excursion indicators, chloride, conductivity, and total 

alkalinity (NRC, 2014b, License Condition 11.4), so it can be determined whether an excursion 

has occurred. The Applicant has proposed such an operational ground-water monitoring 

program (Strata, 2011b). Water levels would be routinely measured during the sampling of the 

perimeter, overlying, and underlying monitoring wells in order to provide an early warning for 

impending wellfield problems. An increasing water level in a perimeter-monitoring well has 

been shown to be an indication of a local flow imbalance within the wellfield, which could result 

in an excursion (Strata, 2011b). An increasing water level in an overlying or underlying 

monitoring well could be caused by the migration of fluid from the ore zone or by an injection 

well-casing failure. As stated above, samples would also be collected from the appropriate 

monitoring wells twice monthly and would be analyzed for the License-established excursion 

parameters.

In addition, the Applicant expects that dedicated pressure transducers and/or in situ waterquality instruments could be used in the perimeter-monitoring wells to provide the earliest 

detection of potential excursions or hydraulic anomalies. The Applicant anticipates that this 

monitoring effort would allow corrective action to be immediately taken to balance locally the 

injection and recovery flows or to shut down individual injection well(s), as necessary (Strata, 

2011b).
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-31

As indicated by

Condition No. 11.5 of the 

Draft Source and 

Byproduct Materials 

License (NRC, 2014b), 

the Applicant will be 

required to notify the 

NRC within 24 hours if 

an excursion were 

confirmed in the 

Project’s ground-water 

monitoring wells. If a 

vertical excursion 

occurs, then the 

Applicant’s injection of 

lixiviant into the uraniumrecovery, or production, 

area surrounding the 

monitoring well will

cease and, for any 

excursion, corrective 

action would be initiated 

(the GEIS documented 

that vertical excursions 

tend to be more difficult 

to recover than 

horizontal excursions) 

(NRC, 2014b; NRC, 

2009b). The NRC would 

require that verification 

and progress groundwater samples are 

collected by the 

Applicant weekly until 

the excursion indicators 

are at or below their 

respective UCLs (i.e., 

the excursion is 

“recovered”) as indicated 

by three consecutive 

weekly samples.

The Applicant would also be required to provide to the NRC within 60 days a confirmation of an 

excursion, a description of the excursion, a discussion of the corrective actions taken, and an 

analysis of the results of those corrective actions. According to Condition No. 11.5 of the Draft 

What are excursion indicators and upper control limits?

Prior to the commencement of injection of lixiviant into a wellfield and actual 

uranium recovery, an Applicant must propose excursion indicators (which are 

water-quality parameters, such as chloride, that are measured to describe the 

quality of the ground water) as well as upper control limits (UCLs) per 10 

CFR Part 40, Appendix A, and as per the license the NRC would issue (10 

CFR Part 40). The selection of the excursion indicators would be based 

upon post-licensing, pre-operational ground-water-quality (i.e., chemical 

constituents occurring in the ground water) and lixiviant chemistry.

Only after a wellfield and its monitoring-well ring are installed would several 

ground-water samples be obtained and analyzed by the Applicant. The 

results of these analyses provide post-licensing, pre-operational values for 

the respective ground-water-quality parameters that would be used to 

calculate UCLs for the excursion indiators. If, during ISR operations, the UCL 

for two excursion indicators are exceeded in a monitoring well, or if one UCL 

is exceeded by 20 percent, then an excursion of lixiviant would be defined as 

occurring.

UCLs are set for each uranium-recovery unit and the constituent 

concentrations for selected excursion indicators are set so as to provide early 

warning if uranium-bearing fluids (e.g., lixiviant) are moving away from a 

particular wellfield. The UCLs would be established by a licensee according 

to the methodology set forth in its source and byproduct materials license,

followed by review and approval by NRC staff. As described by the NRC 

(2003a), the best excursion indicators are easily measurable parameters that 

are found in higher concentrations during uranium recovery than in the 

natural ground water.

At most in situ uranium-recovery operations, for example, chloride is selected 

because it does not interact strongly with the minerals in the ore zone; it is 

easily measured; and chloride concentrations are significantly increased 

during ISR operations. Conductivity, which is correlated to total dissolved 

solids (TDS), is also considered a good excursion indicator because of the 

high concentrations of dissolved constituents in the lixiviant as compared to 

the surrounding aquifers (Staub et al., 1986, and Deutsch et al., 1985, as 

cited in NRC, 2009b). Total alkalinity (carbonate plus bicarbonate plus 

hydroxide) is used as an indicator in wellfields where sodium bicarbonate or 

carbon dioxide is used in the lixiviant.

At least three excursion indicators are selected to be monitored in each 

wellfield, and the UCLs are determined using statistical analyses of the postlicensing, pre-operational water quality in the respective wellfield. The NRC 

staff has identified several statistical methods that can be used to establish 

UCLs. For example, in areas with good water quality (TDS less than 500 

mg/L), the UCL could be set at a value of 5 standard deviations above the 

mean of the measured concentrations. Conversely, if the chemistry or a 

particular excursion indicator is very consistent, a specific concentration 

could be specified as the UCL. If post-licensing, pre-operational data indicate 

that the ground water is homogeneous across the wellfield, the same UCLs 

could be used for all monitoring wells. Alternatively, if the water chemistry in 

the wellfield is highly variable, unique UCLs could be set for individual wells.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-32

Source and Byproduct Materials License, an excursion will be considered corrected when 

concentrations of all indicator parameters defining the excursion are at or below the UCLs that 

would be defined in License Condition No. 11.4 for three consecutive weekly samples (NRC, 

2014b). If an excursion cannot be recovered within 60 days of confirmation, the Applicant will

be required either to terminate lixiviant injection within the wellfield or a portion of the wellfield 

until the excursion is corrected, or to increase the surety established for the Ross Project by an 

amount sufficient to cover the full third-party costs for the correction and remediation of the 

excursion. As described by GEIS Section 2.11.4, the NRC licensees typically retrieve horizontal 

excursions back into the uranium-recovery zone by their repairing and reconditioning respective 

wells as well as adjusting the pumping rates in the wellfield where an excursion has occurred. 

Uranium and Vanadium Processing

Uranium and vanadium in pregnant lixiviant would be extracted from solution by IX resin, 

stripped from the uranium-loaded (or “uranium-bearing”) IX resin (“eluted”), precipitated into a 

slurry, thickened, dewatered, dried, and packaged as yellowcake (Strata, 2011b). Prior to 

introduction to the IX columns, pregnant lixiviant could be passed through a de-sanding filtration 

system (Strata, 2011b). CO2 could also be added to the pregnant lixiviant to optimize the IX 

resin-loading capacity. The filtered, pregnant lixiviant would then be passed through two-stage, 

pressurized, downflow IX columns, where the uranium and the vanadium dissolved in the 

lixiviant would be selectively adsorbed onto the IX resin beads. In exchange of uranium and 

vanadium, the resin releases chloride, bicarbonate, or sulfate ions into the lixiviant. The barren 

lixiviant exiting the second IX column would be monitored and would normally contain less than 

2 mg/kg (“parts per million” or “ppm”) of uranium. When the resin beads in the IX column 

become saturated with uranium and vanadium, the columns would be taken offline for resin 

elution.

Prior to elution (“elution” is the process whereby the resin beads are “washed” with salt water to 

remove uranium and vanadium), the uranium-loaded resin would be transferred to vibrating 

screens to wash away sand, silt, broken resin, scale, and other process contaminants. The 

solid material recovered during this step would be collected, stored, and disposed of as a 

byproduct material. The elution process would then consist of four stages. The first three 

sequential stages are where a single batch of resin is contacted with a volume of eluant (water 

containing approximately 10 percent sodium chloride and 2 percent sodium carbonate) three 

times the volume of the batch of uranium-loaded resin. The fourth stage is a final rinse where 

the batch of resin is contacted with four bed volumes, or pore volumes, of fresh water (i.e., four 

bed volumes is equal to four times the amount of pore space [i.e., empty space] in the resin) 

(Strata, 2011b). In addition to processing resin from the Ross Project wellfields, the elution 

circuit would have the capacity to process uranium-loaded resin from other uranium-recovery 

operations owned either by the Applicant or another company as well as from water-treatment 

facilities that use IX resin to filter or condition water (Strata, 2011b).

The precipitation circuit produces a slurry of uranium solids from the eluant. The Applicant 

proposes a design consisting of multiple precipitation tanks plumbed in series, with mechanical 

agitation. The sequential addition of chemicals to bring about precipitation would be as follows: 

1) sulfuric acid, 2) sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), 3) hydrogen peroxide, and 4) sodium 

hydroxide. The slurry containing the uranium precipitate would then be pumped to a yellowcake 

thickener, which separates the solid particulates from the liquid. The “underflow” from this 

thickener (i.e., the still-wet separated solids) would then undergo a second stage of dissolution 
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-33

and precipitation to remove any impurities entrained in the first precipitate (the underflow). The 

“overflow” (i.e., the liquid with few solid particulates remaining after precipitation) from both 

thickener stages would then go to the vanadium-recovery circuit.

After precipitation, the yellowcake slurry would be washed in a filter press to remove excess 

chloride and other soluble contaminants. After multiple washings, the filter cake would be dried 

and packaged (Strata, 2011b). Drying would be accomplished in completely enclosed lowtemperature vacuum dryers. The GEIS describes the type of dryer proposed by the Applicant 

as the standard for newer ISR facilities (NRC, 2009b). The off-gases generated during the 

drying cycle would be filtered and scrubbed to remove entrained particulates (see SEIS 

Sections 4.7.1.2 and 4.13.1.2 as well as the NRC’s Ross Project SER). The GEIS noted that 

the drying, filtration, and scrubber process proposed by the Applicant is designed to capture all 

escaping particulates (NRC, 2009b).

The dryers would be batch type, and drying would typically take 16 hours per batch. Batch 

dryers create the potential for the escape of yellowcake during loading and unloading of the 

dryer. The Applicant proposes to reduce this potential by the design of the equipment. A watersealed vacuum pump would provide ventilation during loading of the yellowcake slurry into the 

dryer and transferring the dried product into 210-L [55-gal] drums by facility personnel (Strata, 

2011b). Transfer equipment would be located directly below the dryer and would include a 

discharge chute, rotary airlock valve, ventilated drum hood, and a drum conveyor. A drum 

would be placed beneath the dryer discharge chute; the ventilation hood would be secured over 

the drum opening to prevent escape of yellowcake into the surrounding environment. After a 

drum is in place and securely covered, the rotary airlock valve would be activated to start the 

loading process. A viewport in the hood would allow personnel to determine when the drum is 

full. The loaded drum would be weighed and labeled, and then moved to the side to cool and 

off-gas before it is sealed and stored for offsite shipment.

The uranium-depleted solutions from the uranium thickeners would be pumped to a vanadium 

precipitation tank (Strata, 2011b). Steam, facility air, ammonia, and ammonium sulfate would 

be added to cause precipitation of crystals containing vanadium. The precipitate slurry would 

be pumped to a horizontal belt filter, where the solution is removed from the crystals. The filter 

cake would be washed and transferred to a batch vacuum rotary dryer similar to the dryer that 

would be used to dry uranium yellowcake. Off-gas from the precipitation tanks and dryer would 

be filtered to remove particulates and directed to a wet scrubber to capture ammonia for reuse. 

The dried product would then be packaged for offsite shipment. The Applicant estimates that 

0.1 – 2 kg [0.2 – 4.4 lb] of V2O5 would be produced for every 1 kg [2.2 lb] of U3O8. 

Air-effluent discharge points from the uranium-recovery processes would be the precipitationtank vents, filtration-unit exhaust points, and off-gas vents from the dryers as well as the vaporreturn lines on the acid storage tanks and the vents, tanks, and silos used to manage sodium 

carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, and sodium chloride. Acid fumes from precipitation-tank vents 

and filtration-unit exhaust points would be ducted through a common system to a wet scrubber 

and then discharged to the atmosphere. The scrubber proposed by the Applicant in its 

application to WDEQ/AQD for its Air Quality Permit is rated at 99 percent removal efficiency for 

sulfuric acid. The scrubber that would be on the vapor-return lines on the acid-storage tanks 

would remove 99 percent of the moisture containing the acid vapors. The emissions from 

handling sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, and sodium chloride would be vented to a dust 

bag or fabric filter which would remove particulate emissions. The Applicant determined for its 
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-34

application to WDEQ/AQD for its Air Quality Permit that, based upon the specification for 

emissions removal by the type of filtration equipment that it would implement, the total 

emissions at maximum yellowcake production would be 1.1 kg/yr [2.4 lb/yr] for sodium chloride, 

0.23 kg/yr [0.5 lbs/yr] for sodium carbonate, and 1.4 kg/yr [3.2 lb/yr] for sodium bicarbonate.

The waste water would be treated by RO (Strata, 2011b). The water quality of permeate that is 

anticipated by the Applicant is provided in Table 2.2. Most of the permeate from the RO circuit 

would be recycled back to the wellfield as lixiviant. The lined surface impoundments within the 

facility would be used to store and manage excess permeate and brine. Permeate and brine 

would be managed as byproduct material. Brine would be disposed in the UIC Class I deepinjection wells.

Table 2.2

Permeate Water Quality

Parameter Unit

Typical

Value

Minimum

Value

Maximum

Value

EC μS/cm 300 180 400

TDS mg/L 200 100 250

pH s.u. 6.5 6 8

Alkalinity as

CaCO3

mg/L 100 50 200

Sulfate mg/L 15 10 20

Bicarbonate mg/L 150 50 200

Chloride mg/L 15 5 25

Calcium mg/L 0 0 1

Sodium mg/L 50 20 100

Manganese mg/L 0 0 0.1

Selenium mg/L 0 0 0.1

Arsenic mg/L 0 0 0.1

Uranium mg/L 0 0 0.1

Radium pCi/L 30 5 100

2.1.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration

After uranium recovery in a wellfield has ended, the aquifer would contain ground-water 

constituents mobilized by the lixiviant during uranium recovery. The purpose of aquifer 

restoration is to restore the ground-water quality in the wellfield to the ground-water-protection 

standards specified at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5) (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.2), 

so as to ensure no hazard to human health or the environment (NRC, 2014b). Water quality is 

measured at the point of compliance that coincides with the established boundary of the 

exempted aquifer. During uranium-recovery operation, the point-of-compliance wells would be

those in the perimeter ring as well as those in the overlying-and underlying-aquifers, as required 

by the ground-water monitoring program (see SEIS Section 6). During aquifer restoration, 

however, the group of point-of-compliance wells would be expanded to include the 

representative wells in the exempted aquifer. The Applicant would be required to provide a 

Source: Table 4.2-2 in Strata, 2011b; Strata, 2013b.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-35

financial-surety instrument that would cover anticipated and delayed aquifer-restoration costs 

(as well as facility decontamination and decommissioning) to comply with 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A, Criterion (9). The NRC would review the adequacy of this instrument annually (see 

SEIS Section 2.1.1.7) (10 CFR Part 40).

As discussed in SEIS Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.1.1, under the Federal UIC program and the 

authority delegated to Wyoming, the permanently exempted production, or uranium-bearing,

aquifer would no longer be a USDW under the SDWA (40 CFR Part 145) (EPA, 2013). In 

accordance with the requirements applicable to a Class III well under 40 CFR Part 146.4, the 

exempted aquifer does not currently serve as a source of drinking water and cannot now and 

would not in the future be classified as a source of drinking water (40 CFR Part 146).

The aquifer-restoration activities proposed for the Ross Project are the same as those methods 

described in GEIS Section 2.5: 1) ground-water transfer, 2) ground-water sweep, 3) RO 

treatment with permeate injection, 4) ground-water recirculation, and 5) stabilization monitoring 

(Strata, 2011a; NRC, 2009b). The GEIS Section 2.5.4 discusses the need in some cases to 

add chemicals to the aquifer that would reduce the solubility of dissolved constituents such as 

uranium, arsenic, and selenium and re-establish the pre-operational chemical environment. As 

described in the GEIS this would be done by putting an oxygen scavenger or a reducing agent, 

such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or a biodegradable organic compound such as ethanol, into the 

production zone during the later stages of recirculation (NRC, 2009b).

The Applicant proposes that concurrent ISR operations and aquifer restoration would occur 

when several of the first wellfield modules have been depleted and are ready for restoration 

activities (Strata, 2011b). As aquifer restoration occurs in depleted wellfield modules, uraniumrecovery operation would be ongoing in subsequent wellfield modules. The Applicant would 

base the actual sequence of restoration activities on its operating experience, the capacity of 

the ground-water treatment system, and the brine disposal capacity. The Applicant has 

proposed a ground-water restoration schedule that is benchmarked to production schedules and 

waste-water disposal capacity, and it estimates that aquifer restoration for each wellfield would 

take approximately eight months (Strata, 2011b).

Not all five aquifer-restoration activities would be used for restoration of a specific wellfield if 

determined by the Applicant to be unnecessary to achieve the applicable ground-water 

protection standards; however, should Strata submit a request for application of an Alternate 

Concentration Limit (ACL) at a designated wellfield, the NRC staff will review the aquiferrestoration activities to ensure that an approriate level of effort has been performed. Based 

upon the NRC staff’s review of the Applicant’s commitments in the license application coupled

with Condition No. 10.6 in the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License pertaining to 

ground-water restoration, the NRC staff is reasonably assured that the Applicant would restore 

ground water to the ground-water-protection standards of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 

5B(5) and would provide the information for the NRC’s determination required per 10 CFR Part 

40, Appendix A, Criterion 5D (NRC, 2014a; NRC, 2014b).

Ground-water transfer would be the first step of restoration (Strata, 2011a). Ground-water 

transfer moves water between a wellfield entering restoration and another wellfield where 

uranium recovery is beginning, or between areas within the same wellfield that are in different 

stages of restoration. The objective of ground-water transfer is to blend ground-water 

compositions and generally does not generate liquid effluents (NRC, 2009b).
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-36

Ground-water transfer is followed by ground-water sweep (Strata, 2011a). During ground-water 

sweep, water is pumped from injection and recovery wells to the CPP without reinjection, as the 

GEIS described in Section 2.5.2. In response to this pumping, water from outside the wellfield 

flows into the ore zone, flushing contaminants from areas that have been affected by the 

horizontally spreading lixiviant in the respective aquifer during uranium recovery (NRC, 2009b). 

Ground water produced during the sweep phase would contain uranium and other contaminants 

mobilized during uranium recovery as well as residual lixiviant. The initial concentrations of 

these constituents would be similar to those during uranium recovery, but the concentrations 

would decline with time. The water removed from the aquifer during the sweep would first be 

passed through the IX system to recover the uranium, then it would be treated by RO, followed 

by reuse or disposal as excess permeate. The pumping rates used would depend on the 

hydrologic conditions at the Ross Project, and the duration of the aquifer sweep and the volume 

of water removed would depend on the volume of the aquifer affected by the ISR process.

Aquifer volume typically is described in terms of “pore volumes,” a term used by the ISR 

industry to represent the volume of water that fills the void space in a given volume of rock or 

sediment. The Applicant’s aquifer-restoration plan calls for removing up to one-half pore 

volume of water during ground-water sweep (Strata, 2011b). Additional pumping would occur in 

select areas that would be identified during facility operation. The pumping rate is estimated at 

280 L/min [75 gal/min] from wellfield modules in the ground-water sweep stage. The Applicant 

proposes to use ground-water sweep selectively (for example, around the perimeter of the 

wellfield) rather than throughout the entire wellfield module to minimize the consumptive use of 

ground water (Strata, 2011a).

The Applicant proposes to use RO treatment and permeate injection after the ground-water 

sweep and ground-water transfer processes, as described in GEIS Section 2.5.3 (Strata, 

2011b). This phase would return water-quality parameters in the ore-zone aquifer to the 

respective ground-water-protection standards specified by 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 5B(B) (NRC, 2009b; NRC, 2014b). Ground water pumped from the wellfields during 

this phase of restoration would be treated with sulfuric acid or other chemicals to prevent scaling 

on the RO circuit (see Addendum 6.1-A in Strata, 2011b). Low concentrations of uranium in the 

ground water would be removed by passing the water through IX, as during uranium-recovery 

operation. Following IX, other chemical constituents are removed by passing the ground water 

through the RO circuit that is described in Section 2.1.1.1. of this SEIS. The permeate 

(approximately 85 percent of the withdrawn ground water) would be re-injected into the aquifer.

The pumping and injection rates during this process would be similar to those during the sweep 

phase, but, depending upon site hydrology, many pore volumes (often more than 10) could be 

circulated to achieve aquifer-restoration goals (NRC, 2009b). For the Ross Project, the 

Applicant estimates that 8.5 pore volumes of treated permeate would be injected during the 

sweep as well as the pumping and injection phases of aquifer restoration (Strata, 2011b). The 

rate of injection would average 3,880 L/min [1,025 gal/min] of permeate (Strata, 2011b). During 

aquifer restoration (except during ground-water sweep), all permeate would be used as lixiviant 

or injected into the aquifer for restoration.

The ground-water recirculation process would begin after completion of the permeate-injection 

process. In this phase, ground water from the production zone would be pumped from recovery 

wells and re-circulated into injection wells in the same wellfield module. This process 

homogenizes the ground water within the aquifer to minimize the risk of “hot-spots,” areas of the 
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-37

aquifer with unusually high concentrations of dissolved metal concentrations. The Applicant 

proposes that the only water treatments that would occur during recirculation are filtration and 

removal of uranium and vanadium (Strata, 2011a).

The purpose of stabilization monitoring as the last step of aquifer restoration is to ensure long 

term compliance of the ground water protection standards of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 5B(5) (NRC, 2009b). Following aquifer restoration, the Applicant will conduct 

stabilization monitoring consisting of 8 samples during a 12-month period to determine if the 

concentrations of water-quality parameters remain at constant levels according to Condition No. 

10.6 in the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License (Strata, 2011b; NRC, 2014b). 

Stabilization monitoring would include selected recovery wells and monitoring wells (perimeter 

wells and wells completed in the underlying and overlying aquifer). Further analysis and 

evaluation would be conducted in the event that water-quality parameters exhibit a statistically 

significant increasing trend or areas of ground water not meeting the water quality protection 

standards are identified within the aquifer (Strata, 2011b). This analysis may include additional 

monitoring and flow and transport modeling. If the evaluation reveals that ground water outside 

the exempted aquifer could potentially be affected, the Applicant may repeat a previous phase

of active restoration. In the event that the Applicant proposed the use of a reducing agent to 

lower the concentrations of water quality parameters in the aquifer, the Applicant will submit to 

the NRC for review and approval plans for equipment and procedures prior to the use, storage, 

handling, and transport of biological or chemical materials for reductant injections during 

restoration (NRC, 2014b, License Condition 10.10). The Applicant would continue the stability 

monitoring until the data demonstrate, for all parameters monitored, that no statistically 

significant increasing trend exists that would lead to an exceedance of the ground water 

protection standards in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). When the monitoring 

results show that the water quality meets the standards and does not exhibit significantly 

increasing trends, the Applicant commits to submitting a restoration report with the supporting 

documentation to NRC for its review and approval (Strata, 2011a). Both the WDEQ and the 

NRC must review and approve all monitoring results before aquifer restoration would be 

considered to be complete.

The compliance period for which the ground-water-protection monitoring program would be 

performed is from the time the Commission sets the ground-water-protection standards until 

license termination. Thus, the ground-water-protection program is continuous throughout 

operation, aquifer restoration, and possibly the post-closure (post-reclamation) period as 

determined by the NRC.

All injection, recovery, and monitoring wells and drillholes would be plugged and abandoned in 

place according to applicable regulations after ground-water restoration is approved by the NRC 

and WDEQ (WDEQ/LQD, 2005b). To comply with these regulations, the Applicant proposes 

standard operating procedures (SOPs) of well abandonment that include plugging all wells with 

a cement slurry or a bentonite grout (Strata, 2011b).

2.1.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning

Prior to the Ross Project’s facility decontamination, dismantling, and decommissioning; the 

wellfields’ aquifer restoration; and the Project site’s reclamation and restoration; appropriate 

cleanup criteria for surfaces would need to be established in concert with NRC requirements, 

and a Ross Project-specific decommissioning plan (DP) and/or its Restoration Action Plan 
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-38

(RAP) would need to be reviewed and accepted by the NRC (NRC, 2003b). The Applicant has 

committed to satisfying these NRC requirements for decontamination and decommissioning 

(Strata, 2011b).

To begin the Ross Project’s decommissioning phase, the Applicant would conduct a series of 

radiation surveys to identify those areas at the Ross Project that would need decontamination to 

meet applicable cleanup criteria or those that cannot economically meet the criteria (Strata, 

2011b). These surveys would include building, structural, and equipment surfaces as well as 

potentially contaminated environmental media such as soil and water (NRC, 1999; NRC, 

2003a). The reclaimed mud pits used for the disposal of drilling fluids and muds (or “cuttings”) 

during the installation of new wells, would be included in the survey to ensure no long-term 

radiological impacts (Strata, 2011a). In addition, records of radiation surveys and the entire 

cycle of decontamination, dismantling, decommissioning, and disposal activities will be 

maintained as indicated in Condition No. 10.3 of the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials 

License (NRC, 2014b).

Based upon the results of the radiation surveys, decontamination and dismantling of buildings, 

structures, and equipment would be conducted in accordance with the DP and/or RAP. 

Contaminated surfaces, including processing and water-treatment equipment such as tanks, 

filters, IX columns, pipes, and pumps, would be decontaminated (Strata, 2011b). High-pressure 

washing would be used to remove loose contamination from the surfaces. If required, 

secondary decontamination would consist of washing with dilute acid or equivalent compatible 

solution (Strata, 2011b). All successfully decontaminated buildings and equipment could be 

released for unrestricted use (NRC, 2003b).

The buildings, structures, and equipment that are not or no longer contaminated would be 

moved to a new location within the Ross Project for further use or storage, removed to another 

facility for either reuse or salvage, or taken to a properly permitted, permanent solid-waste 

disposal facility. Concrete flooring, foundations, and foundation materials, if uncontaminated, 

would be broken up and disposed of at an appropriately permitted solid-waste facility. All 

radioactively contaminated buildings and structural materials that cannot be successfully 

decontaminated would be dismantled and then disposed of at a properly licensed byproductmaterial disposal facility (i.e., a facility licensed by the NRC or an Agreement State). 

Contaminated soils would also be disposed of at the same or similar licensed facility. A finalstatus radiation survey would then be performed to ensure that any residual contamination on 

the surfaces is below the cleanup criteria. All disturbed lands would be reclaimed (NRC, 1999). 

Section 2.6 of the GEIS describes the general process for decontamination, dismantling, and 

decommissioning of an ISR facility and the restoration and reclamation of the land itself (NRC, 

2009b).

During decommissioning of the facility, all UIC Class III injection and recovery wells, monitoring 

wells, and the UIC Class I injection wells would be properly abandoned according to the DP. 

The total number of wells would number between 1,400 and 2,200 based upon the Applicant’s 

estimate of 40 recovery wells per each of 15 – 25 wellfield modules plus monitoring wells 

(Strata, 2012a). Decommissioning of a wellfield would begin approximately five years after its 

construction (refer to Figure 2.6) (Strata, 2011a). However, at the Ross Project, complete 

decontamination, dismantling, and decommissioning of the CPP itself which includes the 

impoundments, and restoration and reclamation of the Ross Project area, could occur years 

after the wellfields begin to be decommissioned and the aquifer begins to be restored, in order 
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-39

to accommodate the Applicant’s continuing recovery of uranium and production of yellowcake 

from its potential future satellite projects and/or from other uranium-recovery or waste-watertreatment operations (Strata, 2011a).

Wastes and equipment associated with impoundments such as accumulated sludge, the pond 

liners, and leak detection piping and materials will be surveyed for radiological contamination 

and disposed of or released for unrestricted use. The soil beneath the pond will be surveyed for 

radiological contamination, and any areas that exceed limits for unrestricted use will be 

excavated and disposed of at an NRC approved facility.

During the decommissioning phase, the Applicant proposes that all primary, secondary, and 

tertiary roads and other temporary access routes to and within the Ross Project would be 

removed and the land reclaimed, unless a request by the respective landowners or lessees to 

not do so is received by the Applicant. In this case, then, the landowners or lessees would 

assume responsibility for the long-term maintenance and ultimate reclamation of the roads and 

routes, after the Source and Byproduct Materials License has been withdrawn (Strata, 2011b).

All contaminated soil or gravel that is determined to be a byproduct material would be disposed 

at a facility appropriately licensed by the NRC or an Agreement State, as necessary, while 

petroleum-contaminated soil would be disposed at a WDEQ-permitted facility. Removal of 

roads would be accomplished by the Applicant removing excess road surfacing material, and 

then ripping the road and the underlying shallow subsoil to loosen the base. Culverts would be 

removed and preconstruction drainages would be re-established. The vicinity would be graded 

to a contour consistent with the surrounding landscape. Finally, topsoil would be applied in a 

uniform manner and the area seeded to achieve WDEQ/LQD reclamation standards. 

The Class I deep-disposal wells would be plugged and properly abandoned in accordance with 

the requirements of the Applicant’s UIC Class I Permit (Strata, 2011b). All wastes, equipment, 

and infrastructure associated with the surface impoundments, such as the gravel or asphalt pad, 

accumulated sludge, impoundment liners, and leak-detection pipes and lines, would be 

surveyed for radioactive contamination and then disposed of appropriately or released for 

unrestricted use (Strata, 2011b). The soil beneath the surface impoundments would be 

analyzed for radioactive contamination, and any areas that exceed the cleanup criteria for 

unrestricted release would be excavated and disposed of at a waste-disposal facility licensed to 

accept byproduct material.

The natural flow of shallow ground water beneath the facility and in the immediate vicinity 

outside of the CBW would also be re-established during decommissioning (Strata, 2011b). Flow 

through the CBW would be accomplished by the Applicant’s creating a series of breaches, also 

known as finger drains, along the up-gradient and down-gradient reaches of the CBW. Each 

finger drain would consist of a 0.5 m [1.5 ft] wide by 7.6 m [25 ft] long trench that is cut through 

the CBW at a right angle and to a depth that is 0.6 m [2 ft] below the lowest historical ground- 
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-40

water level. Gravel would be 

placed in the trench from the 

bottom to a point 0.6 m [2 ft] 

above the highest recorded 

ground-water level such that a 

highly permeable flow path is 

created through the CBW. The 

remaining trench would be 

backfilled with native topsoil and 

seeded.

Selected monitoring wells that 

would have been used by the 

Applicant to characterize the 

shallow aquifer in the area, before 

installation of the CBW, would be 

retained. Water levels would be 

monitored following CBW 

reclamation to verify that the 

natural flow of shallow ground 

water through the CBW and 

beneath the facility has been 

restored.

The Applicant proposes to recontour, as necessary, the 

disturbed areas within the Ross 

Project area to blend in with the 

natural terrain and to be consistent 

with the preconstruction 

topography (Strata, 2011b). 

Revegetation would be 

accomplished in accordance with 

the WDEQ/LQD Permit to Mine 

requirements and would be

required by the Source and 

Byproduct Materials License. 

Topsoil that was salvaged prior to 

construction activities and stored in 

a stockpile would be used for 

reclamation to the extent possible 

(Strata, 2011b); the topsoil would 

be spread over the area to be 

reclaimed and would be seeded 

with a native seed mix. 

During Project operation the topsoil stockpiles and as much as is practical of the disturbed 

wellfield, would be seeded to establish vegetative cover to minimize wind and water erosion. At 

the completion of decommissioning, the Applicant commits to restoring and reclaiming the entire 

area for unrestricted use (Strata, 2011b, Addendum 6.1-A). Reclaimed land would be capable 

What types of wastes would be generated at the proposed 

Ross Project?

Liquid Wastes

Liquid Byproduct Material is all byproduct-material-containing 

liquids that would be generated by the Ross Project and are 

regulated by the NRC, except for sanitary waste water as well as 

well-development and some ground-water-sampling waste water 

(see below).

Liquid Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring 

Material (TENORM) at the Ross Project would include fluids, 

such as the drilling muds and other fluids brought to the surface 

during well drilling and installation. This waste is regulated by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Such waste would 

be disposed of onsite very near the holes within which the muds 

and fluids are employed. They would be discharged to the “mud 

pits,” which are described in the adjacent SEIS text, and left for 

evaporation.

Liquid Hazardous Waste and Used Oil are regulated under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), other Federal 

agencies (e.g., U.S. EPA), or are a State-defined hazardous 

waste that is not a-byproduct material. This waste includes socalled “universal” hazardous wastes. 

Domestic Waste Water is ordinary domestic (i.e., “sanitary”) 

septic-system or sewer waste water. 

Well-Development and Testing Waste Water is waste water 

generated during well development and well pumping. Such 

waste water does not require treatment before disposal, but its 

disposal onsite does require a permit.

Solid Wastes

Solid Byproduct Material is all solid-phase byproduct material 

generated by the Ross Project and regulated by the NRC.

Solid TENORM at the Ross Project would include solids, such as 

solid drill and soil cuttings, brought to the surface during well 

drilling and installation. Such waste would be disposed of onsite

very near the holes from which the solid cuttings are excavated. 

Solid TENORM would be disposed of in the mud pits discussed 

above. 

Hazardous Waste is regulated under RCRA and/or by another 

Federal agency, or is a State-defined hazardous waste, that 

contains no byproduct material. (So-called “toxic” waste may be 

regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act [TSCA].) This 

type of waste also includes “universal” hazardous wastes. 

Nonhazardous Solid Waste is domestic, office, and municipal 

waste (i.e., trash), construction and demolition debris, septic 

solids, and other materials, such as equipment and soils, that 

have been determined to meet applicable NRC criteria for 

 ( ) 
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-41

of supporting livestock grazing, dryland farming, and wildlife habitat. The respective landowners 

and WDEQ would be consulted as the Applicant selects the seed mix. Seeding would be 

conducted by drill or broadcast methods depending upon the type of seed being used. Mulch 

could also be used to cover the seed (Strata, 2011b).

2.1.1.5 ISR Effluents and Waste Management

Section 2.7 of the GEIS describes the airborne effluents as well as the liquid and solid wastes 

that are typically generated at ISR facilities and corresponding waste-management practices 

(NRC, 2009b). The effluents and wastes expected from the proposed ISR Project and the 

waste-management practices the Applicant proposes are consistent with the industry standards 

reported in the GEIS. The types of liquid and solid wastes, the quantities of these wastes 

anticipated by the Applicant, and the Applicant’s proposed management systems are provided 

in Strata (2011a; 2012a). (See also Table 4.9 in SEIS Section 4.14.) Impacts from liquid and 

solid waste management are described in SEIS Section 4.14.

Airborne Emissions

There would be both radioactive and non-radioactive airborne particulates and gases emitted 

during all phases of the Proposed Action (Strata, 2011b). As discussed below, the design 

features proposed by the Applicant to control all airborne effluents are consistent with the 

industry standards presented in the GEIS (NRC, 2009b).

Non-Radioactive Emissions

Emissions from internal combustion engines would be the primary source of non-radioactive 

gaseous effluents (i.e., emissions). Releases would be anticipated from drilling rigs, drilling 

support equipment (e.g., backhoes, water trucks, pipe trucks, and cement units), utility trucks 

employed for wellfield service, light vehicles used for personal transport through the wellfields, 

in addition to vehicles used by ISR facility personnel to and from the Ross Project area (Strata, 

2011b). The emissions from these types of vehicles would include carbon monoxide (CO), CO2, 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen species (NOx), and total hydrocarbon (THC) as well as particulates 

less than 10 μm (microns) in diameter (PM10) (Strata, 2011a). These emissions are consistent 

with those emitted from a generic ISR project described in the GEIS (NRC, 2009b).

Smaller sources of airborne non-radioactive gaseous and particulate emissions during operation 

would include gaseous emissions from process-pipeline, process-vessel, and storage-tank 

vents; emergency generators and space heaters; and other sources within the CPP such as 

storage vessels and tanks containing acids and bases. Gaseous emissions from the 

yellowcake dryer are not expected because of the dryer system’s design; the vanadium 

precipitation, drying, and packaging would also present a potential for non-radioactive 

particulate emissions. Occasional small releases of salt and soda ash during delivery as well as 

fumes from laboratory chemicals could also occur, as explained in SEIS Section 4.7.1.2.

Fugitive dust would also be generated during all phases of the Proposed Action due to the 

mechanical disturbance of soil by heavy equipment, from transport vehicles traveling on access 

roads, and from wind blowing over disturbed areas and stockpiles. The Applicant has proposed 

to mitigate fugitive-dust emissions with its use of speed limits, strategic placement of waterloading facilities near access roads, suppression of dust with chemicals such as magnesium 
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-42

chloride, selection of road-surface materials that would minimize dust, and prompt revegetation 

of disturbed areas (Strata, 2011a).

Radioactive Emissions

Radon gas would be the primary radioactive gaseous effluent from the Ross Project. Radon is 

a radioactive, colorless, and odorless gas that occurs naturally as the decay product of radium, 

which is found where there is uranium as radium itself is a radioactive decay product of 

uranium. Radon would be found in the lixiviant solution that is extracted from the wellfields and 

piped to the CPP for processing. Radon gas could potentially be released in the CPP as a 

result of uranium-recovery fluid spills, filter changes, IX resin-transfer operations, and 

maintenance activities. Routine monitoring of radon progeny (i.e., the products of radon’s own 

radioactive decay) within the CPP would identify exposure levels and would allow timely 

corrective actions to be initiated, if necessary (Strata, 2011b). The sources of radon described 

by the Applicant and the design features proposed by the Applicant to limit radon concentrations 

(e.g., the Applicant’s use of pressurized downflow IX columns, proper ventilation systems, and 

radon detectors) are consistent with the industry standards described in the GEIS (NRC, 

2009b). The use of pressurized, downflow IX columns would ensure that the majority of radon 

released to the recovery solution would stay in solution and not be released to the atmosphere.

All exhaust points in the CPP would be ducted through a common system to a wet scrubber and 

discharged to the atmosphere (Strata, 2011b). The Applicant has committed that its air 

discharges would meet all State requirements as contained in its Air Quality Permit as well as 

the NRC’s 10 CFR Part 20 occupational health and safety requirements (Strata, 2012b). A fanperformance-monitoring station would be located at the CPP’s exhaust fan’s point of discharge 

at the roof. The ambient air within the facility would be gravity ventilated up through a ridge 

vent. The CPP and other buildings would also be passively ventilated by the opening and 

closing of doors during periods of time when radon could be released.

Radon gas could also be released outside of the CPP from wellheads, other auxiliary buildings 

such as wellfield modules, and the surface impoundments (Strata, 2011b). At the wellheads 

and the surface impoundments, radon would be released directly to the atmosphere, where it 

would rapidly disperse and decrease in concentration. Wellhead enclosures, such as the 

module buildings, would be vented to reduce radon buildup that could otherwise expose 

wellfield personnel to radon during inspection and maintenance activities. The Applicant 

proposes that, if vents are not installed on wellhead enclosures, SOPs would be developed for 

accessing wellheads to ensure radon exposures are below the regulatory limits of the EPA and 

the NRC. Such buildings would have ventilation systems consisting of a roof- or wall-mounted 

fan as well as a separate radon ventilation system with an intake located in the building’s sump 

and an exhaust point on the building’s roof.

Potential radioactive particulate emissions would consist primarily of airborne yellowcake in the 

uranium drying and packaging process (Strata, 2011b). This potential would be mitigated by 

design features specific to low-temperature vacuum dryer systems to prevent releases into the 

atmosphere as described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.2.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-43

Liquid Effluents

GEIS Section 2.7.2 describes the liquid effluents generated during all phases of uranium 

recovery: construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning. During most of 

these phases, liquid wastes could contain elevated concentrations of radioactive and chemical 

constituents. The composition and quantities of liquid waste from Ross Project processes 

related to uranium recovery are similar to those ranges provided in Table 2.7-3 of the GEIS 

(NRC, 2009b); however, representative water quality parameter(s) for permeate are not 

included in the GEIS for comparison. The methods that the Applicant proposes for treatment of 

liquid wastes, such as RO as well as its disposal and management practices, are similarly noted 

as industry standards in the GEIS (NRC, 2009b). 

The Proposed Action would generate liquid effluents classified as byproduct material as well as 

other liquid effluents that are not (Strata, 2011b; Strata, 2012a). Liquid wastes would be 

categorized as follows:

■ Brine and permeate from the RO treatment of lixiviant bleed and ground water from 

aquifer restoration. Most of the permeate would be reused as lixiviant in the wellfields, 

as aquifer-restoration water, or as process make-up water.

■ Other liquids such as spent eluate, collected fluids from drains in the processing areas at 

the CPP, contaminated reagents, IX-resin wash water, filter back wash, facility washdown water, decontamination water (e.g., employee showers), and fluids generated from 

work-over and enhancement operations on injection and recovery wells.

■ Non-byproduct liquid wastes would include drilling fluids and ground water collected 

during construction and development of injection, recovery, and monitoring wells as well 

as during environmental sampling and aquifer testing; storm-water runoff; toxic and 

hazardous wastes such as petroleum products and spent chemicals; and domestic 

sewage.

The Applicant proposes the use of surface impoundments for the collection and management of 

byproduct waste liquids (Strata, 2011a). Production of liquid byproduct material would vary over 

the three phases of operation and aquifer restoration: 1) operation only; 2) concurrent operation 

and aquifer restoration; and 3) aquifer restoration (Strata, 2011b). Condition Nos. 10.8 and 

12.12 of the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License would allow the construction and 

operation of lined surface impoundments with regularly scheduled inspections as well as a 

ground-water monitoring program plan to detect releases from the impoundments (NRC, 

2014b). In addition, Condition No. 10.11 would require verification of the CPP’s dewatering 

system before an impoundment would be used for storage of byproduct material (NRC, 2014b). 

GEIS Section 2.7.2 described four disposal options for use at ISR facilities: evaporation, land 

application, deep-well injection, and surface-water discharge (NRC, 2009b). Of these disposal 

options, the Applicant proposes to rely on deep-well injection for disposal of brine and surface 

discharge of excess permeate, with supplemental disposal by evaporation of brine from the 

surface impoundments (Strata, 2011b; Strata, 2012a). Land application is not currently 

proposed as a method for permeate disposal by the Applicant (Strata, 2012b). The surface 

impoundments would primarily provide transient storage of liquids with little evaporation actually 

occurring during the liquids’ residence time.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-44

Excess permeate could be produced during two relatively brief periods of operations (Strata, 

2011b): the first two and one-half years of uranium production without reinjection of permeate 

into the aquifer for wellfield restoration and the two months when ground-water sweep is 

occurring in the first wellfield modules to undergo aquifer restoration. The Applicant proposes 

that excess permeate produced during the periods of uranium recovery and aquifer restoration 

not used as plant makeup water would be disposed of with brine by deep-well injection (WWC 

Engineering, 2013). As noted earlier, the Applicant would use Class I deep-well injection for 

disposal of brine and other liquid byproduct material. The Applicant expects that the capacity of 

each of the five UIC Class I wells would range between 130 – 300 L/min [35 – 80 gal/min]. The 

Applicant has also proposed a storage tank at the site of a Class I well that, with the lined 

surface impoundments, would provide surge capacity for management of all brine (Strata, 

2012b).

The UIC Class I permit from the WDEQ sets a maximum limit on the injection pressure (2,570 

psi) and sets a range for the annulus pressure (200 to 800 psi) (WDEQ/WQD, 2011b). Injection 

at pressures less than the injection limit ensures that the capacity of the target aquifers 

(Deadwood and Flathead) is not exceeded. The permit requires that the pressures as well as 

injection rate and volume are monitored and submitted to the WDEQ. In addition, the permit 

requires pressure fall-off tests to be conducted which provides data to calculate aquifer 

properties.

The production rates of brine and permeate that the Applicant estimates would require disposal 

during different periods of operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning are presented in 

Table 4.9. The Applicant’s estimated production rate of brine, permeate, and other liquid 

wastes for disposal would be less than noted in the GEIS Table 2.7-3 (NRC, 2009b).

The following liquid wastes, none of which are byproduct material, would be generated at the 

Ross Project:

■ Storm water from the paved and graveled areas of the proposed Ross Project facility. 

■ Domestic sewage from the proposed facility. 

■ Drilling fluids from the Applicant’s construction of uranium-recovery wellfields and its 

development of associated injection and production wells. 

Storm-water management would be controlled under a WYPDES permit from WDEQ. As part 

of this permit, best management practices (BMPs) would be developed to restrict contaminants 

from the surface water and storm drains. Runoff from the facility would be diverted by the 

storm-drain system to a sediment surface impoundment near the CPP (Strata, 2011b). 

The Applicant estimates that the volume of domestic sewage would range between 1,100 L/d 

[300 gal/d] and 9,800 L/d [2,600 gal/d] depending upon the number of workers during each 

project phase (Strata, 2012a). Domestic waste water would be collected in a gravity-sewer 

collection system serving the administration building, CPP, maintenance building, and any other 

buildings or structures with restrooms. This system would be designed according to 

WDEQ/WQD standards and would include one or more septic tanks for primary treatment. 

Septic-tank effluent would be disposed in a drainfield or in an enhanced treatment system 

(Strata, 2011b).
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-45

Drilling fluids of ground water and drilling muds would be produced only during the construction 

phase from the drilling and development of injection, recovery, and monitoring wells. The 

Applicant estimates that a volume of 22,000 L [6,000 gal] of water and 11 m3 [15 yd3

] of drilling 

muds would be produced per well. The fluid would be stored onsite in mud pits constructed 

adjacent to the respective drilling pad(s) and evaporated. The Applicant expects the production 

of ground water during operation and decommissioning from wells completed outside of the 

aquifer exempted for uranium recovery (Strata, 2011a). This ground water would be discharged 

under a temporary WYPDES Permit. Similarly, the Applicant was authorized to discharge these 

same fluids under a temporary WYPDES Permit (No. WYG720229) issued during installation 

and initial sampling of monitoring wells at the Ross Project (WDEQ/WQD, 2011a). This Permit 

was renewed in December 2012.

Solid Effluents

The Applicant describes the solid-phase wastes that would be generated during all phases of 

the Ross Project. The solid wastes would be non-byproduct material (hazardous or typical solid 

waste), or byproduct material similar to those solid phase wastes described in the GEIS as 

generated by the typical ISR facility during all phases of uranium-recovery operations. The 

Applicant provided a list of anticipated waste-disposal facilities with adequate capacity that 

could be used for Ross Project waste in the additional information it provided the NRC in 2012 

(Strata, 2012a).

The estimates of solid-waste generation and waste-management methods proposed by the 

Applicant for the Ross Project are within the industry standards described in Section 2.7 of the 

GEIS (Strata, 2011b; Strata, 2012b; NRC, 2009b). The Applicant estimates the production of 

19 L/mo [5 gal/mo] of used oil and less than 9 kg/mo [20 lb/mo] of used oil filters and oily rags. 

These wastes would be stored in a designated used-oil storage area and would be shipped to a 

commercial recycling facility for disposal, such as Tri-State Recycling Services, Newcastle, 

Wyoming (Strata, 2012a). Petroleum-contaminated soil, estimated as less than 1 m3

/wk [1 

yd3

/wk], would be transported by a waste-disposal contractor to a permitted land farm in 

northeast Wyoming such as the Campbell County Landfill (Strata, 2012a).

Less than 100 kg/mo [220 lb/mo] of waste designated as hazardous by the EPA and WDEQ, 

such as used batteries, expired laboratory reagents, burnt-out fluorescent light bulbs, spent 

solvents, certain cleaners, and used degreasers, would also be generated (Strata, 2012a). The 

hazardous waste would be stored at the Ross Project in secure, specially designed containers 

inside the maintenance shop. The Applicant expects the Ross Project to be classified as a 

conditionally exempt small-quantity generator (known as a CESQG) of hazardous waste (Strata, 

2011b). Hazardous waste would be transported by a hazardous waste contractor to an 

appropriately permitted commercial recycling facility outside Wyoming (Strata, 2012a). The 

Applicant proposes onsite disposal of contaminated laboratory reagents in the lined retention 

impoundments and deep-well injection (Strata, 2012a).

Byproduct material that would be generated at the Ross Project include filtrate and spent filter 

media from production and restoration circuits; general sludge, scale, etc. from maintenance 

operations; affected soil collected from any spill or leak areas; spent/damaged IX resin; well 

solids from injection/recovery well work-over operations; contaminated PPE; wellfield 

decommissioning waste, such as pipelines, pumps, and impacted soil; affected concrete floors, 

sumps, and berms in the CPP; equipment and piping in the CPP; surface-impoundment sludge, 
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-46

surface-impoundment liners, and leak detection systems; and disposal well piping and 

equipment (Strata, 2012a). Solid byproduct-material-containing waste would be generated 

during all Proposed Action phases, except construction. During Project operation and aquifer 

restoration, the Applicant estimates the production of 80 m3

/yr [100 yd3/yr] of solid byproductmaterial waste. The largest volumes of byproduct-material waste, including contaminated soil 

requiring licensed disposal, would be generated during facility decommissioning, which is 

estimated to be 3,000 m3 [4,000 yd3

] (Strata, 2012a). The Applicant has identified four facilities 

with sufficient capability located in Wyoming, Utah, and Texas that are permitted to accept 

byproduct material from ISR facilities (Strata, 2012a). The NRC will require that an agreement 

with each facility that the Applicant would use to dispose of its wastes contaminated by 

byproduct material be formally executed before any uranium-recovery activities would begin at 

the Ross Project area.

During the latter three phases of the Proposed Action, when waste byproduct material would be 

generated, it would be stored inside a locked and posted room within the CPP (i.e., this area 

would be a restricted area) or, during the decommissioning phase, in a restricted storage area. 

The wastes would be placed inside 210-L [55-gal], lined drums, sealed and placed inside a 15-

m3 [20-yd3

] roll-off container. The sealed roll-off containers containing the waste would be 

transported by a licensed transporter to an appropriately permitted or licensed facility for 

disposal. The Applicant anticipates about five annual shipments of byproduct waste during the 

Project-operation and aquifer-restoration phases. During decommissioning, which is expected 

to last 12 – 18 months, up to 200 shipments per year would be expected (Strata, 2011b).

Non-byproduct-material solid wastes generated at the Ross Project include ordinary trash, 

petroleum-contaminated soil, construction debris, and decontaminated material and equipment. 

The Applicant estimates that 12 m3

/wk [15 yd3/wk] of ordinary municipal solid waste such as 

office trash along with 4 m3

/wk [5 yd3/wk] of recyclable wastes (plastic, glass, paper, aluminum, 

and cardboard) would be generated throughout the life of the Ross Project (Strata, 2012b). 

Small amounts (less than 0.8 m3

/wk [5 yd3/wk]) of petroleum-contaminated soil would also be 

generated. The generation of solid waste consisting of construction debris and decontaminated 

materials and equipment would be less than 4 m3

/wk [5 yd3/wk] during facility construction and 

operation, and aquifer restoration. During the decommissioning phase, the Applicant estimates 

up to 1,500 m3 [2,000 yd3

] of such solid waste (Strata, 2012a).

During facility operation and aquifer restoration, non-hazardous solid wastes would be collected 

daily from work areas and disposed in trash receptacles located within the facility, but near a 

primary access road for convenient access for a waste-disposal contractor. Non-hazardous 

solid waste would be disposed offsite in the Moorcroft landfill or the Campbell County landfill in 

Gillette, Wyoming (Strata, 2011a). Solid waste of construction and demolition debris would be 

disposed in the municipal or country landfills in the three towns nearest the Ross Project: 

Moorcroft, Sundance, and Gillette.

2.1.1.6 Transportation

Primary transportation activities would involve truck shipping and personnel commuting. A 

variety of truck shipments are planned to support proposed activities during all phases of the 

Proposed Action. Light-duty trucks and automobiles would transport construction contractors 

and the operations workforce. Transportation conditions and impacts of the Ross Project are 

discussed in SEIS Sections 3.3 and 4.3, respectively.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-47

Transportation routes within 80 km [50 mi] of the Proposed Action include interstate highways, 

other U.S. highways, Wyoming highways, county roads, and local roads (Strata, 2011a). The 

major transportation corridors that could be used to access the Ross Project area include 

Interstate-90, approximately 32 km [20 mi] south; U.S. Highway 14, approximately 16 km [10 mi] 

southeast; State Highway 59, approximately 32 km [20 mi] west; and U.S. Highway 212, 

approximately 64 km [40 mi] northeast. Regional and local transportation routes are shown on 

Figure 2.1. 

The primary access to the Ross Project area is currently from D Road (CR 68) or from the New 

Haven Road (CR 164); the primary access road to the Ross Project’s facility would be 

constructed to flow from New Haven Road (CR 164). The design of the road includes a 9 m [30 

ft] top width with 5 horizontal to 1 vertical (5:1) side slopes. According to the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), a 5:1 slope is traversable 

and recoverable; therefore, no guardrails would be used on the access road (AASHTO, 2002; 

Strata, 2011b).

2.1.1.7 Financial Surety

Prior to commencement of operations, the Applicant would be required to provide assurance 

that sufficient funds will be available to cover decontamination, dismantling, and 

decommissioning of the Ross Project. These funds will include the costs of: 1) aquifer 

restoration of all Ross Project wellfields, 2) site restoration and reclamation of all Projectdisturbed land, 3) decontamination of all Project surfaces intended for subsequent unrestricted 

release (e.g., equipment and vehicles), as appropriate, and 4) disposal of all decontamination 

and decommissioning wastes (10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion [9]). As indicated by 

Condition No. 9.5 of the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, the Applicant would be 

required to continuously maintain an approved financial-surety instrument for the Ross Project, 

in favor of Wyoming. The initial surety estimate would be submitted to the NRC within 90 days 

of Source and Byproduct Materials License issuance as well as 90 days prior to commencing 

operations for review and approval (NRC, 2014b). 

Condition No. 9.5 of the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License would require the 

Applicant to provide the NRC with copies of financial-assurance-related correspondence 

submitted to Wyoming, a copy of the State’s financial-assurance review, and the final approved 

financial-assurance arrangement (i.e., the surety instrument). The Applicant would need to 

ensure that the surety instrument held by the State identifies the NRC-related portion of the 

instrument, which would cover the aboveground decontamination and decommissioning of the 

facility and equipment at the Ross Project, the costs of offsite disposal of solid byproduct 

material and contaminated soils, water-sample collection and analyses, and ground-waterrestoration activities associated with the Project. The basis for the decommissioning cost 

estimate would be an NRC-approved DP and/or a RAP, or NRC-approved revisions to such a 

plan. The Applicant would be required to submit to the NRC its proposed annual updates to the 

cost estimate, consistent with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion (9). At least 90 days prior 

to the Applicant’s beginning any construction associated with a planned and an approved 

expansion or operational change that was not included in the annual cost-estimate update, the 

Applicant would be required to provide an updated estimate to cover the expansion or change 

for NRC approval.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-48

Details of NRC’s requirement for financial surety are provided in the Safety Evaluation Report

(SER) for the Ross Project (NRC, 2014a); the surety amount and instrument would also be 

required by the Source and Byproduct Materials License. The Applicant would be required to 

maintain the surety arrangements until the NRC determined that the Applicant had complied 

with its decommissioning or restoration plan. For additional information on decommissioning 

funding plans and financial-surety requirements, see 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A; GEIS 

Section 2.10; and the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License for the Ross Project (NRC, 

2009b; NRC, 2014b). 

2.1.2 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, the NRC would not issue a source and byproduct materials 

license for the proposed Ross Project, and BLM would not approve the Applicant’s POO. The 

No-Action Alternative would result in the Applicant’s not constructing, operating, restoring the 

aquifer of, or decommissioning the proposed uranium-recovery Project. However, even if the 

proposed Ross Project is not licensed, the Applicant has already accomplished certain 

preconstruction activities that do not require a license from the NRC. At no time would 

radioactive material be present at the Ross Project during any preconstruction activities. These 

previously completed preconstruction activities are evaluated as part of Alternative 2: No 

Action.

Preconstruction activities that have already been accomplished include the Applicant’s locating 

and properly abandoning the former Nubeth’s exploration drillholes (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1). 

As of October 2010, the Applicant has located 759 of the 1,682 holes thought to exist from 

Nubeth exploration activities and has plugged 55 of them (Strata, 2011b). In addition, Strata 

has drilled and then properly abandoned (using a cement slurry or bentonite grout) 512 holes 

used to delineate the ore zone. The Applicant has also drilled and completed 51 wells for 

ground-water monitoring and testing as well as installed 3 surface-water monitoring stations and 

a meteorology station (Strata, 2011a). Data collection activities from the ground-water wells, 

surface-water stations, and the meteorological station are continuing. In August 2011, an 

additional 74 drillholes and 4 ground-water monitoring wells were installed to support a 

geotechnical investigation of the area proposed for the Ross Project (Strata, 2012b). These 

drillholes have also been properly plugged and abandoned, and the four ground-water 

monitoring wells are being used for ongoing ground-water monitoring. Finally, a ranch house 

that was adjacent to the Project area has been remodeled to serve as the Applicant’s Field 

Office for the Ross Project’s preconstruction activities. 

In the No-Action Alternative, no uranium would be allowed to be recovered from the subsurface 

ore zone, and no injection, production, or monitoring wells would be installed. No lixiviant would 

be introduced to the subsurface, and no recovered uranium would be extracted and no facilities 

would be constructed to process extracted uranium or store chemicals. The No-Action 

Alternative is included to provide a benchmark for the NRC to compare and evaluate the 

potential impacts of the other alternatives, including the Proposed Action.

2.1.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project

Under Alternative 3, the NRC would issue the Applicant a source and byproduct materials 

license for the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed 

ISR Project, except that the entire ISR facility itself, which includes all buildings, other auxiliary 
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-49

structures, and the surface impoundments would be located north of where it is to be situated 

during the Proposed Action, but the locations of the wellfields would not change. This alternate 

location for the ISR facility, referred as the “north site” by the Applicant (and referred to herein as 

the “North Ross Project”), was considered, but eliminated, by the Applicant in its license application 

(Strata, 2011a). The north site is located about 240 m [800 ft] north of the Oshoto Reservoir in 

S1⁄2SW1⁄4 Section 7, T53N, R67W (see Figure 2.11). It is about 900 m [3,000 ft] northwest of 

where the facility would be located in the Proposed Action (referred to by the Applicant as the 

“south site”). An unnamed surface water drainage feature generally divides the north site. To 

avoid the floodplain of the drainage an actual design of the facility at this site would likely place 

the CPP and other buildings on one side of the drainage and the surface impoundments on the 

other side.

The Applicant documents its decision to select the south site over the north site with the 

following comparisons (Strata, 2011a):

■ The south site is situated on relatively flat topography, which would minimize the amount 

of earthwork and surface disturbance required to prepare the site for construction of the 

CPP, auxiliary buildings, surface impoundments, and parking areas. 

■ The south site’s surface is entirely privately owned and onsite instrumentation is 

currently adequate for all required pre-operational environmental monitoring (see 10 

CFR Part 40, Appendix A). 

■ The south site has little uranium mineralization beneath it, and what is there would be 

accessible without major modification of the wellfield- and monitoring-well layout.

■ The preliminary geotechnical studies at the south site indicate that subsoils are relatively 

impermeable and have adequate strength for the proposed buildings and structures.

■ The preliminary estimates of the radionuclide release rates from the entire Ross Project, 

including the south site, indicate that the average annual radiation dose to the nearest 

neighbor would be less than 5 percent of the NRC’s 1 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr] annual limit.

■ The owner of the south site is also the owner of the Oshoto Reservoir, so a surface-use 

agreement, lease, or purchase of this area would afford Strata control over the Reservoir 

as well.

The North Ross Project is included as an Alternative in this SEIS because of the expected 

differences in the depth to ground water between the north and south sites. Based upon the 

water levels measured in a nearby well cluster, Well 12-18, and the surface topography, shallow 

ground water of the north site is likely to be greater than 15 m [50 ft] below the ground surface 

(Strata, 2011a). In contrast, shallow ground water beneath the south site ranges from 2 – 4 m 

[8 – 12 ft] below the ground surface and necessitates the construction of the CBW (Strata, 

2011b).

Certain factors related to the north site as a location for the proposed Ross Project facility are 

considered in this SEIS’s impact analyses. These factors include:
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-50

Figure 2.11

Alternative 3: North Ross Project

(CPP on Right and Surface Impoundments on Left)

Source: Strata, 2012a.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-51

■ The north site’s deeper ground-water levels, which could eliminate the need for a CBW 

and dewatering in order to protect ground water.

■ The north site’s more pronounced topography, which could require more earthwork and 

surface disturbance for construction of the facility and surface impoundments.

■ The north site’s greater distance to the Little Missouri River, which could mitigate 

potential impacts on surface-water resources.

■ The north site’s natural screen provided by the ridges to the west, north, and east, which 

could decrease impacts on visual and scenic resources.

■ The north site’s increased uranium mineralization beneath it, which could potentially 

require a reconfiguration of the facility to allow uranium recovery.

2.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

This section describes alternatives to the Proposed Action that were considered for this SEIS, 

but were not carried forward for detailed analysis. Section 2.2.1 describes the recovery of 

uranium by conventional mining and milling; Section 2.2.2 discusses the use of a lixiviant with 

different chemistry; and Section 2.2.3 compares alternative methods of waste management.

2.2.1 Conventional Mining and Milling

The GEIS includes an evaluation of conventional mining and milling as an alternative to ISR 

(NRC, 2009b). Although the characteristics of the uranium deposits of the proposed Ross 

Project are amenable to ISR extraction, evaluating the Proposed Action against the 

conventional mining and milling allows comparison of impacts of the two uranium-recovery 

methods. Conventional mining practices (open-pit and underground) to recover uranium ore in 

addition to conventional milling were considered and eliminated as an alternative to ISR 

operations at the proposed Ross Project, as they were in the GEIS (NRC, 2009; Strata, 2011a).

Conventional mining refers to the physical removal of uranium ore by either underground mining 

methods or from an open pit. Uranium is extracted and converted to yellowcake in a processing 

facility; this process is referred to as uranium “milling.” Open-pit mining is suitable for shallow 

ore deposits, generally deposits less than 170 m [550 ft] below ground surface (bgs), which 

includes only a portion of the ore deposits delineated under the Ross Project area.

Underground mining could be used for deeper deposits; however, the cost of underground 

mining and milling requires a higher grade of ore to be economically feasible compared to open 

pit-mining and ISR (EPA, 2008). Uranium-ore grade in the Lance District is low-grade (Strata, 

2011a; Peninsula, 2011). The ore zone at the Ross Project is approximately 30 – 60 m [90 – 

180 ft] thick (Strata, 2011b). The base of the ore is generally at depths of 150 – 200 m [500 – 

700 ft], which is nearly the maximum depth for surface mining to practically recover uranium 

from an open pit.

In addition to the depths involved with open-pit mining, water consumption of open-pit mining 

likely would be greater than at an ISR facility because of the required dewatering down to the 

depth of the pit’s floor. At the Ross Project, dewatering of several aquifers above the ore zone 

and the ore zone itself would be required for open-pit mining and large amounts of water would 

be produced (Strata, 2011a). 
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-52

Far greater areas of land disturbance would occur from an open-pit mine compared with the 

Proposed Action, and the required restoration of the open pit would be far more extensive. 

Even though overburden could be backfilled into the pit, the pit would permanently impact the 

surface’s appearance and its land use.

Conventional uranium milling requires construction of a facility that would be larger than the 

proposed facility at the Ross Project. As described in Appendix C of the GEIS (NRC, 2009b), 

ore processing at a conventional uranium mill involves a series of steps (handling and 

preparation, concentration, and product recovery). Uranium ore is crushed, ground, and 

classified to produce uniform-sized particulates (EPA, 2008). After grinding, the ore is added to 

a series of tanks for leaching by a lixiviant similar to that proposed by the Applicant for the Ross 

Project. The precipitation of uranium from the pregnant lixiviant, drying the product, and 

packaging the yellowcake follow the same processes as proposed for the Ross Project. 

Emissions containing radiological constituents generated by handling, grinding, and classifying 

the ores creates the potential for greater impacts to the health and safety of workers.

Although many wastes, such as water, spent resin, and filtrate, can be similar in extent and 

volume to wastes generated by the Applicant’s proposed processing of pregnant lixiviant from 

ISR wellfields, conventional uranium mills generate substantially more solid waste, which is 

referred to as “tailings” and generally disposed of onsite. The volume of tailings is roughly 95 

percent of the volume of ore brought to the mill for processing. After processing, liquidsaturated “wet tailings” are disposed in surface impoundments constructed with liners and 

covers to prevent escape of radionuclides to the environment by airborne effluent or fugitive 

dust. Although the chemical character depends upon the uranium ore and processing, the 

tailings and associated moisture generally contain soluble metals, radium, and high levels of 

dissolved solids. In addition, tailings generally contain high levels of radon progeny, including 

lead-210 and polonium-210, which remain in the subsurface during the ISR processing due to 

the affinity of those radionuclide particles for adhering to the aquifer’s solid matrix.

Reclamation of a tailings pile generally involves evaporation of any liquid in the tailings, 

settlement of the tailings over time, and protection of the pile with a thick radon barrier and 

earthen material or rocks for erosion control. An 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).

As an alternative to conventional milling, uranium from low-grade ore that is recovered by openpit mining can be recovered by heap leaching. Heap leaching occurs at or very near the mine 

site itself. The low-grade ore is crushed to a fine size and mounded above grade on a prepared 

pad. A sprinkler or drip system distributes lixiviant over the mound. The lixiviant trickles 

through the ore and mobilizes uranium into solution. The solution is collected at the base of the 

mound and processed to produce yellowcake. The processing to yellowcake of the pregnant 

lixiviant would be the same as for the Ross Project.

Given the uranium ore grade and depth to the ore, open-pit mining and conventional milling 

would be possible at the Ross Project; however, the costs, environmental impacts, and potential 

health and safety impacts to workers are more substantial than impacts from the ISR process 

(see SEIS Section 4).
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-53

As noted in the GEIS on uranium milling (NRC, 1980b), besides cost considerations, the 

environmental impacts of open-pit mining, and tailings impoundment would be greater than from 

an ISR project. Greater impacts such as those listed below would affect land use and soils as 

well as ecological, water, and air resources. Some of these potential impacts are:

■ A larger area of surface disturbance for an open-pit mine and uranium mill, which could 

increase environmental impacts.

■ A permanent tailings pile, which would require long-term care and maintenance to 

prevent impacts to air and water.

■ A permanent mine pit, if open-pit mining were to be used, into which ground water would 

flow creating a lake of potentially poor water quality (if a pit lake were allowed to remain 

under WDEQ rules). 

■ A greater consumptive water use, which would result from the ground water’s intruding 

into the mine and its needing to be pumped (i.e., dewatered) with the excess water then 

discharged to the environment.

■ A greater surface discharge of water, which would result from the pumping and 

treatment of excess water from the mine pit.

The mine workers’ excavating the uranium ore during the mining operation, through the uranium 

milling process itself, and the disposal of the tailings also increase the potential impacts to 

workers’ health and safety.

Based upon these greater impacts, the alternatives of conventional uranium mining and milling 

have been eliminated from further analysis in this SEIS.

2.2.2 Alternate Lixiviant Chemistry

The lixiviant proposed for the Ross Project is consistent with the assumption in the GEIS that 

the ISR process would employ alkaline lixiviants (NRC, 2009b). Other lixiviants can be made 

with sulfuric acid or ammonia, and these have been shown to dissolve uranium (NRC, 2009b). 

However, the lixiviant that is selected for a specific ISR project must be able to dissolve uranium 

from the host rock while it maintains the permeability of the aquifer. In addition, the lixiviant and 

its reaction products must be amenable to ground-water restoration.

Acidic lixiviant has been 

used most broadly in 

conventional milling. 

These acid-based fluids 

have generally achieved 

high yield and efficient, 

rapid uranium recovery, 

but they also dissolved 

other metals associated 

with the uranium in the 

host rock, and this 

dissolution can contribute

How do you select a proper lixiviant?

The geology and ground-water chemistry determine the proper ISR 

techniques and chemical reagents used for uranium recovery. For 

example, if the ore-bearing aquifer is rich in calcium (e.g., limestone or 

gypsum), alkaline (carbonate) lixiviant might be used (Hunkin, 1977, as 

cited in NRC, 2009b). Otherwise, an acid (sulfate) lixiviant might be 

preferable. The lixiviant chemistry chosen for ISR operations could affect 

the type of potential contamination and the vulnerability of aquifers during 

and after ISR operations.

Typical ISR operations in the U.S. use an alkaline sodium bicarbonate 

system to remove the uranium from ore-bearing aquifers. In addition, 

aquifers where an alkaline-based lixiviant was used were considered to be 

easier to restore than those where acid lixiviants were used (Tweeton and 

Peterson, 1981, and Mudd, 1998, as cited in NRC, 2009b).
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-54

to adverse environmental impacts. In Wyoming, acid lixiviants have been used for small-scale 

research and development operations, but they have not been used in commercial operations 

(NRC, 2009b). Tests with acid lixiviants have identified two major problems: 1) gypsum (a 

calcium mineral) precipitates on well screens and within the aquifer during uranium recovery, 

plugging wells and reducing the aquifer’s permeability, which is critical for economic operation; 

and 2) the precipitated gypsum gradually dissolves after aquifer restoration, increasing the 

salinity and sulfate levels in the ground water. Because of the potential impacts of soluble 

metals and increased salinity in the aquifer as well as the potential for plugging of the aquifer by 

their use, acid-based lixiviants have been eliminated from further analysis in this SEIS.

Ammonia-based lixiviants have been used at some ISR operations in Wyoming. However, 

operational experience has shown that ammonia tends to adsorb onto clay minerals in the ore 

zone and then slowly dissolves from the clay during aquifer restoration, therefore requiring that 

a much larger volume of ground water be removed and processed during the aquifer restoration 

phase (NRC, 2009b). Traces of the ammonia from the lixiviant have remained in affected 

aquifers even after extensive aquifer restoration. Because of the greater consumption of ground

water to meet aquifer-restoration requirements, the use of an ammonia-based lixiviant has been 

eliminated from further analysis in this SEIS.

2.2.3 Alternate Waste Management Methodologies

Liquid-effluent disposal practices that the NRC has previously approved for use at ISR facilities 

include waste evaporation from surface impoundments, application of waste on land, injection of 

waste into deep wells, and discharge of waste to surface water (NRC, 2009b).

The Proposed Action would utilize injection into a UIC-permitted Class I well as the primary 

method of disposal of brine, excess permeate produced during brief periods of uranium 

recovery and aquifer restoration, and other process waste waters. The Proposed Action would 

include surface impoundments located near the CPP to store and manage the brine and to 

allow the reuse of permeate as lixiviant or as process water. As discussed in Section 2.1.1.2 of 

this SEIS, most of the permeate from the RO circuit would be recycled back to the wellfield as 

lixiviant. Of the approximately 6.5 ha [16 ac] of the surface impoundments’ surface area in the 

Proposed Action, 2.5 ha [6.3 ac] would be available for evaporation under normal operating 

conditions (Strata, 2011b). Table 4.9 of this SEIS provides additional information on the volume 

of brine “disposed of” through evaporation. The Applicant has predicted that the evaporation of 

brine during the time it is stored in the surface impoundments would reduce the volume needed 

via deep-well disposal by 17 percent during the operation-only phase and about 4 percent 

during the concurrent operation- and-aquifer-restoration phases (Strata, 2012b).

Reliance on evaporation to dispose of all the brine and other liquid byproduct material 

generated at the CPP, and thus eliminating the need for deep-well injection, would require a 

larger surface area of the impoundments. The maximum production of brine and other process 

waste occurs during the concurrent facility operation and aquifer-restoration phases. During this 

time, 859 L/min [227 gal/min] of byproduct liquid would be generated (Strata, 2011a). The 

remaining surface-impoundment volume in the Proposed Action would be used for permeate 

management and reserve capacity in the event of upset conditions.

The Applicant has estimated that the 2.5 ha [6.3 ac] available for evaporation in the Proposed 

Action would provide 33 L/min [8.8 gal/min] of average annual evaporation. Linear extrapolation 
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-55

suggests that 65 ha [160 ac] is the minimum surface area required for evaporation of all brine 

and other byproduct waste generated at the CPP. Considering the requirement to maintain 

reserve capacity to manage upset conditions and the natural fluctuations, the necessary surface 

impoundments would exceed 80 ha [200 ac]. Impoundments of sufficient size to eliminate the 

need for deep-well injection would nearly double the disturbed area. In the Proposed Action, 

approximately 114 ha [282 ac] would be disturbed during the entire Ross Project. The disturbed 

area required for only evaporation would be present throughout the entire construction, 

operation, aquifer restoration and decommissioning phases. It is likely that the CBW would 

need to be constructed around these large surface impoundments. Because the CPP and the 

surface impoundments would be expected to remain operational after the life of the proposed 

wellfields of the Ross Project, the surface impoundments would likely be in place for more than 

10 years.

These large surface impoundments could potentially impact land use and soils as well as 

ecological, water, air, and visual resources. These impacts and related occupational health 

impacts could be mitigated but still the impacts could be MODERATE. In contrast, the GEIS 

concluded that the permit process required for a Class I injection well provides confidence that 

the impacts from deep-well disposal would be SMALL. For these reasons, the alternative of the 

elimination of waste disposal in Class I deep-injection wells in favor of surface impoundments 

over more than 12 times the area of impoundments in the Proposed Action has not been carried 

forward for impact analysis in this SEIS.

2.3 Comparison of Predicted Environmental Impacts

The GEIS categorized the

significance of potential

environmental impacts as

described in the adjacent text 

box (NRC, 2009b). The 

large table, presented in the 

“Executive Summary” as 

Table ExS.1, summarizes the

potential environmental

impacts to each resource

area for all four of the Ross 

Project’s phases: 

construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning. The levels of significance—

SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE—are noted for each resource area.

The respective resource areas, as they currently exist at the Ross Project area, which is called 

the “affected environment,” are described in Section 3 of this SEIS. The potential environmental

impacts of the Ross Project are evaluated in Section 4 of this SEIS. The measures intended to 

mitigate any impacts are also discussed in Section 4 of this SEIS.

2.4 Final Recommendation

After weighing the impacts of the Proposed Action and comparing the Alternatives, the NRC 

staff, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.91(d), sets forth its final NEPA recommendation

regarding the Proposed Action. Unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the final NRC staff

How is the significance of identified impacts classified?

■ Small Impact: The environmental impacts are not detectable or 

are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter 

any important attribute of the resource considered.

■ Moderate Impact: The environmental impacts are sufficient to 

alter noticeably, but not destabilize, important attributes of the 

resource considered.

■ Large Impact: The environmental impacts are clearly 

noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of 

the resource considered.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-56

recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the Proposed Action

is that a Source and Byproduct Materials License for the Proposed Action be issued as

requested. This recommendation is based upon (i) the license application, including the 

environmental report the applicant submitted, and the applicant’s supplemental letters and 

responses to the NRC staff requests for additional information; (ii) consultation with Federal, 

State, Tribal, and local agencies; (iii) the NRC staff independent review; (iv) the NRC staff 

consideration of comments received on the draft SEIS; and (v) the assessments discussed in 

this SEIS.

2.5 References

10 CFR Part 20. Title 10, “Energy,” Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation,” Subpart K, “Waste Disposal.” Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office (GPO). 1991, as amended.

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

of Source Material,” Appendix A, “Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the 

Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source 

Material from Ores Processed Primarily for their Source Material Content.” Washington, DC: 

GPO. 1985, as amended.

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

of Source Material.” Washington, DC: GPO. 1961, as amended.

40 CFR Part 145. Title 40, “Protection of the Environment,” Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

145, “State UIC Program Requirements.” Washington, DC: GPO. 1983, as amended.

40 CFR Part 146. Title 40, “Protection of the Environment,” Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

146, “Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards.” Washington, DC: 

GPO. 1980, as amended.

(US)EIA (U. S. Energy Information Administration). Decommissioning of U.S. Uranium 

Production Facilities. DOE/EIA-0592. Washington, DC: Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and 

Alternate Fuels, EIA. 1995. Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

(ADAMS) Accession No. ML13011A269.

(US)EIA. 2011 Domestic Uranium Production Report. Washington, DC: Office of Electricity, 

Renewables, and Uranium Statistics, EIA. 2012. ADAMS Accession No. ML13011A271.

(US)EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Technical Report on Technologically 

Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials from Uranium Mining: Mining and 

Reclamation Background. Volume 1. EPA–402–R–08–005. Washington, DC: Office of 

Radiation and Indoor Air/Radiation Protection Division, USEPA. 2008. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13015A579.

(US)EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Aquifer Exemption Approval, Strata Energy 

Corporation, Ross ISR Project, Upper and Lower Fox Hills-Ore Zone Aquifer, Crook County, 

WY. Washington, DC: USEPA. May 15, 2013. ADAMS Accession No. ML13144A108. 
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-57

(US)NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Operational Inspection and Surveillance of 

Embankment Retention Systems for Uranium Mill Tailings.” Regulatory Guide 3.11.1, Revision 

1. Washington, DC: USNRC. 1980a. 

(US)NRC. “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling Project M-25.” 

NUREG–0706. Washington, DC: USNRC. 1980b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML032751663, 

ML0732751667, and ML032751669.

 

(US)NRC. “Residual Radioactive Contamination From Decommissioning. Volumes 1, 2, 3, and 

4.” NUREG–CR-5512. Washington, DC: USNRC. 1999. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML052220317. 

(US)NRC. “Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications, 

Final Report.” NUREG–1569. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2003a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML032250177.

(US)NRC. “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance/Decommissioning Process for 

Materials Licensees. Vol. 1, Rev. 2 (2006); Volume 2, Rev. 1 (2006); and Vol. 3, Rev. 1 (2012).” 

NUREG–1757. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2006. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML063000243, 

ML053260027, and ML12048A683.

(US)NRC. “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities. Volumes 1 and 2.” NUREG–1910. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2009b. ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML091480244 and ML091480188.

(US)NRC. “Source Material License, Number SUA-1596, to Uranium One Americas, Inc., for 

the Moore Ranch ISR Facility.” Washington, DC: USNRC. 2010. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML102710425. 

(US)NRC. “Site Visit and Informal Information Gathering Meetings Summary Report for 

the Proposed Ross In-Situ Recovery Project (Docket No. 040-09091).” Memorandum to 

K. Hsueh, Branch Chief, from A. Bjornsen, Project Manager, Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental Management Programs. November 28, 2011. 

Washington, DC: USNRC. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML112980194.

(US)NRC. “Deep Disposal Well Testing.” Email to H. Demuth, Petrotek from J. Saxton, 

USNRC, dated December 15, 2011. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2011b. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML11361A031.

(US)NRC. “Safety Evaluation Report for the Strata Energy, Inc. Ross ISR Project, Crook

County, Wyoming, Materials License No. SUA-1601, Docket No. 040-09091, Strata Energy, 

Inc.” Washington, DC: USNRC. 2014a. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A107.

(US)NRC. “Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, No. SUA-1601.” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2014b. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A111.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-58

ND Resources. Final Decommissioning Report for Nubeth R&D Solution Mining 

Project. Crook County, WY: ND Resources, Inc. March 1985a. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13274A058. 

ND Resources. Final Decommissioning Report for Nubeth R&D Solution Mining Project 

Volume 2. Crook County, WY: ND Resources, Inc. March 1985b. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13274A126. 

Nubeth Joint Venture (Nubeth). Environmental Report Supportive Information to Application for 

Source Material License. In Situ Solution Mining Test Site, Sundance Project, Crook County, 

Wyoming. Gillette, WY: Nubeth. 1977. ADAMS Accession No. ML13045A881.

Peninsula Energy, Ltd. “Lance Project, Wyoming.” 2011. At www.pel.net.au/projects/lance_

project_wyoming_usa.phtml (as of June 25, 2012).

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Environmental Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata Energy, Inc. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130342, 

ML110130344, and ML110130348.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, Technical 

Report, Volumes 1 through 6 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 

2011b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130333, ML110130335, ML110130314, ML110130316, 

ML110130320, and ML110130327.

Strata. Air Quality Permit Application for Ross In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project. Prepared for 

Strata Energy, Inc. Sheridan, WY: Inter-Mountain Laboratories, IML Air Science. 2011c. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML11222A060.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, RAI Question 

and Answer Responses, Environmental Report, Volume 1 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-

09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2012a. ADAMS Accession No. ML121030465.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, RAI Question 

and Answer Responses, Technical Report, Volumes 1 and 2 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-

09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2012b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML121020357 and 

ML121020361.

Strata. Final Pre-Hearing Memorandum of Strata Energy, Inc., In the Matter of the Application 

of Strata Energy for an In Situ Mining Permit for the Ross ISR Uranium Project for the Land 

Quality Division of the Department of Environmental Quality for the State of Wyoming. Docket 

No. 12-4803. October 17, 2012. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2012c. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML14014A132. 

Strata. “RE: Request Update of ER Table 1.6-1.” Email to J. Moore, NRC, from B. Schiffer, 

Strata. 2013a. Dated September 23, 2013. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2013a. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13035A014.
In Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-59

Strata. “Ross ISR Project, Containment Barrier Wall Construction Update.” October 14, 2013. 

Gillette, WY: Strata. 2013b. ADAMS Accession No. ML13295A230.

WDEQ/LQD (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division). “Noncoal 

In Situ Mining,” Rules and Regulations, Chapter 11. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/WQD. 2005a. 

WDEQ/LQD. Hydrology, “Coal and Noncoal.” Guideline 8. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/LQD. 

2005b.

WDEQ/WQD (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division). “Design 

and Construction Standards for Sewage Systems, Treatment Works, Disposal Systems or other 

Facilities Capable of Causing or Contributing to Pollution.” Rules and Regulations, Chapter 11. 

Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/WQD. 1984.

WDEQ/WQD. “Wyoming Surface Water Quality Standards,” Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1. 

Cheyenne, WY. WDEQ/WQD. 2007.

WDEQ/WQD. Authorization to Discharge Wastewater Associated with Pump Testing of Water 

Wells Under the Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Authorization 

#WYG720229. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/WQD. March 2011a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13015A695.

WDEQ/WQD. Strata Energy, Inc. – Ross Disposal Injection Wellfield, Final Permit 10-263,

Class I Non-hazardous, Crook County, Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/WQD. April 2011b. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML111380015. 

WWC Engineering (WWC). Ross ISR Project, Permit to Mine Application, TFN 5 5/217, 

Submittal of Mine Plan Replacement Page per the Joint Stipulation Resolving EQC Docket No. 

12-4803. October 24, 2012. ADAMS Accession No. ML12299A040.

WWC. “Re: Request Update of ER Table 1.6-a.” E-mail to J. Moore, Project Manager, Office of 

Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, NRC, from B. Schiffer, 

WWC Engineering Inc. February 1, 2013. Sheridan, WY: WWC Engineering. 2013a. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML13035A012. 

Affected Environment

3-1 

3 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Introduction

The Ross Project would be located in northeastern Wyoming, in a rural area of western Crook 

County, approximately 35 km [22 mi] north of the town of Moorcroft, Wyoming (see Figure 2.1 in 

SEIS Section 2). This section describes the existing conditions at the Ross Project area, the 

696-ha [1,721-ac] area that is addressed in this Final Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement (SEIS, or FSEIS if the respective section, figure, or table did not appear in the Draft 

SEIS [DSEIS]), and its vicinity. The resource areas described in this section include land use; 

transportation; geology and soils; water, both surface water and ground water; ecology; noise; 

meteorology, climatology, and air quality; historical, cultural, and paleontological resources; 

visual and scenic resources; socioeconomics; public and occupational health and safety; and 

waste management. This description of the affected environment is based upon information 

provided in Strata Energy, Inc.’s (Strata) (herein also referred to as the “Applicant”) license 

application and its Responses to the United States (U.S.) Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 

(NRC’s) Requests for Additional Information (RAIs) and supplemented by additional information 

identified by the NRC and others in the public domain (Strata, 2011a; Strata, 2011b; Strata, 

2012a; Strata, 2012b). The information in this section forms the basis for the evaluation 

discussed in Section 4, “Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures,” which discusses the 

potential impacts of the Proposed Action and of each of the Alternatives in each resource area, 

as defined in SEIS Section 2.1.

 

3.1.1 Relationship between the Proposed Project and the GEIS 

As shown in Figure 2.3 in SEIS Section 2.1.1, the Ross Project area is located in the northern 

end and on the western edge of the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region

(NSDWUMR), as defined in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach 

Uranium Milling Facilities (GEIS), NUREG–1910 (NRC, 2009b). However, in defining the 

NSDWUMR, the GEIS focused on potential in situ uranium-recovery (ISR) sites located near the 

Black Hills area of South Dakota (the Black Hills are 64 km [40 mi] east of the Ross Project 

area). As a result, some of the affected environment discussion in the GEIS for the NSDWUMR 

does not reflect actual site conditions at the Ross Project area (in particular, the subsurface 

geology and water-resources information). However, the GEIS’s discussion of the Wyoming 

East Uranium Milling Region (WEUMR), located west of the Ross Project site, does provide 

germane information with respect to the Ross Project area’s subsurface geology and water 

resources. 

3.2 Land Use

The Ross Project area encompasses approximately 696 ha [1,721 ac], as described in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1. Nearby towns include Pine Haven, 27 km [17 mi] southeast; Moorcroft, 35 km

[22 mi] south; Sundance, 50 km [30 mi] southeast; and Gillette, 53 km [33 mi] southwest. The 

Ross Project area is adjacent to the unincorporated ranching community of Oshoto. There are 

11 residences within 3 km [2 mi] of the Ross Project, but no residences within the Project area. 

The closest residence is approximately 210 m [690 ft] north-northeast of the Ross Project 

boundary (see Figure 3.1). Existing land uses, discussed in this section, include livestock 

grazing, oil production, crop agriculture, communication- and power-transmission infrastructure, 
Affected Environment

3-2 

Figure 3.1

Current Land Uses of Ross Project Area

(Includes Nearest Residences)

PROPOSED ROSS PROJECT

LICENSE BOUNDARY

EXISTING RESIDENCE

COUNTY ROAD

INDUSTRIAL

CROPLAND AND PASTURE HERBACEOUS RANGELAND

MIXED RANGELAND

Source: Strata, 2012a. 
Affected Environment

3-3 

transportation infrastructure, limited recreational opportunities, stock and other reservoirs, and 

wildlife habitat (see Figure 3.1). The actual land ownership of the Ross Project area’s surface 

differs from general land ownership in the region in that 97.6 percent is owned by private 

landowners or the State of Wyoming (Wyoming), and 2.3 percent is owned by the Federal 

Government (as described in Section 3.3.1 of the GEIS, 53.3 percent of Wyoming land is public 

land). The proposed Ross Project facility would be located on private property, and the 

wellfields would be located on private, State, and Federal lands.

Wyoming owns all of the mineral rights below State-owned land, and the Federal Government 

controls all of the mineral rights below U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-managed land. 

There are private lands where the Federal Government (through the BLM) controls the mineral 

rights below the Ross Project area, a situation known as a “split estate.” Between land 

ownership and split estate, the Federal Government through the BLM therefore controls 11.7 

percent of the total mineral rights under the Ross Project area (see Table 3.1), as opposed to 

2.3 percent of the surface. All of the Federal rights are managed by the BLM. 

Table 3.1

Distribution of Surface Ownership and Subsurface Mineral Ownership

Ownership Surface Ownership Subsurface Mineral Ownership

Ha / Ac Percent Ha / Ac Percent

Private 553.3 / 1,367.2 79.4 488.2 / 1,206.3 70.1

State 127.1 / 314.1 18.2 127.1 / 314.1 18.2

Federal 16.2 / 40.0 2.3 81.3 / 200.9 11.7

TOTAL 696 / 1,721

(Rounded) -- 696 / 1,721

(Rounded) --

Source: Strata, 2011a.

3.2.1 Pastureland, Rangeland, and Cropland

Approximately 95 percent of the Ross Project area is currently used for rangeland, cropland, or 

pastureland. The largest portion, over 80 percent, is rangeland, while 14 percent is used for 

agriculture. In Crook County, rangeland is primarily used for cattle, with some grazing of sheep. 

Crops grown in the vicinity include hay, oats, and wheat.

3.2.2 Hunting and Recreation

There are many hunting and recreational opportunities within Crook County. However, there 

are limited opportunities for hunting and recreation within the Ross Project area because the 

majority of the land is privately owned. The State-owned land within the Ross Project area is 

accessible from County Road (CR) 193, but the Federal (i.e., BLM) land is not served by public 

roads, so the public would only be able to access the BLM land by crossing the State land on 

foot. Large-game hunting in the area includes antelope (North Black Hills herd), mule deer 

(Powder River and Black Hills herds), and white-tailed deer (Black Hills herd). Other hunting 

opportunities in the vicinity include sage-grouse, wild turkeys, and small game such as cottontail 

rabbits and snowshoe hares as well as red, gray, and fox squirrels. There are hunting seasons 
Affected Environment

3-4 

specific to each type of game; however, because of the predominantly private ownership of the 

land, hunting within the Ross Project area is limited.

Recreational areas in the Ross Project vicinity include Devils Tower National Monument (Devils 

Tower or Bear Lodge), Black Hills National Forest, and Keyhole State Park. These areas offer 

access to hiking, camping, boating, biking, horseback riding, fishing, and hunting. The nearest 

of these is Devils Tower, approximately 16 km [10 mi] east of the Ross Project.

Although native fish have been observed in the Oshoto Reservoir, there are no fisheries in the 

Ross Project area because of the ephemeral or intermittent nature of the streams. The Oshoto 

Reservoir is partially located on State land; however, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

(WGFD) does not stock the Reservoir and it is not managed by any private agencies. 

Nonetheless, fishing has been reported downstream on the Little Missouri River, outside of the 

Ross Project area (Strata, 2011a).

3.2.3 Minerals and Energy

There are three operating oil wells within the Ross Project area, producing from depths between 

1,800 – 2,000 m [5,900 – 6,500 ft] below ground surface (bgs) (see Figure 3.2). Oil production 

is currently the only mineral extraction activity within the Ross Project area, although Crook 

County has other mineral resources which include coal, gas, bentonite (a bentonite mine is 

located 8 km [5 mi] to the northeast of the Project area), sand, gravel, gypsum, and limestone in 

addition to uranium and vanadium.

There are currently no licensed or operating uranium-recovery facilities within 80 km [50 mi] of 

the proposed Ross Project (see Figure 3.3). 

3.3 Transportation

The Proposed Action would rely on existing roads for supplies and materials transport, 

workforce commuting, and yellowcake and waste shipments to and from the Ross Project. The 

existing road network is discussed in this section; Figures 2.1 (in SEIS Section 2.1) and 3.4 

depict this network. The primary access road to the Ross Project area is from Exit 153 on I-90. 

From that point the Ross Project is reached by a vehicle’s travelling south on US 14/16, west on 

WY 51, north on Bertha Road, north on CR 68 (also known as D Road), and north on CR 164 

(also known as New Haven Road). The distance from the I-90 exit to D Road is 2.6 km [1.6 mi]. 

D Road is a two-lane asphalt and gravel road approximately 9 – 11 m [30 – 35 ft] wide with 

posted speed limits of 89 km/hr [55 mi/hr] for cars and 72 km/hr [45 mi/hr] for trucks. The 

asphalt pavement extends to 4.8 km [3 mi] north of Bertha Road, where it changes to a 

reclaimed-asphalt pavement, which has been rotomilled and blended with crushed base and 

subgrade. This surface continues for 11.7 km [7.3 mi] after which D Road has only a gravel 

surface. New Haven Road is a two-lane, crushed-shale road approximately 7.6 – 9.1 m [25 – 

30 ft] wide, with a posted speed limit of 72 km/hr [45 mi/hr]. CR 193, also known as the Oshoto

Connection, is a two-lane, crushed-shale roadway that connects New Haven Road to D Road 

along the northern portion of the Ross Project area. Other county roads in the local vicinity that 

can be used to access the Ross Project area include CR 26 (Cow Creek Road), CR 91 (Spring

Creek Road), and CR 211 (Deadman Road). Figure 2.1 shows the relative locations of these 

roads. Crook County conducts year-round routine maintenance of all CRs, including snow and 

debris removal, blading and grading, and miscellaneous repair. 
Affected Environment

3-5 

Figure 3.2

Oil and Gas Wells 

within Three Kilometers [Two Miles] of Ross Project Area

PROPOSED LICENSE BOUNDARY

Source: WOGCC, 2010, as shown in Strata, 2011a.

3-KM [2-MI] BOUNDARY
3-6 

PROPOSED 

ROSS PROJE

LICENSE BOU

Sources: Bayswater, 2010a; NRC, 2009b; NRC, 2010a; NRC, 2010b; 

Powertech, 2010; and UR-Energy, 2010 as shown in Strata, 2011a.

Figure 3.3

Existing and Planned Uranium-Recovery Facilities
Affected Environment

3-7 

Figure 3.4

Existing Federal, State, and County Road Network in Northeast Wyoming

PROPOSED ROSS PROJECT

LICENSE BOUNDARY

Source: Strata, 2012a.

Note: See Figure 2.1 for actual Ross Project area roads.
Affected Environment

3-8 

The Applicant has completed traffic studies on the county roads near the Ross Project area 

(Strata, 2011a), as has Wyoming for its highways (see Table 3.2). Much of the existing truck 

traffic on the CRs adjacent to the Ross Project is due to local oil- and gas-recovery activities as 

well as to a bentonite mine approximately 8 km [5 mi] northeast of the Project.

Table 3.2

Traffic Volumes on Roads and Highways 

in Vicinity of Ross Project Area

(2010)

Road/Highway Vehicles per Day

All Vehicles Trucks

I-90 at Moorcroft 4,744 906

New Haven Road 

South of Ross Project Area 108 10.8

New Haven Road 

South of Oshoto Connection 138 11

On-Site Measurements 

D Road

South of Deadman Road 25 1.5

D Road

North of Deadman Road 49 2.3

D Road

North of Oshoto Connection 62 6.2

Oshoto Connection 

between D Road and 

New Haven Road

87 11.3

 Sources: Strata, 2011a, and Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT), 2011.

3.4 Geology and Soils

The Lance District, which includes the Ross Project area (refer to Figure 2.1), is structurally 

situated between two major tectonic features: the Black Hills uplift to the east and the Powder 

River Basin to the west (Strata, 2011a). Both of these regional features are described in GEIS 

Sections 3.3.3 and 3.4.3.1 (NRC, 2009b). The Black Hills uplift is generally assigned to the 

NSDWUMR, and the Powder River Basin to the WEUMR. The Project area’s structural 

geology, stratigraphy, uranium mineralization, and seismology as well as the types and 

characteristics of the soils present at the Project area are described in this section.

3.4.1 Ross Project Geology

The uranium-bearing geologic units targeted for uranium recovery within the Ross Project area 

are located in the permeable sandstones of the Late Cretaceous Lance and Fox Hills 

Formations. The uranium roll fronts deposited in the Oshoto area demonstrate patterns similar 

to those across the Powder River Basin. The Ross Project area’s roll fronts were created by 

precipitation of uranium from ground water as a coating on sand grains primarily due to changes 

in aquifer conditions and ground-water flow (Buswell, 1982). The roll-front geometry at the 
Affected Environment

3-9 

Project area can vary as a result of differences in the host sandstones. The deeper Fox Hills 

roll fronts are generally thicker and more massive due to the near-shore environment into which 

the sediments were deposited. The Lower Lance Formation sandstones were deposited in a 

fluvial environment (i.e., deposited by rivers or streams), resulting in narrower, often stacked 

channel systems containing uranium mineralization. Known uranium resources at the Ross 

Project area are likely to increase due to the variability of depositional environment and 

complexity of the roll-fronts. At this time, estimates of recoverable uranium within the Ross 

Project area exceed 2,500 t [5.5 million lb] of uranium and, based upon current projections, 

these estimates are likely to increase as more exploration and characterization results become 

available. 

3.4.1.1 Structural Geology

The Black Hills uplift is a broad north-trending dome-like structure approximately 290 km [180

mi] long (north to south) and 120 km [75 mi] wide (west to east) whose core is composed of 

Precambrian basement rocks (NRC, 2009b). The western flank of the uplift is characterized by 

a monoclinal (a one-limbed or step-like flexure) break near the Ross Project area (Lisenbee, 

1988). The eastern edge of the Ross Project area lies along the hinge of the Black Hills 

monocline. Because of the Black Hills monocline, the regional stratigraphic dip goes from 

essentially horizontal within the Powder River Basin, to steeply dipping along the eastern edge 

of the Ross Project area (see Figure 3.5). As indicated in the bedrock geologic map, Figure 3.6, 

the entire Ross Project area lies within the outcrop of the Lance Formation. The Cretaceous 

Formations below the Lance Formation all outcrop within roughly 3 km [2 mi] east of the Ross 

Project area.

Devils Tower, which is discussed later in the visual and scenic resources section of this section 

(see Section 3.10), is located approximately 16 km [10 mi] east of the Ross Project area. Devils 

Tower and the Missouri Buttes (15 km [9.5 mi] northeast of the Ross Project) are geologic 

features formed by the intrusion of igneous material (i.e., magma) through the earth’s crust 

during the Tertiary Period (i.e., subsequent to the deposition of the Upper Cretaceous 

Formations hosting the Lance District’s uranium deposits) (Robinson et al., 1964). 

With the exception of the Black Hills monocline, there are no significant structural features within 

the Ross Project area. No faults of major displacement are known to exist within the Ross 

Project area; however, minor localized slumps, folds, and differential compaction features that 

formed shortly after deposition are common (Strata, 2011a).

3.4.1.2 Stratigraphy

Stratigraphy describes the layers of rocks and soils below the ground’s surface (i.e., the 

subsurface) that host the ore zone (i.e., uranium mineralization) as well as the layers of rock 

that separate the ore zone from the aquifers above and below it. An analysis of the local

stratigraphy is used in assessments of whether the ore zone is adequately confined above and 

below by rock layers of low permeability that would prevent vertical movement of water or 

lixiviant from the ore zone.

The regional stratigraphy of the Black Hills area is shown in Figure 3.7. The ore zone, which 

would be the “production zone” (i.e., the deposits from which uranium would be recovered) at
3-10

Figure 3.5

Generalized Cross Section of Black Hills Monocline in the Oshoto Area

Occurrence

Source: Strata, 2011a.

PROJECT LICENSE 

BOUNDARY
3-11

Source: Strata, 2011a.

Figure 3.6

Surface Geology of Ross Project Area
Affected Environment

3-12

Figure 3.7

Regional Stratigraphic Column of Area Containing the Lance District

Source: South Dakota School of Mines, 1963.
Affected Environment

3-13

the Ross Project, is within the Upper Cretaceous stratigraphic units, including the Lower Lance 

(Hell Creek) and Upper Fox Hills Formations. 

Detailed analysis of the subsurface stratigraphy and mineralogy of the Ross Project area began 

with the first uranium exploration and development efforts in the Oshoto area during the 1970s 

by the Nubeth Joint Venture (Nubeth) as described in SEIS Section 2.1.1 (Strata, 2011a). In 

2008 and 2009, the Applicant began confirmation and exploration drilling at the Ross Project 

(Strata, 2011a). As of October 2010, the Applicant possessed information from the 1,682 holes 

drilled by Nubeth as well as its own 540 recent exploration drillholes, which are all located within 

a 0.8-km [0.5-mi] radius of the Ross Project area. The logs for these drillholes were used by the 

Applicant to characterize the site-specific stratigraphy of the Ross Project area (Strata, 2011a; 

Strata, 2011b).

The Pierre Shale in this area is a massively bedded, relatively uniform, thick marine shale that is 

considered a regional confining layer (or “unit” or “interval” or “horizon”) (NRC, 2009b). This unit 

outcrops approximately 0.4 km [0.3 mi] east of the Ross Project’s eastern boundary (see Figure 

3.6). Based upon the width of the outcrop and geophysical logs from oil wells located in the 

general area, the Applicant has estimated the thickness of the Pierre Shale to be approximately 

670-m [2,200-ft] thick under the Ross Project area (Strata, 2011a; Robinson et al., 1964). 

Because of its thickness and low permeability, the Pierre Shale is considered the lower groundwater-confining unit within the Ross Project vicinity, separating the older, deeper Formations 

below the Pierre Shale from the Ross Project’s target ore zone which is in the overlying Fox 

Hills and Lance Formations. 

The Madison Formation, a regional water source, is approximately 2,100 m [7,000 ft] below the 

Pierre Shale or about 2,700 m [9,000 ft] below the uranium-recovery activities of the proposed 

Ross Project. About 150 m [500 ft] below the Madison-Formation aquifer, the Cambrian-age 

Deadwood and Flathead Formations are encountered at depths of approximately 2,490 – 2,600 

m [8,160 – 8,560 ft] bgs (WDEQ/WQD, 2011b). The Applicant proposes that these Formations 

are the optimum target units for the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class I deep-injection 

wells that would be used for waste-water disposal at the Ross Project. The Deadwood and 

Flathead Formations are separated from the Madison Formation by at least 140 m [400 ft] of the 

impermeable Red River Formation and Icebox Shale (Strata, 2011b). The impermeable rocks 

above the geologic interval targeted for the uranium-recovery injection wells would confine the 

injected fluids and prevent impacts to the Madison-Formation aquifer. The Applicant has 

already received its UIC Class I Permit for this type of deep-well disposal (WDEQ/WQD, 

2011b).

The Fox Hills Formation, which lies between the Pierre Shale and the Lance Formation, 

outcrops along the proposed eastern boundary of the Ross Project (see Figure 3.6). The Fox 

Hills Formation is a sequence of marginal marine to estuarine sand deposits that were 

deposited during the eastward regression of the Upper Cretaceous interior seaway (Dunlap, 

1958; Merewether, 1996). In the vicinity of Oshoto, the Fox Hills Formation is divided into lower 

and upper units, which are based upon differences in color, bedding, trace fossil concentrations, 

lithology, and texture (Dodge and Spencer, 1977). 

Above the Fox Hills Formation, the Lance Formation has been interpreted as being fluvio-deltaic 

in origin, consisting of a mixture of non-marine-deposited sandstones and floodplain mudstones 

with thin beds of coal (Connor, 1992). This depositional environment created a stratigraphic 
Affected Environment

3-14

sequence of shale, mudstones, and sandstones that is complicated and vertically 

heterogeneous (Dodge and Powell, 1975). 

The horizontal continuity of the various stratigraphic horizons beneath the Ross Project is 

clearly depicted on the geologic cross-sections and fence diagrams provided by the Applicant 

(Strata, 2011a; Strata, 2012b). The Upper Fox Hills and Lower Lance Formations are 

stratigraphically continuous and hydraulically isolated from the overlying Upper Lance Formation 

by continuous and impermeable mudstones and claystones as well as from the underlying units 

by the basal Fox Hills siltstone-claystone unit and the Pierre Shale.

3.4.2 Soils

Soils at the Ross Project are typical for semi-arid grass- and shrublands in the western U.S. 

(Strata, 2011a). Most of these soils are classified as Aridic Argiustolls, Ustic Haplargids, or 

Ustic Torrifluvents that were derived from the Lance Formation over time.

General topography of the Ross Project area ranges from nearly level uplands to steep hills, 

ridges, and breaks. The soils occurring on hills, ridges, and breaks at the Ross Project are 

generally sandy or coarse texture with clayey or fine-textured soils occurring on nearly level 

uplands and near drainages. The Ross Project area contains moderate and deep soils on level 

upland areas and drainages with shallow soils located on hills, ridges, and breaks. Figure 3.8 

depicts the types of soils charted on the Ross Project area during “pre-licensing, sitecharacterization” (i.e., before Strata submitted its license application) activities (Strata, 2011a; 

Strata, 2012b). The area of the Ross Project is about equally divided between sandy loam soils 

and clay loam soils (Strata, 2011a). The soil characteristics of both the Proposed Action’s south 

site (Alternative 1) and the north site (Alternative 3) are of particular interest since these would 

be the largest areas of soils disturbance during the Ross Project (see Table 3.3).

Approximate topsoil salvage depths range from 0.13 – 1.5 m [0.42 – 5 ft] with an average of 0.5 

m [1.7 ft]. Factors that affect the suitability of a soil as a vegetation-growth medium are: 

texture, sodium-adsorption ratio (SAR), electrical conductivity (EC), and pH as well as selenium 

and calcium carbonate concentrations. Based upon a comparison of laboratory-analysis results 

and field observations by the Applicant, using the respective Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (WDEQ)/Land Quality Division (LQD) standards, suitable and marginally 

suitable material was found in 16 of the 26 samples obtained within the Ross Project area 

(Strata, 2011a; WDEQ/LQD, 1994); unsuitable material was found in 7 of the 26 samples. The 

parameters that exceeded topsoil suitability criteria in those seven samples were high clay 

texture, high SAR, alkaline pH, and high concentration of selenium.

The hazard for wind and water erosion at the Ross Project varies from negligible to severe, 

based upon the soil-mapping descriptions. The potential for wind and water erosion is primarily 

dependent upon the surface characteristics of the soils, including texture and organic-matter 

content. Given the slightly coarser texture of the surface horizons at the majority of the Ross 

Project, the soils are slightly more susceptible to erosion from wind than water.

Laboratory analyses for non-radioactive, chemical constituents in the soils at the Ross Project 

are not required by WDEQ to establish pre-licensing or pre-operational values prior to 

permitting. For radioactive constituents, the Applicant collected and analyzed some soil 

samples to establish the pre-licensing, site-characterization concentrations of some radioactive 
Affected Environment

3-15

PROPOSED ROSS PROJECT

LICENSE BOUNDARY

Source: Strata, 2011a.

Figure 3.8

Mapped Soil Types at Ross Project Area
Affected Environment

3-16

Table 3.3

Soil Coverage and Characteristics at Ross Project Area

Soil Name

Soil Map 

Symbol

Alternative 1

(South)

Site

(ha [ac])

Alternative 3 

(North)

Site

(ha [ac])

Water 

Erosion 

Hazard

Wind 

Erosion 

Hazard

Absted very fine 

sandy loam AB 3.7 [9.1] N/A Moderate Moderate

Bidman loam BI 9.3 [23.1] 2.2 [5.4] Moderate Moderate

Cushman very 

fine sandy loam CU N/A 2.0 [5.0] Moderate Slight

Forkwood loam FO 7.1 [17.5] 3.4 [8.4] Moderate Slight

Nunn clay loam NU N/A 2.4 [5.9] Slight Slight

Shingle clay loam SH N/A 2.3 [5.7] Moderate Moderate

Tassel fine

sandy loam TA N/A 2.7 [6.7] Slight Moderate

Source: Strata, 2011a.

Notes: 

N/A = The type of soil is not present at the south or north site as indicated.

 “Water Erosion Hazard” describes the susceptibility of the soil type to erosion by water, and 

“Wind Erosion Hazard” describes the susceptibility of the soil type to erosion by wind.

species. The concentrations of specific radioactive species are presented in Table 3.21 (see 

Section 3.12.1). 

3.4.3 Uranium Mineralization

The process of uranium mineralization in the Lance District in general and specifically at the 

Ross Project area is consistent with the characteristics of the uranium deposits that are 

identified in GEIS Section 2.1.2 as amenable to in situ uranium recovery. This mineralization 

includes fluvial sandstones (NRC, 2009b). The lithological variability within the Upper Lance 

and Fox Hills Formations would allow the geometric definition of ore deposits (i.e., areas of 

uranium mineralization or “ore bodies”) with sufficient size and continuity to make economic 

recovery viable. The saturated sandstone lithology of the ore zone would provide adequate 

permeability to allow uranium-recovery process solutions (i.e., lixiviant) access and interaction 

with uranium in the ore zone. In addition, the presence of impermeable units above and below 

the ore zone would prevent vertical migration of lixiviant or other fluids. Thus, the geology of the 

deposits would provide the characteristics required for an effective uranium-recovery project. 

The mineralogy and petrography determined by the Applicant indicated that the ore zone is 

suitable for ISR (Strata, 2011a). The sandstone in the ore zone consists of 60 percent quartz, 

35 percent feldspar, 5 percent montmorillonite clay, approximately 1 percent organic material, 

and less than 1 percent of pyrite and carbonate minerals (Strata, 2011a). The presence of 

pyrite confirms the geochemical conditions necessary for formation of the roll front. 

Petrographic analyses show that the ore zone has sufficient porosity (or reservoir quality) for 

movement of lixiviant from injection to recovery wells (Strata, 2011a). The ore zone is 

composed of fine grained, moderately well sorted, argillaceous sandstone with subangular to 

subrounded grains that are lightly to moderately compacted. 
Affected Environment

3-17

Consistent with GEIS Section 2.1.2 and 

typical of roll-front deposits (NRC, 2009b), 

analysis of the samples from the ore zone 

at the Ross Project shows that the 

principal uranium minerals are uraninite, a 

uranium oxide (UO2), and coffinite, a 

uranium silicate (U[SiO4][OH])4) (Strata, 

2011a). Vanadium in the form of 

vanadinite (a lead chlorovanadate 

[Pb5{VO4}3Cl]) and carnotite [a hydrated 

potassium uranyl vanadate (K2[UO2]2[VO4]2

3H2O)] is also found in association with the 

uranium at an average ratio of 0.6 

(vanadium) to 1.0 (uranium).

3.4.4 Seismology

There are no active faults with surface 

expression mapped within or near the 

Ross Project, according to the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) (USGS, 2011). 

The closest capable faults to the Project 

area are located in central Wyoming, 270 

km [170 mi] to the west-southwest. Six 

east-west trending structural faults through 

the Ross Project area were mapped by 

Buswell (1982). However, these were 

based upon limited observations and 

information from one core sample and one 

aquifer test. The Applicant’s examination 

of multiple geological cross-sections 

developed from stratigraphic information 

obtained from exploration drillholes do not appear to support this interpretation of the Ross 

Project area’s faults (see SEIS Section 3.4.1.2) (Strata, 2011a). Instead, it appears that the 

variability in stratigraphic elevations is due to heterogeneity in the thickness of the various shale 

and sandstone units within the Upper Cretaceous Formations.

Two earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 2.5 (on the Richter Magnitude Scale) have been 

recorded in Crook County and nine in Campbell County (Strata, 2011a). Of those with 

magnitudes greater than 2.5, 3 had magnitudes 3.0 and greater (Case et al., 2002). The first 

reported earthquake in Crook County with a magnitude of greater than 3 occurred near 

Sundance on February 3, 1897, severely shaking the Shober School on Little Houston Creek 

southwest of Sundance. On February 18, 1972, a magnitude 4.3 earthquake occurred 

approximately 30 km [18 mi] east of Gillette near the Crook-Campbell County line (Case et al., 

2002). No damage was reported. On November 2004, an earthquake of magnitude of 3.7 was 

recorded near Moorcroft in Crook County, 35 km [22 mi] south of the Ross Project area. The 

occurrence of these few, low-magnitude events is consistent with the predicted low probability of 

seismic-induced or earthquake-caused ground motion in northeastern Wyoming (Algermissen et 

al., 1982).

What are the characteristics of uranium deposits 

that make them amenable to in situ uranium 

recovery?

Certain geologic and hydrological features make a 

uranium deposit in an ore zone suitable for in situ 

uranium recovery (based upon Holen and Hatchell, 

1986 as cited in NRC, 2009b): 

■ Deposit geometry: For ISR operations, the

wellfield boundaries are defined based upon the 

geometry of the specific uranium mineralization (the 

“ore body”). The deposit should generally be 

horizontal and have sufficient size and lateral 

continuity to enable economic uranium extraction 

and recovery.

■ Permeable host rock: The host rock of the orezone aquifer must be permeable enough to allow 

process solutions (the lixiviant) to access and 

interact with the uranium mineralization. Preferred 

flow pathways, such as fractures in the rock, can

short circuit portions of the mineralization and 

reduce the recovery efficiency. The most common 

host rocks are sandstones.

■ Confining layers: Hydrogeologic (formation) 

geometry must prevent lixiviant from vertically 

migrating. Typically, low permeability layers such 

as shales or clays “confine” the uranium-bearing 

sandstone(s) both above and below. This

confinement isolates the uranium-ore zone from 

overlying and underlying aquifers.

■ Saturated conditions: For ISR uranium-recovery 

techniques to work, the uranium mineralization 

should be located in a hydrologically saturated zone

(in an aquifer). 
Affected Environment

3-18

Earthquakes generally do not result in ground-surface rupture unless the magnitude of the event 

is greater than 6.5 (Case and Green, 2000). Because of this, areas of Wyoming that do not 

have active faults exposed at the surface, such as the Ross Project area, are generally thought 

not to be capable of having earthquakes with magnitudes over 6.5. As shown on Figure 3.9, the 

probability of an earthquake with magnitude greater than or equal to 6.5 in the vicinity of the 

Ross Project is less than 0.001. This Figure was prepared using the USGS Probabilistic 

Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) model (USGS, 2010). Earthquakes with magnitudes less than 

6.5 would cause little damage in specially built structures, but they could cause considerable 

damage to ordinary buildings and even severe damage to poorly built structures. Some walls 

could collapse, but underground pipes would generally not be broken, and ground cracking 

would not occur or would be minor (USGS, 2010).

3.5 Water Resources

Water resources in the vicinity of Ross Project include both surface water and ground water. 

Both the quantity and the quality of surface and ground waters are described in this section. 

“Pre-licensing, site-characterization” water-quality data have been collected and analyzed by the 

Applicant in accordance with the following guidelines:

■ American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International’s Standard D449-85a, 

Standard Guide for Sampling Groundwater Monitoring Wells, as recommended in the NRC’s 

guidance document, Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications, NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003b). (The ASTM Standard noted here was replaced 

by ASTM Standard D4448-01 in 2007.) 

■ WDEQ’s “Hydrology, Coal and Noncoal,” Guideline No. 8 (WDEQ/LQD, 2005b). 

■ NRC’s Regulatory Guide 4.14, Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring at 

Uranium Mills, Revision 1 (NRC, 1980).

As a general rule, these guidance documents by both NRC and WDEQ recommend water 

samples be filtered before the analysis of any metals each sample might contain. ASTM D449-

85a (now ASTM 4448-01) and the NRC’s Regulatory Guide 4.14 also specify analysis of 

radiological parameters in filtered samples (NRC, 1980). The results of the analysis of 

constituents in filtered samples are then reported as “dissolved” concentrations (versus 

“unfiltered” samples, which are reported as “total” concentrations). The filtering of water 

samples before analysis for metals is consistent with WDEQ/WQD’s Groundwater Sampling for 

Metals: Summary, which explains that filtering samples eliminates bias that may arise from 

variable turbidity in the samples (WDEQ/WQD, 2005a). The NRC’s guidance on filtering 

samples applies to both pre-licensing, site-characterization monitoring efforts as well as postlicensing, pre-operational and operational environmental monitoring efforts during ISR operation 

and aquifer restoration.

The standardized protocol for filtering samples that would be analyzed for metals also allows a 

sound comparison among other data sets. For example, pre- and post-ISR operation waterquality data available for Nubeth also reported dissolved metal concentrations (i.e., filtered 

samples were analyzed). 
3-19

Note: USG

Science Ce

PROPOSED ROSS PROJECT 

LICENSE BOUNDARY 

Pro

Source: Strata, 2012a.

Figure 3.9

Probability of Earthquake with Magnitude of Greater Than or Equal to 6.5 in 50 Year
Affected Environment

3-20

3.5.1 Surface Water

The Ross Project area is located in the upper reaches of the Little Missouri River Basin. The 

Little Missouri River originates in northeastern Wyoming, flows through southeastern Montana, 

through northwestern South Dakota, and into North Dakota where it empties into the Missouri 

River at Lake Sakakawea. The total river length is 652 km (405 mi), and the total drainage area 

(i.e., the area where all surface waters flow toward the Little Missouri River) is approximately 

24,500 km2 [9,470 mi2

]. Figure 3.10 depicts the Little Missouri River Basin. The drainage area 

of the Little Missouri River at the downstream boundary of the Ross Project area is 

approximately 47 km2

 [18 mi2].

A surface-water monitoring system has been employed by the Applicant to characterize surfacewater quantity and quality at the Ross Project area. This system includes three monitoring 

stations and is designed to monitor the major surface-water drainages to the Little Missouri 

River and to establish pre-licensing, site-characterization surface-water quantity and quality.

3.5.1.1 Surface-Water Features

The surface-water features located within the Ross Project are depicted in Figure 3.11 and 

consist of several reservoirs and minor stream channels. Oshoto Reservoir, located in the 

channel of the Little Missouri River, is the main hydrologic feature of the Project area (Water

Right Permit No. P6046R) (WSEO, 2006). The only potential springs identified within the Ross 

Project area are associated with nearby wetlands (see SEIS Section 3.5.2) or with the Little 

Missouri River in the vicinity of the Oshoto Reservoir.

The Applicant has identified 12 existing reservoirs within or just outside the Ross Project area 

using aerial photography, Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (WSEO) permits, and landowner 

interviews (see Figure 3.11). Other than the Oshoto Reservoir, which has a maximum capacity 

of 42 ha-m [339 ac-ft] and an area of 11 ha [28 ac], all the identified reservoirs have a capacity 

of less than approximately 1 ha-m [10 ac-ft] and a surface area of less than approximately 1 ha 

[3 ac] (Strata, 2011a). The Oshoto Reservoir has the potential to affect stream flow 

downstream of the Reservoir itself and appears to influence water-table elevations in its 

proximity (Strata, 2011a). 

There are three Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WYPDES)-permitted outfalls 

associated with the oil-production operations within the watershed that includes the Ross 

Project area: two upstream from the Ross Project (Permit Nos. WY0044296 and WY0033065)

and one downstream (Permit No. WY0034592) (Strata, 2011a). Discharge rates from these 

outfalls are relatively low, approximately 0 – 150 m3

/d [0 – 5,300 ft3/d].
Affected Environment

3-21

ROSS PROJECT AREA

Source: Strata, 2011a.

Figure 3.10

Little Missouri River Basin and Surface-Water Gaging Stations
Affected Environment

3-22

PROPOSED ROSS PROJECT LICENSE BOUNDARY

Source: Strata, 2011a.

Figure 3.11

Surface-Water Features of Ross Project Area
Affected Environment

3-23

3.5.1.2 Surface-Water Flow

As shown in Figure 3.10, five USGS gaging stations are located on the Little Missouri River 

downstream of the Ross Project (USGS, 2012a). The mean annual discharges range from 2 

m3

/s [77 ft3/s] at the most upstream gaging station (near Alzada, Montana) to 15.1 m3/s [533 

ft3

/s] at the most downstream gaging station (near Watford City, North Dakota). The discharges 

are typically lowest from November through January and highest during the months of March 

through June (Strata, 2011a). The peak flow for the Alzada, Montana, gaging station occurred 

in April 1944 when an estimated discharge of 170 m3

/s [6,000 ft3/s] occurred. The peak flow at 

the Camp Crook, South Dakota, gaging station took place in March 1978 with a flow of 267 m3

/s 

[9,420 ft3

/s]. The timing of these events indicates that snow melt and spring runoff typically 

result in the highest flows for this portion of the Little Missouri River.

The Applicant has established three surface-water monitoring stations and installed continuous 

stage recorders and pump samplers at each station within the Ross Project area in 2010 (see 

Figure 3.12) (Strata, 2011a). The stations were located at two sites on the Little Missouri River 

(SW-1 and SW-2) and one site on Deadman Creek (SW-3), an ephemeral tributary to Little 

Missouri River. The stage recorders are designed to continuously measure discharge and are 

integrated with the pump samplers that collect water-quality samples during runoff events. The 

Applicant reports flow data from the three surface-water monitoring stations from June 15, 2010, 

to October 11, 2011, with a break during the respective winter when the monitoring stations 

were removed to prevent their freezing (Strata, 2012a).

The results of the surface-water 

monitoring indicate that, where the 

streams enter the Ross Project area 

(SW-2 and SW-3), flow is in 

response to only snow-melt or 

precipitation events (i.e., ephemeral) 

(Strata, 2011a). The Little Missouri 

River, downstream from the 

proposed Ross Project boundary 

(SW-1), has flow for an extended 

period of the year but not all of the 

year and is, thus, intermittent. The 

Applicant compared the average 

daily flow observed at SW-1 to the 

water-surface elevation in Oshoto 

Reservoir (Strata, 2011a); the comparison suggests a correlation between the increased flow in 

the Little Missouri River downstream of Oshoto Reservoir and the amount of head in the 

Reservoir. This would indicate that some of the flow could be attributed to the stored capacity in 

Oshoto Reservoir. 

All streams within the Ross Project area, including the Little Missouri River and Deadman 

Creek, are classified by WDEQ/Water Quality Division (WQD) as Class 3B streams 

(WDEQ/WQD, 2001). A Class 3B stream is defined by the WDEQ/WQD as an intermittent or 

ephemeral stream with a designated use of “aquatic life other than fish.” Uses such as drinking 

water and fisheries are excluded in a Class 3B stream. Approximately 64 km [40 mi] 

downstream of the Ross Project, the Little Missouri River becomes a Class 2ABWW stream at 

What are the types of streams at the Ross Project area?

Perennial Streams: A perennial stream is a stream or part of 

a stream that flows continually during all of the calendar year 

as a result of ground-water discharge or surface runoff.

Intermittent Streams: An intermittent stream is a stream or 

part of a stream where the channel bottom is above the local 

water table for some part of the year, but which is not a 

perennial stream.

Ephemeral Streams: An ephemeral stream is a stream which 

flows only in direct response to a single precipitation event in 

the immediate watershed or in response to a single snow-melt 

event, and which has a channel bottom that is always above 

the prevailing water table.
Affected Environment

3-24

PROPOSED ROSS PROJECT LICENSE BOUNDARY

SURFACE-WATER MONITORING STATION

RESERVOIR

Source: Strata, 2012a.

Figure 3.12

Surface-Water Monitoring Stations at Ross Project Area
Affected Environment

3-25

its confluence with Government Canyon Creek; at this point, the River becomes protected as a 

drinking-water source (2AB) and warm-water (WW) fishery. 

There are no long-term stream-flow records for flows within or adjacent to the Ross Project; 

therefore, an U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Hydrologic Engineering Center’s 

Hydrologic Modeling System (HMS) was developed by the Applicant to estimate the peaks and 

volumes of floods for various recurrence intervals (Strata, 2011a). The resulting inundation 

boundaries are shown on Figure 3.13. Measured peak flows during a 2-year, 24-hour storm 

event in May 2011 were less than predicted by the model, suggesting that the predicted model 

flows are conservatively high (Strata, 2012a). 

3.5.1.3 Surface-Water Quality 

Data from water-quality analyses of samples obtained from the Ross Project surface-water 

monitoring stations in 2009 and 2010 are provided in the Applicant’s Environmental Report (ER) 

and Technical Report (TR) (see Figure 3.12 for sampling locations) (Strata, 2011a; Strata, 

2011b). Due to reasons ranging from the Applicant’s not having a landowner’s permission to 

no-flow conditions (i.e., there was no water flowing or the water was frozen), the number of 

quarters in which the monitoring stations were sampled ranges from one to six (Strata, 2011a). 

Water-quality analytical data from samples collected in 2011 were submitted to WDEQ/LQD and 

were provided in the Applicant’s Responses to the RAIs issued by the NRC (Strata, 2012a). 

The data from 2011 are generally consistent with the 2009 and 2010 data, indicating a 

representative characterization of surface-water quality.

The surface-water monitoring data characterizing the Little Missouri River and Deadman Creek 

from the first and second quarters of 2010 are summarized and described below. These data 

indicate that the overall water quality meets Wyoming’s surface-water criteria for a Class 3B 

stream, which is the designation for the Little Missouri River and Deadman Creek. 

■ The water quality in all streams is generally consistent across the entire Ross Project area. 

■ The field pH measurements ranged from 7.6 – 8.9 standard units (s.u.), indicating alkaline 

water. 

■ The field measurements of dissolved oxygen ranged from 6.9 – 10.5 mg/L, indicating an 

intermediate to high level of oxygen in the water.

■ Total salinity of the surface-water samples, expressed as total dissolved solids (TDS) 

concentrations, is low to moderate, ranging from 220 – 940 mg/L, and the water composition 

is dominated by sodium and bicarbonate.

■ Iron and manganese concentrations in unfiltered samples ranged from 0.32 – 0.95 mg/L and 

0.05 – 0.21 mg/L, respectively, suggesting the presence of suspended sediment in the 

samples.

■ Dissolved metals were near or below detection limits, with the exception of iron and 

uranium. Iron concentrations ranged from less than 0.07– 0.34 mg/L. Concentrations of 

uranium ranged from 0.003 – 0.02 mg/L.
Affected Environment

3-26

Figure 3.13

Predicted 100-Year Flood Inundation Boundaries

PROPOSED ROSS PROJECT LICENSE BOUNDARY

Source: Strata, 2011a.
Affected Environment

3-27

■ Dissolved radium-226 (Ra-226) was less than the detection limit of 0.01 Bq/L [0.2 pCi/L]. 

Dissolved radium-228 (Ra-228) was undetectable (i.e., less than 0.04 Bq/L [1 pCi/L]), except 

for one sample obtained at SW-2, which was counted at 0.05 Bq/L [1.3 pCi/L]. 

■ Gross alpha and gross beta ranged from 0.2 – 0.33 Bq/L [4 – 8.8 pCi/L) and 0. 2 – 0.41 Bq/L 

[6 – 11.2 pCi/L], respectively.

Other water-quality data suggest that the TDS increases downstream in the Little Missouri River 

and sulfate becomes the dominate anion (Langford, 1964). The total anion/cation balances 

were calculated from the analyses of major ions as a quality-control check on the laboratory 

analyses. The balances, less than 3 percent in 31 of the 36 samples analyzed, and between 3 

and 5 percent in five samples, validated the accuracy of the analyses (Strata, 2011a). 

The Applicant attempted to collect water-quality samples from 11 reservoirs (see Figure 3.12) 

from the third quarter of 2009 through the third quarter of 2011 (i.e., quarterly) (Strata, 2011a; 

Strata, 2011b; Strata, 2012a). Samples were not collected when the reservoirs were dry, were 

frozen, or when the Applicant was not able to obtain the landowner’s permission. These waterquality data indicate the following:

■ Higher TDS corresponds to low-flow conditions in the fourth quarters of both years. TDS in 

samples of the reservoirs on the channels of the Little Missouri River and Deadman Creek, 

upstream from Oshoto Reservoir, ranged from 800 – 2,320 mg/L compared to a range of 

460 – 920 mg/L in the Oshoto Reservoir and a range of 80 – 170 mg/L in the reservoir on 

the Little Missouri River downstream of the Oshoto Reservoir. The TDS in the reservoirs 

upland from the stream channels range from 60 – 1,190 mg/L. Bicarbonate or carbonate 

(depending upon the pH) was the dominant anion in all of the reservoirs. Sodium was the 

dominant cation, except in water on the low end of the TDS range, where calcium was often 

the dominant cation.

■ The water in all reservoirs was alkaline, with field pH measurements generally ranging from 

7 – 11 s.u. 

■ Field-measured dissolved oxygen ranged from 0.46 – 11.3 mg/L, suggesting seasonal low 

oxygen conditions. 

■ Similar to the streams, dissolved metals in the reservoirs were generally at or near the 

laboratory’s detection limits, except for uranium and iron. Uranium ranged from less than 

0.001 – 0.02 mg/L in all of the reservoirs except for those on Deadman Creek, where 

uranium concentration ranged from 0.015 – 0.087 mg/L. Detectable concentrations of 

dissolved iron generally corresponded to depleted dissolved oxygen levels. Measureable 

concentrations of total iron and manganese indicate the presence of sediment in the 

samples.

■ The available data for radionuclides show that most of the analyses were less than the 

laboratory’s lower limit of detection. However, detectable concentrations of lead-210 (Pb210), dissolved and suspended Ra-226, dissolved Ra-228, and suspended thorium-230 (Th230) were detected. Gross alpha and gross beta ranged from less than 0.07 – 1.8 Bq/L [2 – 

48.7 pCi/L] and 0.14 – 1.83 Bq/L [3.9 – 49.4 pCi/L], respectively. The highest values of 

gross alpha and gross beta were measured in samples from reservoirs on Deadman Creek.
Affected Environment

3-28

3.5.1.4 Surface-Water Uses

A search of the WSEO database of permitted surface-water rights within the Ross Project area 

boundaries and the adjacent 3-km [2-mi] radius revealed that 43 surface-water rights existed 

within and adjacent to the Ross Project in 2010 (WSEO, 2006; Strata, 2011a). The search of 

the WSEO database indicated that nearly half of the water-right permits have been cancelled, 

while the remaining permits are complete, fully adjudicated, or un-adjudicated (Strata, 2011a). 

In addition to the permitted surface-water rights, there are at least 17 additional reservoirs within 

or adjacent to the Ross Project area not listed in the WSEO water-rights database (Strata, 

2011a). 

Surface water within the Ross Project area and surrounding 3-km [2-mi] vicinity is primarily used 

for livestock watering, with lesser amounts used for irrigation and industrial uses (primarily as a 

temporary water supply for oil- and gas-extraction activities) (Strata, 2011a). Including the 

reservoirs not listed in the WSEO database, stock reservoirs account for approximately 90 

percent of the total active water rights (Strata, 2011a). Most of the stock reservoirs were 

constructed before 1970, and the majority are still in use today. Irrigation-water rights only 

account for a relatively small portion (less than 10 percent) of the surface-water rights. All of the 

irrigation rights were permitted 50 – 100 years ago for relatively small areas (28 ha [70 ac] or 

less). The one water right for Nubeth signifies the rise of uranium exploration in the late 1970s. 

Following this, there were some 15 temporary water-haul permits for oil- and gas-related 

activities from 1980 – 1991. Finally, the two most recent water rights were appropriated by the 

Applicant for exploration activities at the Ross Project area (Strata, 2011a).

3.5.2 Wetlands

The Federal definition of wetlands includes “those areas that are inundated or saturated by 

surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal 

circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 

conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (33 CFR 

Part 328.3). Wetlands are important resources that provide habitat for aquatic fauna and flora, 

filter sediments and toxicants, and attenuate floodwaters. 

Projects that discharge, dredge, or fill material into “Waters of the United States,” a concept 

related to surface- and ground-water regulation which includes special aquatic sites and 

wetlands under the jurisdiction of the USACE, require accurate identification of wetland 

boundaries for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972-permitting process. Through the 

Section 404-permitting process, the USACE can authorize dredge or fill (i.e., construction) 

activities by its issuance of standard individual permits, regional permits, or Nationwide Permits 

(NWP). Due to the potential for the Ross Project to adversely impact local historical and cultural 

resources, the USACE cannot verify a Section-404 NWP for construction activities in Waters of 

the U.S. until such time as the lead agency (i.e., the NRC) has completed the consultation 

efforts required under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) with respect to the 

potential impacts in the proposed NWP’s areas of effect.

Site-specific field surveys on behalf of the Applicant were conducted at the Ross Project by 

WWC Engineering, Inc. (WWC) staff on June 22 and 28 as well as July 8 and 21, 2010. These 

surveys were in accordance with the “Interim Regional Supplement to the USACE Wetlands 

Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region” (USACE, 2008; Strata, 2011a). These wetlands 
Affected Environment

3-29

surveys were conducted to identify and to characterize the wetlands located within the Ross 

Project area. Existing data used in the survey included the Natural Resource Conservation 

Service’s (NRCS’s) soil mapping, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS’s) National 

Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, and aerial photography taken in May 2010 (NRCS, 2010; 

USFWS, 2012a; Strata, 2011a). 

Thirteen wetland sites were identified on the NWI maps within the Ross Project area and were 

investigated during the 2010 field surveys. Potential wetlands identified during the initial June 

survey were later visited during another survey in July to verify that wetland characteristics were 

present. The wetlands-survey results, photographs, and correspondence with the USACE are 

provided in the Applicant’s ER (Strata, 2011a). All but two of the NWI areas were included in 

the field-delineated wetlands (Strata, 2011a). The two sites not included did not have the three 

required characteristics for a wetland. The three criteria are: 1) hydric soil (i.e., soils that are 

commonly flooded or saturated), 2) hydrophytic vegetation (i.e., plants that grow in hydric soils),

and 3) wetland hydrology (USACE, 2008). 

Many of the potential wetland areas delineated during the 2010 field surveys were small 

depressions (<0.04 ha [0.1 ac]) that were in close proximity to each other but were distinct 

depressions separated by upland vegetation. A significant number of these small-depression 

areas appeared to be influenced by ground water, receiving seepage from the Lance Formation, 

which outcrops in the vicinity. These potential wetlands were classified according to Cowardin 

et al. (1979) to more accurately describe the types of potential wetlands present within the Ross 

Project area (Strata, 2011a). Approximately 93 percent of the potential wetlands were humanmade (i.e., diked or excavated). A significant majority of these are preliminarily classified as 

Palustrine, Aquatic Bed, Seasonally Flooded (PABFh) or Diked. Of the areas designated as 

PABFh, approximately half were areas of open water. In addition, there were approximately 2.1 

ha [5.1 ac] (6,750 linear m [22,130 linear ft] x an average 3-m- [10-ft-] wide channel) of “Other 

Waters of the U.S.” identified within the Ross Project area (Strata, 2011a). 

A Wetlands Delineation Report for the Ross Project was submitted to the USACE Omaha 

District in Cheyenne, Wyoming, during September 2010 (Strata, 2011a). The USACE provided 

the Applicant a letter on December 9, 2010, that verified the following (USACE, 2010):

■ The methods used to identify wetlands and other surface waters were consistent with the 

USACE’s Wetland Delineation Manual and its current supplements (USACE, 1987). 

■ Exhibit 1 in the Wetlands Delineation Report, entitled “Wetlands and Other Waters of the 

U.S. Delineation for the Proposed Ross ISR Project, Oshoto, Wyoming (Wetland Map)” 

(dated August 23, 2010), provided an accurate depiction of the boundaries of all wetlands 

and other waters within the Ross Project area.

■ All of the wetlands and channeled waterways identified in the Wetlands Delineation Report

are connected or adjacent to the Little Missouri River, a navigable water, and are thus likely 

to be Waters of the U.S. as defined in 33 CFR Part 328. 

USACE’s final determination of specific wetland areas would not occur until the Applicant 

applies for coverage for specific construction activities, such as pipeline installation and accessroad stream-channel crossings. At that time, the Applicant would be required to provide a sitespecific mitigation plan for its disturbance of jurisdictional wetlands (i.e., those wetlands that are 

under the jurisdiction of the USACE).
Affected Environment

3-30

3.5.3 Ground Water

3.5.3.1 Regional Ground-Water Resources

The Applicant presented a description of the regional hydrogeology within which the Ross 

Project area resides, based upon published literature, in its license application (Strata, 2011a; 

Strata, 2011b). The site-specific hydrogeology of the Lance Formation and the associated 

stratigraphy underlying the Ross Project area is not specifically described in the GEIS; thus, 

detailed information is included here. Water-bearing bedrock intervals in the eastern Powder 

River Basin range in age from Precambrian to Paleocene (see Figure 3.7). Regionally, 

recharge occurs in the outcrop areas, with ground water moving away from the outcrop into the 

Basin. Due to the geologic dip of the units, stratigraphic horizons that are accessible near the 

Black Hills uplift are deeply buried in the Basin’s center about 125 km [75 mi] west from the 

Ross Project area (Hinaman, 2005).

Within the northeast corner of Wyoming there are a number of water-bearing intervals tapped by 

municipalities and industrial users (Strata, 2011a; Langford, 1964). Below the Fox Hills aquifer, 

the Minnelusa Formation (210 – 270-m [700 – 900-ft] thick), and the underlying Madison 

Formation (90 – 270-m [300 – 900-ft] thick) are the most significant aquifers (Whitcomb and 

Morris, 1964). The Minnelusa and Madison aquifers are recharged at the outcrop in the area of 

the Black Hills uplift. Ground-water flow in all aquifers is from the recharge areas along the 

outcrop, westward towards the center of the Powder River Basin. Flow directions are locally 

modified by pumping wells. The Minnelusa Formation has received aquifer exemptions in 

portions of Campbell County which allow it to be used for waste-water disposal (EPA, 1997).

The Minnelusa Formation is also an important hydrocarbon reservoir interval in the areas of the 

Powder River Basin that are west of the Ross Project (De Bruin, 2007). At the Ross Project

area, the Minnelusa Formation is approximately 1,860 m [6,100 ft] bgs (Strata, 2011a). It is 

separated from the Ross Project’s proposed ore zone by 1,680 m [5,500 ft] of sandstone, 

claystone, and shale, most notably the Pierre Shale which is over 600-m [2,000-ft] thick under 

the Ross Project area (see SEIS Section 3.4) (Whitcomb and Morris, 1964).

Water-supply wells in the Madison Formation have reported yields of up to 60 L/s [1,000 

gal/min]; the Formation is an important source of drinking water for the communities of Gillette 

and Moorcroft. The city of Gillette operates a wellfield consisting of ten wells north of the town 

of Moorcroft, yielding 590 L/s [9,300 gal/min] from a depth of approximately 760 m [2,500 ft]. 

The water is piped approximately 53 km [33 mi] to Gillette and blended with locally-produced 

ground water from the Fort Union Formation and to a lesser degree from wells completed in the 

Lance and Fox Hills Formations. Other towns in the vicinity (e.g., Moorcroft, Sundance, Upton, 

Newcastle, and Hulett) also use the Madison Formation for municipal water supply (Strata, 

2011a). In the vicinity of Gillette, the Fox Hills and Lance Formations are typically targeted by 

industrial users, while smaller municipalities, subdivisions, and improvement districts west of 

Ross Project area use wells completed within the shallower Fort Union Formation. 

3.5.3.2 Local Ground-Water Resources

The detailed geologic stratigraphy and its relationship to the corresponding hydrology are 

illustrated in Figure 3.7. The detailed stratigraphic sequence from the land surface to the 

confining unit below the ore zone is, in descending order: recent, unconsolidated, surficial 
Affected Environment

3-31

deposits including residual soils, colluvium, and alluvium; Lance Formation; Fox Hills Formation; 

and Pierre Shale (see SEIS Section 3.4). Figure 3.14 illustrates the geophysical log and 

corresponding lithology obtained from Exploration Drillhole No. RMR008, the location of which is 

shown in Figure 3.6 in SEIS Section 3.4.1. This particular drillhole was chosen as the “type log” 

by the Applicant for the Ross Project because of the clarity of the geophysical logs and the 

associated stratigraphic descriptions from land surface to the top of the Pierre Shale (Strata, 

2011a). 

Within the Ross Project area, there are four named aquifers existing between the land surface 

and the Pierre Shale. The correspondence between stratigraphic horizons and hydrologic units, 

and the related nomenclature, are summarized in Table 3.4. 

Table 3.4

Geologic Units, Stratigraphic Horizons, and Hydrologic Intervals of Ross Project Area

Geologic

Unit

Stratigraphic

Horizon

Hydrologic

Interval

Lance Formation and/or 

Recent Alluvium/Colluvium Qal/LA/LB SA 

(Surficial Aquifer)

Lance Formation

LD-LG Lance Units

(Aquitard)

LK-LM SM 

(Shallow-Monitoring Aquifer)

LN-LS Sandstone 

within Confining Unit

LC Upper Confining Unit

LT-LTS OZ

(Ore-Zone Aquifer)

Fox Hills Formation

FH

BFH Lower Confining Unit

(Aquitard)

BFS DM

(Deep-Monitoring Aquifer)

BFH/FS Sandstone 

within Confining Unit

Pierre Shale KP Regional Confining Unit 

(Aquitard)

 Source: Strata, 2012b.
Affected Environment

3-32

Figure 3.14

Stratigraphic Horizons and Hydrogeologic Units at Ross Project Area

Note: 

Nomenclature used to describe stratigraphic horizons and hydrogeologic units or 

intervals at the Ross Project Area (developed by Strata from the geophysical log 

and corresponding lithology obtained from Exploration Drillhole No. RMR0008. 

The respective location is shown in Figure 3.8.)

Source: Strata, 2011a.
Affected Environment

3-33

The surficial aquifer, or the SA interval, is the “water-table” aquifer within the Ross Project area. 

It consists of the uppermost water-bearing unit within the Upper Lance Formation and the 

alluvium of the Little Missouri River and Deadman Creek. Ground-water levels range from nearsurface in the river valleys to over 15 m [50 ft] bgs in topographically higher areas.

The sandstones of the Lower Lance Formation (LT intervals) make up the upper portion of the

ore zone (i.e., ore-zone [OZ] aquifer) (see Figure 3.14). The LT sands range in thickness from 9 

– 12 m [30 – 40 ft] and show hydraulic continuity beneath the Ross Project area. Above the LT 

sands is a shale layer varying in thickness from 6 – 24 m [20 ft – 80 ft], locally called the LC 

interval aquitard. The Applicant designates the LC aquitard as the “upper confining unit.” The 

LC aquitard serves as a confining unit that separates the uranium-mineralized sandstones of the 

FH and LT horizons and the OZ aquifer, from the water-bearing unit above (see Figure 3.14). 

The water-bearing sands above the upper confining unit are referred to as the “shallowmonitoring (SM) unit,” or the SM aquifer, and is composed of the LM- through LK-horizon 

sandstones. Above the SM aquifer is a sequence of thin sands, shales, and silts. Many of the 

thin sandstones contain water; however, these sandstones are generally discontinuous and, 

while they may be used locally for stock and domestic wells, they are not regionally extensive.

The Lance Formation is recharged at the outcrop and at the subcrop beneath the alluvium in the 

valley of the Little Missouri River and its tributaries. Natural ground-water flow would be 

expected to be westward from the outcrop toward the Basin. 

At the Ross Project area, the thickness of the Fox Hills Formation is approximately 46 m [150 ft], 

with local variations of up to 15 m [50 ft] or more. The Fox Hills Formation consists of an upper 

sandstone unit (i.e., FH horizon) and a lower sandstone unit (i.e., FS horizon) which are 

separated by an intervening shale, claystone, and mudstone interval (i.e., BFH horizon) 

containing the BFS sandstone unit (see Figure 3.14). Uranium mineralization primarily occurs 

within the Fox Hills Formation’s sands, although in localized areas mineralization occurs within 

the overlying Lance Formation’s (i.e., LT horizon) sandstone. 

The FS and BFS sandstones represent the only water-bearing units within the Lower Fox Hills 

Formation (see Table 3.4). Both sand units are believed to be continuous throughout the Ross 

Project area, although in places they are relatively thin. The BFS horizon is the nearest aquifer 

below the uranium-bearing sandstone (the FH horizon and also known as the ore zone) in the 

Upper Fox Hills Formation, and in terms of uranium-recovery activities, it is referred to as the 

“deep-monitoring (DM) unit,” or the DM aquifer. It is separated from the FH sand (i.e., the ore 

zone) above and the FS (basal sandstone) below by a shale, claystone, and mudstone (BFH 

horizon). The Applicant provides potentiometric contours for the DM interval in its ER (Strata, 

2011a).

The Pierre Shale yields very little water; it is considered regionally as a confining unit (NRC, 

2009b; Whitehead, 1996). No wells are known to be completed within the Pierre Shale at the 

Ross Project area. Exploratory drilling in the upper 30 m [100 ft] of the Pierre Shale by Nuclear 

Dynamics showed that the shale was composed of silts and clay, with some calcareous cement. 

The FH horizon sandstones within the Upper Fox Hills Formation contain uranium and are the 

primary uranium-recovery target units for the Proposed Action. The Applicant has designated 
Affected Environment

3-34

the OZ aquifer as consisting of the 

FH sandstones with the overlying 

Lower Lance Formation sandstones 

(LT horizon). The lithologies of the 

ore zone range from thick-bedded, 

blocky sandstones to thin, 

interbedded sandstones, siltstones, 

and shales. The OZ aquifer is 

underlain by claystone of the Fox 

Hills Formation (i.e., BFH interval). 

Within the Ross Project area, this 

ore-zone interval ranges from 27 – 

55-m [90 – 180-ft] thick (see Figure 

3.14). Thin, silty, and clayey 

sandstone comprises the DM 

aquifer. The Applicant designates 

the BFH aquitard above the DM 

aquifer and below the ore zone as the “lower confining unit.” Isopachs of the lower confining 

unit (BFH) show that it ranges in thickness from less than 3 m [10 ft] to more than 15 m [50 ft] 

(Strata, 2011a). Above the ore zone, the mudstone and claystone of the Lance Formation form 

the upper confining unit, as noted above, ranging in thickness from less than 6 m [20 ft] to more 

than 15 m [50 ft] (see Figure 3.14). 

The FH sandstones, shales, and silts have been studied extensively through both core analysis 

and aquifer tests. Seven pumping tests targeting the ore zone were performed by the Applicant 

at six separate well clusters. Applicable methodology and testing were used and those results 

are shown in Table 3.5 (additional details can be found in Strata, 2011b).

Table 3.5 

Ore-Zone Aquifer Hydrogeologic Characteristics

Transmissivity

m2/day [ft2/day]

Hydraulic 

Conductivity

cm/s [ft/day]

Storativity

(Unitless)

Minimum 0.353 [3.80] 4.59E-05 [0.13] 4.00E-06

Maximum 34.2 [368] 2.69E-03 [7.62] 1.50E-04

Median 8.20 [88.3] 1.25E-03 [3.55] 6.10E-05

Geometric Mean 6.10 [65.6] 6.74E-04 [1.91] 4.50E-05

Average 8.15 [87.8] 1.15E-03 [3.26] 6.70E-05

 Source: Addendum 2.7-F, Table 3, in Strata, 2011b. 

What terms are used to describe hydrologic 

characteristics? 

Transmissivity: This term is used to define the flow rate of 

water through a vertical section of an aquifer, considering a 

unit width and extending the full saturated height of the 

aquifer under unit hydraulic gradient. Transmissivity is a 

function of an aquifer’s saturated thickness and hydraulic 

conductivity.

Hydraulic Conductivity: This term represents a measure of 

the capacity of a porous medium to transmit water. It is used 

to define the flow rate per unit cross-sectional area of an 

aquifer under unit hydraulic gradient.

Storativity: This term is used to characterize the capacity of 

an aquifer to release ground water from storage in response 

to a decline in water levels.
Affected Environment

3-35

The aquifer properties determined by the 2010 tests are comparable to results reported for 

previous pumping tests within the Ross Project area (Strata, 2011b).

The Applicant developed a static piezometric surface (i.e., a map showing the static water levels 

expressed as feet above sea level) for the ore-zone aquifer (see Figure 3.15). The ore zone’s 

potentiometric surface shows a distinct cone of depression near the No. 21-19 well cluster that 

has resulted from 30 years of ground-water withdrawals by oil-field water-supply wells 

completed in the OZ aquifer. This pumping has changed the hydraulic gradient and the 

direction of ground-water flow throughout most of the Ross Project area. The potentiometric 

surface near the No. 34-7 well cluster, which is farthest from the oil-field water-supply wells that 

have been pumping for 30 years, has been least affected by such pumping. Based upon the 

Applicant’s estimates, approximately 46 m [150 ft] of drawdown (i.e., the decline in water level) 

in the ore-zone aquifer has occurred in the vicinity of the No. 21-19 well cluster since pumping 

began in 1980 for local oil-field water-flood operations (Strata, 2011b). An updated map of the 

ore zone’s piezometric surface prepared by the Applicant using a ground-water model provides 

additional detail of the drawdown associated with the withdrawals from the Merit Oil Company’s 

(Merit’s) three water-supply wells (Strata, 2012b).

The Applicant also calculated horizontal gradients and vertical-head differences between the 

OZ, SM, and DM aquifers (Strata, 2011a). Horizontal gradients in the OZ aquifer are toward the 

oil-field water-supply wells, and they range from 0.009 – 0.025, with the steeper gradients being 

in the vicinity of the oil-field water-supply wells. Vertical-head differences between the OZ and 

the DM aquifers range from 6 m [20 ft] downwards in the northwestern portion of the Ross 

Project area to 3 m [10 ft] upwards in the area of the oil-field water-supply wells. Vertical 

gradients are downwards from the SM to the OZ aquifers, with head differences ranging from 15 

– 46 m [50 – 150 ft].

The OZ aquifer remains a confined aquifer across the Ross Project area, with potentiometric 

heads ranging from approximately 46 m [150 ft] to more than 122 m [400 ft] above the top of the 

ore zone (Strata, 2011a). Recharge to the Fox Hills Formation and, hence, the OZ aquifer, is 

from precipitation along the outcrop, ground water from the subcrop beneath alluvium in the 

valley of the Little Missouri River and its tributaries, and from leakage from the overlying Lance 

Formation. Under current conditions, discharge is to the oil-field water-supply wells. 

Continuous measurement of water levels for the period April to October 2010 were recorded by 

the Applicant in six monitoring wells completed in the OZ aquifer and are presented graphically 

by the Applicant in its TR (Strata, 2011b). The hydrograph for Well 34-7OZ, which is located 

farthest from the oil-field water-supply wells, displays the least variation. The variability in the 

ore-zone-well hydrographs is a function of the well locations relative to the oil-field water-supply 

wells in Sections 18 and 19. The wells located closest to this area (Wells 21-19OZ, 34-18OZ, 

14-18OZ, and 42-19OZ) display water-level fluctuations that are related to pumping of the 

water-supply wells. Pumping starts and stops that occurred in late June though early July 2010 

are apparent on hydrographs from these wells. A rapid water-level rise (over 4.6 m [15 ft] in 

Well 21-19OZ) in late September 2010 was attributed to a temporary cessation of pumping. This 

was followed by a rapid decline in the water level, which was interpreted as an indication of 

resumption of pumping.

Other than the aquifer testing that took place over the period above, other recorded 

perturbations are related to sampling events and barometric fluctuations. The barometric

fluctuations are less than 0.2 m [0.5 ft]. During January through October 2010, the hydrograph
Affected Environment

3-36

Figure 3.15

Potentiometric Contours of Ground Water in Ore-Zone Aquifer

Source: Strata, 2011a.

PROPOSED ROSS PROJECT

LICENSE BOUNDARY
Affected Environment

3-37

for Well 34-7OZ showed a steady increase of approximately 0.6 m [2 ft]. The cause of this 

increase has not been identified; similar patterns have not been seen in other ore-zone well 

hydrographs. The hydrograph for Well 12-18OZ varies within a range of approximately 0.76 m 

[2.5 ft]. Most of the water-level changes are interpreted as responses to barometric pressure 

changes. However, fluctuations in the late June though early July time period coincide with 

pumping-related water-level changes observed in the group of four wells discussed above.

The shale, claystone, and mudstone unit, the BFH horizon and lower confining unit, separates 

the DM aquifer from the FH horizon. This low-permeability unit ranges in thickness from less 

than 3 m [10 ft] to 24 m [80 ft]. Vertical hydraulic conductivities for this interval are expected to 

be comparable to that of the Pierre Shale (i.e., 2 x 10-7 cm/s [5 x 10-4 ft/d] or less), based upon

their similar lithologies.

Aquifer pumping tests were performed on six well clusters, where the Applicant pumped from 

the OZ aquifer and monitored the SA, SM, and DM aquifers (Strata, 2011a). No effects from the 

Applicant’s pumping were measured in any of wells completed in the overlying SA or SM 

horizon, which indicates that the shale layer between the SM and OZ aquifers prevents 

hydrologic communication between the aquifers. The intact confining layer between the 

overlying (i.e., SM) aquifer and the OZ aquifer was also demonstrated during Nubeth’s research 

and development. 

Water levels in two of the six underlying DM wells (Nos. 14-18DM and 34-18DM) declined 

slightly during Applicant’s pumping (Strata, 2011a). The lower confining unit is 9 – 15-m [30 – 

50-ft] thick in the portions of the Ross Project area where these wells are located. The NRC 

staff has determined that these responses were correctly interpreted by the Applicant as 

communication between the OZ and DM aquifers due to improperly abandoned drillholes, which 

were installed during previous resource-exploration efforts, that had not yet been located and 

properly abandoned by the Applicant (NRC, 2014a). The water levels in the other four wells in 

the DM aquifer were not affected by the pumping in the OZ aquifer, which confirmed the 

integrity of the confining layer between those two aquifers. Prior to the Applicant’s conducting 

the aquifer pumping test at Well 12-18, all exploration drillholes in the vicinity of that well cluster 

had been located and properly abandoned, and no response of the DM-aquifer well was 

observed during that pumping test. 

The communication between the OZ and DM aquifers in locations where the lower-confining 

unit has been breached has been demonstrated by: 1) the responses observed in the DM zone 

during the two aquifer pumping tests, where old exploration drillholes had not been properly 

abandoned, and 2) the similarities in the potentiometric heads in the DM, OZ, and SM aquifers 

in the vicinity of the oil-field water-supply wells, which are completed in both the OZ and DM 

intervals. To prevent communication between aquifers during uranium-recovery operations, as 

indicated in Condition No. 10.12 of the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, the 

Applicant will attempt to locate and properly abandon all historical drillholes located within the 

ring of perimeter-monitoring wells in each wellfield prior to conducting tests for the respective

“hydrologic-test data package” required by the NRC for the Applicant to begin wellfield 

operations (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1 and the Draft License currently available as NRC, 2014b). 

3.5.3.3 Ground-Water Quality

The Applicant has compiled regional water-quality data listed in the USGS’s National Water 

Information System (NWIS) from 16 wells located in Crook and Campbell Counties that were
Affected Environment

3-38

completed in the Lance and Fox Hills aquifers (Strata, 2011a; USGS, 2012b). Data from these 

wells indicated that the water quality of the Lance and Fox Hills Formations’ aquifers is slightly 

alkaline (i.e., median pH of 8.4) with a median TDS of 1,130 mg/L, with sodium and bicarbonate 

as the dominant dissolved species. 

The water quality of the shallow ground water from alluvial deposits in the Lance Formation is 

dominated by sodium, sulfate, and bicarbonate with moderate levels of TDS of approximately 

1,200 – 1,400 mg/L (Langford, 1964). Rankl and Lowry (1990) noted that the water quality in 

the aquifer sequence through the Lance and Fox Hills Formations depends upon the 

stratigraphy and varies according to well depth. As well depths increase from 30.5 – 152 m 

[100 – 500 ft], TDS in the waters decrease sharply due to declining concentrations of calcium, 

magnesium, and sulfate. Water from wells at depths of 152 m [500 ft] or greater are dominated 

by bicarbonate and sodium.

The deep-injection-well UIC Class I permit application for the Ross Project contains estimates of 

water quality in deeper formations, from the Minnelusa through the Cambrian Formations 

(WDEQ/WQD, 2011b). The Minnelusa, Deadwood, and Flathead Formations are expected to 

have TDS concentrations greater than 10,000 mg/L, while the Madison Formation likely has a 

TDS concentration of approximately 1,000 mg/L in the vicinity of the Ross Project area. 

To comply with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 7, the Applicant has 

collected pre-licensing, site-characterization ground-water-quality data from the Ross Project 

area. These data originate from three sources: 1) data from the Applicant’s own pre-licensing,

site-characterization monitoring-well network at the Ross Project and the respective analytical

data; 2) data from the sampling and analysis of existing water-supply wells; and 3) historical 

data from the former Nubeth operation (Nuclear Dynamics, 1978). The first source of groundwater-quality data is the Applicant’s own ground-water monitoring network which it constructed 

in 2009 and 2012 and which consists of six monitoring-well clusters and four piezometers 

(Strata, 2011a). The locations of the monitoring-well clusters are shown in Figure 3.14. Each 

well cluster would include four monitoring wells targeting the OZ aquifer and the aquifer units 

above the ore zone (SA and SM) and below the ore zone (DM) (see Figure 3.14). The 

Applicant provided construction details of the wells and methods used for ground-water 

sampling in its ER (Strata, 2011a). The four piezometers in the SA were installed in the portion 

of the Ross Project area proposed for the Central Processing Plant (CPP) and surface 

impoundments (Strata, 2011a).

Analytical data and field measurements of selected parameters obtained during the 2009 and 

2010 quarterly sampling efforts are provided in the Applicant’s ER and TR (Strata, 2011a; 

Strata, 2011b). Water-quality data from samples collected in 2011 and submitted to 

WDEQ/LQD are provided in information the NRC subsequently received from the Applicant 

(Strata, 2012a). All of the ground-water-quality data are presented in Appendix C of this SEIS. 

The Applicant adhered to both the WDEQ/LQD’s Hydrology, “Coal and Noncoal,” Guideline No. 

8, and the NRC’s Regulatory Guide 4.14, Revision 1, during its sampling and analysis efforts,

generating the data in Appendix C (WDEQ/LQD, 2005b; NRC, 1980). The data from 2011 are 

generally consistent with the 2009 and 2010 data; this consistency indicates a representative 

characterization of ground-water quality. Appendix C data are summarized in the following 

paragraphs.
Affected Environment

3-39

The maximum, average, and minimum values of the chemical constituents measured in ground 

water from wells installed in each aquifer (SA, SM, OZ, and DM) are presented in Table 3.6. 

TDS in the ground water at the Ross Project area are predominately bicarbonate-sulfatesodium; this differs from the typical ground water described in GEIS Section 3.2.4.3.3, which is 

the bicarbonate-sulfate-calcium type. The pH conditions of greater than 8.0 in the Ross Project 

area’s aquifers are consistent with bicarbonate water, and the dissolved oxygen levels of less 

than 5 mg/L as measured in the field by the Applicant suggest low-oxygen conditions (Strata, 

2011a). The measured values of these two parameters are typical of uranium-bearing aquifers 

(NRC, 2009b).

The water-quality data included in Table 3.6 indicate distinctive water quality in each aquifer unit

(i.e., the SA, SM, OZ, and DM). The distinctive water qualities suggest that vertical movement 

of water between the aquifers is prevented by the stratigraphic layers between the aquifer units. 

Average values of TDS in Strata’s pre-licensing, site-characterization ground-water monitoring 

network range from 730 mg/L in the SA unit to 1,574 mg/L in the OZ unit. Ground-water from 

piezometers in the SA also show that TDS increases sharply with increasing distance from the 

Little Missouri River (Strata, 2011a).

Table 3.7 summarizes the water-quality data collected by Nubeth in 1976 and 1978, before the 

operation’s research and development activities began. The operation’s single-well, push-pull, 

in situ test conducted in 1976 was located approximately 300 m [1,000 ft] north of Oshoto 

Reservoir, whereas the 1978 samples were collected approximately 900 m [3,000 ft] south of 

Oshoto Reservoir (Nubeth, 1977). The distance between the two sampling locations, and the 

westerly flow of the underlying ground water, would prevent mixing of the ground water in the 

two locations. TDS and sulfate measured in 1976 and 1978 are within the range of total 

concentrations of TDS and sulfate in the OZ aquifer, as reported by the Applicant and shown in 

Table 3.6. Maximum concentrations of dissolved iron and dissolved manganese measured in 

the OZ aquifer by the Applicant are greater, however, than the concentrations measured in 

1978; this suggests that current oxygen levels in the OZ aquifer are lower than they were in the 

1970s. In addition, the maximum concentrations of ammonia, most trace metals, radium, gross 

alpha, and gross beta measured in 1978 are greater than the maximum values in the OZ aquifer 

than those reported by the Applicant and shown in Table 3.6. 

The Table 3.8 presents the WDEQ’s and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s)

water-quality standards for constituents that were found to exceed the standards in the 

Applicant’s pre-licensing, site-characterization data (WDEQ/WQD, 2005b; 40 CFR Part 41). 

Constituent concentrations that exceed the standards are indicated by shading in Tables 3.6 

and Table 3.7. 

Typical of uranium-bearing aquifers described in GEIS Section 3.3.4.3.3 (NRC, 2009b), the 

average TDS of each aquifer unit associated with the Ross Project area exceed the EPA’s 

Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water of 500 mg/L, but they were

within all the upper limits set by the WDEQ for Class II Agriculture Use (see Tables 3.6, 3.7, and 

3.8) (WDEQ/WQD, 2005b). The two upper aquifers, the SA and the SM, contained lower TDS 

than the lower units, and the OZ aquifer contained the highest average TDS. 

Comparison of the metals, radionuclides, ammonia, and fluoride to the EPA’s MCLs for drinking 

water and WDEQ standards are provided in Tables 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8. Ammonia was measured 

in all four aquifer units at concentrations greater than the WDEQ’s Domestic Use standard, 
Affected Environment

3-40

Table 3.6

Ground-Water Quality from the Ore-Zone (OZ) Aquifer 

and Aquifers Above (SM and SA) and Below (DM) the Ore Zone

Constituent Units

Ross Project Monitoring-Well Data Collected (2009 – 2011†)

SA SM OZ DM

†† Min Ave Max Min Ave Max Min Ave Max Min Ave Max

Bicarbonate T mg/L <5 * 572 <5 * 752 478 583 662 <5 * 448

Calcium T mg/L 2 21 54 <1 * 3 3 6 11 1 3 8

Carbonate T mg/L <5 * 218 25 98 250 8 26 52 22 103 324

Chloride T mg/L 2 29 86 2 4 8 3 7 11 139 491 818

Magnesium T mg/L <1 * 35 <1 * 2 1 2 3 <1 * 2

Potassium T mg/L 7 12 22 4 15 47 3 6 17 8 19 48

Sodium T mg/L 78 224 416 275 417 542 368 545 718 302 520 807

Sulfate T mg/L 84 172 347 179 318 574 294 602 937 <1 * 234

TDS T mg/L 370 730 1230 830 1145 1350 1050 1574 2070 870 1321 2130

pH (Lab) T s.u. 8.1 9.0 11 8.7 9.5 11.6 8.4 8.7 9 8.7 10 11.7

Ammonia T mg/L <0.1** * 0.6 <0.1 * 2.8 <0.1 * 0.8 <0.1 * 3.9

Arsenic D mg/L <0.005 * <0.005 <0.005 * 0.023 <0.005 * <0.005 <0.005 * 0.014

Barium D mg/L <0.5 * <0.5 <0.5 * <0.5 <0.5 * <0.5 <0.5 * <0.5

Boron D mg/L <0.1 * 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.8 1

Cadmium D mg/L <0.002 * <0.002 <0.002 * <0.002 <0.002 * <0.002 <0.002 * <0.002

Chromium D mg/L <0.01 * <0.01 <0.01 * <0.01 <0.01 * <0.01 <0.01 * <0.01

Copper D mg/L <0.01 * <0.01 <0.01 * 0.02 <0.01 * <0.01 <0.01 * <0.01

Fluoride T mg/L 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.8 1.3 2.1 0.2 0.5 1.3 0.8 1.1 1.6

Iron D mg/L <0.05 * 0.66 <0.05 * 0.21 <0.05 * 0.69 <0.05 * 0.4

Lead D mg/L <0.02 * <0.02 <0.02 * <0.02 <0.02 * <0.02 <0.02 * <0.02

Mercury D mg/L <0.001 * <0.001 <0.001 * <0.001 <0.001 * <0.001 <0.001 * <0.001

Manganese D mg/L <0.02 * 0.36 <0.02 * 0.88 <0.02 * 0.06 <0.02 * 0.37

Molybdenum D mg/L <0.02 * 0.07 <0.02 * 0.05 <0.02 * <0.02 <0.02 * 0.06

Nickel D mg/L <0.01 * <0.01 <0.01 * <0.01 <0.01 * <0.01 <0.01 * <0.01

Selenium D mg/L <0.005 * 0.008 <0.005 * 0.017 <0.005 * 0.009 <0.005 * 0.03

Silver D mg/L <0.003 * 0.006 <0.003 * 0.011 <0.003 * <0.003 <0.003 * 0.005

Uranium D mg/L <0.001 * 0.007 <0.001 * 0.004 0.005 * 0.109 <0.001 * 0.003

Vanadium D mg/L <0.02 * <0.02 <0.02 * 0.02 <0.02 * <0.02 <0.02 * <0.02

Zinc D mg/L <0.01 * 1.32 <0.01 * 0.03 <0.01 * 0.02 <0.01 * 0.09

Radium-226 D pCi/L <0.2 * 0.5 <0.2 * 3.7 0.6 3.8 12.1 <0.2 * 0.7

Radium-228 D pCi/L <1 * 1.8 <1 * 12.27 <1 * 1.6 <1 * 2.2

Gross Alpha T pCi/L <6 * 13.8 <3 * 12.2 <5 * 222 <2 * 28.3

Gross Beta T pCi/L <7 * 17.6 <3 * 319** <7 * 46.8 <7 * 41

Sources: Strata, 2011a; Strata, 2012a. The complete data set is presented in Appendix C. 

† = Shading indicates a value greater than WDEQ and EPA Water-Quality Standards (see Table 3.8). †† = “D” indicates dissolved concentrations (i.e., the sample was filtered before analysis) and

 “T” means total concentrations (i.e., the sample was not filtered before analysis). 

* = Indicates that one or more values are less than the detection limit; thus an average was not calculated.

** = Indicates that “319” appears to be an anomalous value; the next lowest value is 42.5 (see text). 

< = Less than, where the value following the “<” value is the detection limit. 

N/A = Datum not available.
Affected Environment

3-41

Table 3.7

Ground-Water Quality of the Ore-Zone Aquifer 

and the Aquifer Above the Ore Zone at Nubeth in 1978

Constituent†† Units

Nubeth Well 

Data 

(1976†

) 

Ore Zone

Pre-Test Sample

Nubeth Well Data Collected 

(1978†

) 

Ore Zone Above Ore Zone

Min Ave Max Ave Max

 Bicarbonate mg/L 400 535 594 742 653 682

 Calcium mg/L 11 1.2 6.3 15 6 11

 Carbonate mg/L 94 5 22 57 17 23

 Chloride mg/L 20 2 9.5 14 6 11

 Magnesium mg/L 4 1.4 2.7 3.4 2.7 3.0

 Potassium mg/L 6 2.6 5.1 12 3.9 5.0

 Sodium mg/L 489 481 620 734 592 643

 Sulfate mg/L 525 347 718 970 567 620

 TDS mg/L 1379 1230 1626 1800 1498 1530

 pH s.u. 8.4 8.4 8.7 9.2 8.6 8.8

 Ammonia mg/L 0.55 0.29 0.73 1.7 0.53 0.70

 Arsenic mg/L Not Detected <0.002 * 0.036 <0.005 0.032

 Barium mg/L Not Detected <0.01 * <0.01 <0.10 <0.10

 Boron mg/L 0.45 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7

 Cadmium mg/L Not Detected 0.004 0.005 0.007 0.004 0.007

 Chromium mg/L Not Detected <0.01 * 0.026 <0.01 <0.01

 Copper mg/L 0.01 <0.01 * 0.022 0.01 0.025

 Fluoride mg/L N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

 Iron mg/L N/A 0.01 0.09 0.28 0.074 0.17

 Lead mg/L Not Detected 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.037 0.070

 Mercury mg/L Not Detected <0.00001 * 0.0001 0.00003 0.00004

 Manganese mg/L Not Detected 0.002 0.012 0.021 0.014 0.019

 Molybdenum mg/L Not Detected <0.002 * 0.006 <0.005 <0.005

 Nickel mg/L N/A 0.01 0.019 0.041 0.016 0.027

 Selenium mg/L Not Detected <0.005 * 0.022 <0.005 <0.005

 Silver mg/L Not Detected <0.005 * 0.011 <0.005 <0.005

 Uranium mg/L 0.19** 0.002 0.07 0.3 0.004 0.008

 Vanadium mg/L Not Detected <0.005 * <0.01 <0.005 <0.005

 Zinc mg/L 0.33 0.004 0.011 0.046 0.016 0.025

 Radium-226 pCi/L 30 0 23 107 0.26 0.50

 Radium-228 pCi/L N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

 Gross Alpha pCi/L 340 1 106 340 1.4 3.9

 Gross Beta pCi/L 33 0 96 390 3.2 15

Sources: Nubeth, 1977; Nuclear Dynamics, 1978.

Notes:

† = Shading indicates a value greater than WDEQ and EPA Water Quality Standards (see Table 3.8)

†† = All constituents reported as dissolved concentrations (i.e., the samples were filtered).

* = Indicates that one or more values are less than the detection limit; thus, an average was not calculated.

** = Indicates that the uranium concentration is expressed as U3O8. 

< = Less than, where the value following the “<” value is the detection limit. 

N/A = Datum not available. 
Affected Environment

3-42

Table 3.8

Water-Quality Standards Exceeded 

in Ground Water at Ross Project Area

(Pre-Licensing, Site-Characterization Samples)

Water-Quality

Constituent Units

WDEQ

Class I

Domestic 

Use

WDEQ

Class II

Agriculture 

Use

EPA

Primary

MCL

EPA 

Secondary

MCL

Ammonia mg/L 0.5 N/A N/A N/A

Arsenic mg/L 0.05 0.1 0.01 N/A

Boron mg/L 0.75 0.75 N/A N/A

Chloride mg/L 250 100 N/A 250

Iron mg/L 0.3 5 N/A 0.3

Manganese mg/L 0.05 0.2 N/A 0.05

Selenium mg/L 0.05 0.02 0.05 N/A

Sulfate mg/L 250 200 N/A 250

Total Dissolved 

Solids (TDS) mg/L 500 2000 N/A 500

Uranium mg/L N/A N/A 0.03 N/A

Radium-226 + 228 pCi/L 5 5 5 N/A

Gross Alpha pCi/L 15 15 15 N/A

Source: WDEQ/WQD, 2005b; 40 CFR Part 41. 

Notes: 

N/A = Not applicable.

Per the WDEQ/LQD’s Hydrology, Guideline No. 8 and NRC’s Regulatory Guide 4.14, the water-quality 

data produced by the Applicant and used for a comparison with the water-quality standards above are 

dissolved concentrations, except for ammonium, chloride, fluoride, sulfate, and TDS (WDEQ/LQD, 

2005b; NRC, 1980).

0.5 mg/L. Iron and manganese were present in all aquifer units in concentrations greater than 

WDEQ’s Domestic Use standard and EPA’s Secondary MCL for drinking water, except for iron 

in the SM aquifer, which was less than the respective standards. Arsenic was measured in

concentrations greater than the EPA’s Primary MCL for drinking water in the SM aquifer, but 

less than the WDEQ’s Domestic Use standard. Boron was present at concentrations greater 

than the WDEQ Domestic Use standard in the SM and DM. Uranium and Ra-226 were present 

in the OZ at concentrations greater than the standards (see Table 3.8). Gross alpha exceeded 

the standards in both the OZ and DM aquifers. 

As part of its pre-licensing, site-characterization ground-water sampling and analysis efforts, the 

Applicant identified 29 currently operable water-supply wells within the Ross Project area and 

the surrounding 2-km (1.2-mi) area (Strata, 2011a). These wells included 2 industrial wells, 12 

domestic wells, and 15 stock wells (1 industrial well could not be accessed nor sampled). The

locations of these wells are shown in FSEIS Figure 3.16. 

The two industrial wells, completed at depths of 163 m and 229 m [536 ft and 750 ft], were 

permitted in the early 1980s and provide water for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Water used in 
Affected Environment

3-43

Figure 3.16

Locations of 29 Water-Supply Wells

within a 3-Kilometer [2-Mile] Radius of Ross Project Area

PROPOSED ROSS PROJECT 

LICENSE BOUNDARY

Drawing Coordinates: WY83EF

Source: Strata, 2011a.
Affected Environment

3-44

EOR is injected into the oil-bearing rock to displace oil from the rock, thus allowing the oil to be 

pumped to the surface. Well 19XX18 was originally used by Nubeth as a recovery well for its 

research and development activities, before being converted to a water-supply well for the 

nearby EOR. The Applicant’s review of the well-permit reports listed in the WSEO database 

during 2010 determined general information about each well (WSEO, 2006; Strata, 2011a). 

Completion depths of permitted stock wells range from 10 – 93 m [40 – 304 ft]. Domestic wells 

are generally deeper than the stock wells, ranging from 46 – 180 m [150 – 600 ft]. The limited 

information available on these wells precluded a determination of which aquifer was supplying 

water to the domestic wells.

The water-supply wells were sampled in consecutive quarters in 2009, 2010, and 2011 with the 

same methods established for monitoring wells (Strata, 2011a). The results of the water-quality 

analyses are provided in the Applicant’s license application and subsequent information 

received by the NRC (Strata, 2011a; Strata, 2012a); all of the data provided by the Applicant are 

included as Appendix C in this SEIS. Comparisons between the measured water quality and 

the WDEQ’s Use standards and the EPA’s Primary and Secondary MCL standards are also 

discussed in the Applicant’s ER (WDEQ/WQD, 2005b; 40 CFR 141; Strata, 2011a). As 

described below for each type of well, these analyses indicated that the TDS of 26 of the 29 

local wells supplying water to homes, industry, and/or livestock exceeded 500 mg/L, which is 

the WDEQ’s Class I Domestic Use standard and the EPA’s Secondary MCL for drinking water, 

and some of the wells exceeded both the WDEQ’s Domestic and Agricultural Uses and the 

EPA’s standards for other parameters. 

Domestic Wells

TDS in samples from all domestic wells sampled exceeded both Wyoming’s Class I Domestic 

Use and the EPA’s Secondary MCL for drinking water standards. Sulfate exceeded Wyoming’s 

Class I Domestic Use, Wyoming’s Class II Agricultural Use, and the EPA’s Secondary MCL in 7 

of the 12 wells sampled. Gross alpha in excess of Wyoming’s Class I Domestic Use and Class 

II Agriculture Use standard as well as the EPA’s Primary MCL of 0.55 Bq/L [15 pCi/L] was 

measured in samples from 4 of the 12 domestic wells. Wyoming’s Class I Domestic Use 

standard and the respective EPA Secondary MCL for iron were exceeded in three of the wells.

Industrial Wells

Samples from the industrial wells in Ross Project area exceeded Wyoming’s Class II Agriculture 

Use standards and the EPA’s Secondary MCLs for TDS and sulfate. Wyoming’s Class II 

Agriculture Use standard and the EPA’s MCLs were exceeded in Well 19XX18 for radiological 

parameters: uranium, Ra-226 + 228, and gross alpha. The gross-alpha standards were also 

exceeded in samples from Well 22X-19.

Stock Wells

 

The quality of the water in livestock wells is variable. TDS ranged from 370 – 1,610 mg/L; TDS 

measured in 12 of the 15 wells exceeded the EPA’s Secondary MCL for drinking water, but the 

concentrations were consistently less than the WDEQ’s Class II Agriculture Use standard of 

2,000 mg/L. Sulfate, ranging from 28 – 679 mg/L, often exceeded Wyoming’s Class II 

Agriculture Use standard and the EPA’s Secondary MCL. Gross alpha exceeded Wyoming’s 

Class I Domestic Use and Class II Agriculture Use standards and the EPA’s Primary MCL for 
Affected Environment

3-45

drinking water in 7 of the 15 stock wells. Selenium exceeded the respective Wyoming Class II 

Agriculture Use standard in three wells and the EPA’s Primary MCL in one well.

3.5.3.4 Ground-Water Uses

In order to assess historical and current ground-water use, ground-water rights and unregistered 

water wells were investigated by the Applicant within the Ross Project area and the surrounding 

3-km [2-mi] vicinity. Sources of data included WSEO-registered wells, landowner interviews, 

and field surveys (WSEO, 2006). The search revealed 119 ground-water rights and 

unregistered wells. The locations and uses of these wells are summarized in the Applicant’s ER 

(Strata, 2011a). Historical ground-water use began with the first domestic and livestock well in 

1918. From approximately 1918 – 1977, ground water was used primarily for domestic and 

livestock consumption, with lesser amounts of water used for irrigation. 

In 1977, Nubeth permitted 14 monitoring and industrial-use wells associated with its research 

and development activities. In addition, between 1980 and 1991, many industrial and 

miscellaneous wells associated with oil and gas production were permitted in and around the 

Ross Project area. These include three wells within the Ross Project area itself (P50917W, 

P67746W and P67747W) that are currently used as water-supply wells for EOR (i.e., water 

flooding) (Strata, 2011a). In 1981, International Minerals & Chemical Corporation (IM&CC) 

permitted five pits (P58895W, P58896W, P58899W, P58902W, and P58905W) for dewatering 

and dust suppression associated with bentonite mining. According to WSEO records, the water 

rights were cancelled prior to 2001 at the request of IM&CC. 

Between 1991 and 2009, the only ground-water rights that were filed within the Ross Project

area and surrounding vicinity are for domestic and livestock use. In 2009, the Applicant 

obtained ground-water rights for its pre-licensing, site-characterization monitoring wells. 

Historical ground-water use within the Ross Project area is summarized in Table 3.9. 

Within the Ross Project area itself, ground-water use follows a similar pattern to that observed 

within the 3-km [2-mile] surrounding vicinity, except that historical use has been livestock only 

(i.e., no domestic or irrigation use). More recent uses include monitoring-well use as well as 

industrial uses associated with Nubeth and with water supply for oil- and gas-extraction 

activities. Most of the ground-water rights represented in Table 3.9 have been cancelled or are 

no longer active. 

Current ground-water use in the Ross Project area is limited to four livestock wells, the 

Applicant’s regional pre-licensing, site-characterization monitoring wells, and three industrial 

wells (i.e., water supply for oil and gas extraction). The stock wells are completed at total 

depths ranging from 39 – 81 m [128 – 265 ft], which are considerably above the ore-zone 

aquifer. The currently operating, industrial water wells are completed at total depths of 163 – 

230 m [536 – 750 ft]. Together, these wells withdraw an average of approximately 2 L/s [30 

gal/min] from the ore-zone aquifer. 
Affected Environment

3-46

Table 3.9

Historical Ground-Water Use within 

Three Kilometers [Two Miles] of Ross Project Area

Use

Number 

of Wells

Percent of 

Total Use

Appropriation 

Dates

Domestic Only 5 4 1943 – 1995

Domestic and Stock 15 13 1918 – 2003

Domestic, Stock, and 

Irrigation 1 <1 1972 – 1972

Stock Only 34 29 1933 – 2010

Stock and Irrigation 1 <1 1961 – 1961

Monitoring 39 33 1977 – 2010

Industrial or 

Miscellaneous 24 20 1977 – 1991

TOTAL 119 100 1918 – 2010

 Source: Strata, 2011a.

3.6 Ecology

The Proposed Action is located within the Powder River Basin of the Northwest Great Plains 

ecoregion. As described in GEIS Section 3.3.5.1, this area is characterized by rolling prairie 

and dissected river breaks surrounding the Powder, Cheyenne, and Upper North Platte Rivers 

(NRC, 2009b). Vegetation within this region is composed of sagebrush and mixed-grass prairie 

dominated by blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), 

needle-and-thread grass (Stipa comata), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus sp.), fringed sage 

(Artemisia frigida), and other forbs, shrubs, and grasses (NRC, 2009b).

The Applicant has conducted a number of ecological studies of the proposed Ross Project area 

to address the guidelines indicated in NUREG–1569, including the identification of important 

species and their relative abundance, as well as to meet applicable Wyoming requirements 

(NRC, 2003b). These studies included vegetation and wildlife field surveys conducted on the 

Ross Project area in late 2009 and 2010 (Strata, 2011a).

3.6.1 Terrestrial Species

3.6.1.1 Vegetation

The Applicant conducted pre-licensing, site-characterization vegetation surveys during 2009 

and 2010, in accordance with State and Federal guidelines (Strata, 2011a). The spatial 

distribution of the vegetation types within the Ross Project area are shown in Figure 3.17. The 

vegetation mapped at the Ross Project area included upland grassland, sagebrush shrubland, 

pastureland, hayland, reservoir/stock pond, wetland, disturbed land, cropland, and wooded 

draw. No threatened or endangered plant species have been documented on the Ross Project 

area. 
3-47

 

PROPOSED ROSS PROJ

LICENSE BOUNDARY

HALF-MILE BUFFER ARO

LICENSE BOUNDARY

CROPLAND

Source: Strata, 2011a.

Figure 3.17

Vegetation Types at Ross Project Area
Affected Environment

3-48

Each vegetation community was investigated by the Applicant to establish a pre-licensing site 

characterization in support of the Ross Project. In terms of diversity, the sagebrush-shrubland 

vegetation type exhibited the highest total number of individual plant species recorded in 2010, 

followed by the upland-grassland and pastureland vegetation types (see Table 3.10). 

Table 3.10

Species Diversity by Vegetation Type

at Ross Project Area

Species Type

Number of Individual Plant Species Recorded

Sagebrush 

Shrubland

Upland

Grassland Pastureland

Perennials

Grass 16 16 9

Grass-like 2 2 0

Forb 28 27 6

Subshrub 4 4 1

Full Shrub 5 1 1

Succulent 1 1 0

Subtotal 56 51 17

Annuals

Grass 2 2 0

Forb 7 3 1

Subtotal 9 5 1

TOTAL 65 56 18

 Source: Strata, 2011a.

Several species of designated and prohibited noxious weeds listed by the Wyoming Weed and 

Pest Control Act were identified on the Ross Project area. These species included field 

bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), perennial sow thistle (Sonchus arvensis), quackgrass 

(Agropyron repens), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), hounds tongue (Cynoglossum officinale), 

leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), common burdock (Arctium minus), Scotch thistle (Onopordum 

acanthium), Russian olive (Eleagnus angustifolia), and skeletonleaf bursage (Ambrosia 

tomentosa). These weed species may be locally abundant in small areas, especially around the 

Oshoto Reservoir and along the Little Missouri River and Deadman Creek, but they were not 

common throughout the entire area of the Ross Project.

Selenium-indicator species identified on the Ross Project area in 2010 included two-grooved 

milkvetch (Astragalus bisulcatus), woody aster (Xylorhiza glabriuscula), and stemmy 

goldenweed (Haplopappus multicaulis); however, these indicator species were not abundant. 

Little larkspur (Delphinium bicolor), locoweed (Oxytropis sericea and Oxytropis lambertii), and 
Affected Environment

3-49

meadow deathcamas (Zigadenus venenosus) are poisonous plants that were observed on the 

Ross Project area in limited numbers (locoweed is only poisonous for cattle). Cheatgrass 

(Bromus tectorum), although not a State-listed noxious weed, was abundant in some areas 

within the Ross Project area (Strata, 2011a).

3.6.1.2 Wildlife

Habitat Description

Information on terrestrial vertebrate wildlife species in the vicinity of the Ross Project area was 

obtained from several sources, including records from the WGFD, BLM, and USFWS as well as 

from GEIS Section 4.4.5 (NRC, 2009b). Previous site-specific data for the Ross Project area 

and its surrounding environs were obtained from those same sources and Nubeth’s 

Environmental Report Supportive Information (ND Resources, 1977). In addition, the Applicant 

completed site-specific wildlife field surveys from November 2009 through October 2010 to 

establish one year of pre-licensing, site-characterization data (Strata, 2011a). Over 140 

different species were noted during these surveys or documented by other sources (e.g., the 

WGFD) (see Table 3.11). The surveys also focused on the Applicant obtaining information 

regarding bald eagles’ winter roosts; however, all nesting raptors, threatened and endangered 

species, the BLM’s “Sensitive Species” (BLMSS), and the USFWS’s “Birds of Conservation 

Concern” (BCC) (also known as “Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest”), and Wyoming’s 

“Species of Greatest Conservation Need” (SGCN) were included in the field-survey protocols. 

Surveys were also conducted on the Ross Project area for swift fox, breeding birds, and

northern leopard frogs. In addition to those species that were targeted, others were noted when 

observed. 

Table 3.11

Wildlife Species Observed on or near Ross Project Area

Scientific Name Common Name

Mammals

Sylvilagus audubonii Desert Cottontail

Lepus californicus Black-tailed Jackrabbit

Lepus townsendii White-tailed Jackrabbit

Tamias minimus Least Chipmunk

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel

Cynomys ludovicianus Black-tailed Prairie Dog

Sciurus niger Eastern Fox Squirrel

Thomomys talpoides Northern Pocket Gopher

Dipodomys ordii Ord's Kangaroo Rat

Castor Canadensis Beaver

Peromyscus maniculatus Deer Mouse

Neotoma cinerea Bushy-tailed Woodrat
Affected Environment

3-50

Table 3.11

Wildlife Species Observed on or near Ross Project Area 

(Continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name

Mammals

(Continued) 

Microtus 0ochrogaster Prairie Vole

Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat

Erethizon dorsatum Porcupine

Canis latrans Coyote

Vulpes vulpes Red Fox

Procyon lotor Raccoon

Mustela frenata Long-tailed Weasel

Taxidea taxus Badger

Mephitis mephitis Striped Skunk 

Felis concolor Mountain Lion

Felis rufus Bobcat

Cervus elaphus American Elk

Odocoileus hemionus Mule Deer

Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed Deer

Antilocapra americana Pronghorn

Birds

Branta canadensis Canada Goose

Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan

Cygnus columbianus Tundra Swan

Anas strepera Gadwall

Anas americana American Wigeon

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard

Anas discors Blue-winged Teal

Anas crecca Green-winged Teal

Anas cyanoptera Cinnamon Teal

Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler

Anas acuta Northern Pintail

Aythya valisineria Canvasback
Affected Environment

3-51

Table 3.11

Wildlife Species Observed on or near Ross Project Area 

(Continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name

Birds

(Continued) 

Aythya americana Redhead

Aythya collaris Ring-necked Duck

Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup

Bucephala albeola Bufflehead

Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck

Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe

Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe

Podiceps nigricollis Eared Grebe

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos White Pelican

Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Cormorant

Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron

Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture

Pandion haliaetus Osprey

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle

Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk

Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk

Buteo swainson Swainson's Hawk

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk

Buteo regalis Ferruginous Hawk

Buteo lagopus Rough-legged Hawk

Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle

Falco sparverius American Kestrel

Falco mexicanus Prairie Falcon

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-grouse

Tympanuchus phasianellus Sharp-tailed grouse

Meleagris gallopavo Wild Turkey

Porzana carolina Sora Rail

Fulica americana American Coot
Affected Environment

3-52

Table 3.11

Wildlife Species Observed on or near Ross Project Area 

(Continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name

Birds 

(Continued) 

Charadrius vociferous Killdeer

Recurvirostra americana American Avocet

Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper

Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper

Gallinago delicata Wilson’s Snipe

Phalaropus tricolor Wilson's Phalarope

Larus californicus California Gull

Larus argentatus Herring Gull

Chlidonias niger Black Tern

Columba livia Rock Pigeon

Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove

Bubo virginianus Great Horned Owl

Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl

Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk

Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher

Picoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker

Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker

Contopus sordidulus Western Wood-Pewee

Sayornis saya Say's Phoebe

Tyrannus verticalis Western Kingbird

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird

Eremophila alpestris Horned Lark

Tachyceneta bicolor Tree Swallow

Tachycineta thalassina Violet-green Swallow

Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern Rough-winged Swallow

Riparia riparia Bank Swallow

Hirundo pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow

Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow

Cyanocitta cristata Blue jay
Affected Environment

3-53

Table 3.11

Wildlife Species Observed on or near Ross Project Area 

(Continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name

Birds 

(Continued) 

Pica pica Black-billed Magpie

Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow

Corvus corax Common Raven

Parus atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee

Sitta canadensis Red-breasted Nuthatch

Salpinctes obsoletus Rock Wren

Troglodytes aedon House Wren

Sialia currucoides Mountain Bluebird

Turdus migratorius American Robin

Oreoscoptes montanus Sage Thrasher

Toxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher

Sturnus vulgaris European Starling

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike

Vermivora celata Orange-crowned Warbler

Dendroica petechia Yellow Warbler

Dendroica coronate Yellow-rumped Warbler

Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat

Wilsonia pusilla Wilson's Warbler

Spizella passerine Chipping Sparrow

Spizella breweri Brewer's Sparrow

Pooecetes gramineus Vesper Sparrow

Chondestes grammacus Lark Sparrow

Calamospiza melanocorys Lark Bunting

Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow

Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed Junco

Calcarius mccownii McCown's Longspur

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird

Sturnella neglecta Western Meadowlark
Affected Environment

3-54

Table 3.11

Wildlife Species Observed on or near Ross Project Area 

(Continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name

Birds (Continued)

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Yellow-headed Blackbird

Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's Blackbird

Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle

Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird

Icterus bullockii Bullock's Oriole

Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch

Carduelis pinus Pine Siskin

Passer domesticus House Sparrow

Amphibians

Ambystoma tigrinum Tiger Salamander

Pseudaris triseriata maculate Boreal Chorus Frog

Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog

Reptiles

Phrynosoma douglassi brevirostre Eastern Short-horned Lizard

Sceloporus graciosus graciosus Northern Sagebrush Lizard

Chelydra serpentina serpentina Common Snapping Turtle

Chrysemys picta belli Western Painted Turtle

Crotalus viridis viridis Prairie Rattlesnake

Pituophis melanoleucas sayi Bullsnake

Thamnophis elegans vagrans Wandering Garter Snake

Fish

Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead

Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill

Catastomus commersoni White Sucker

Source: Strata, 2011a.
Affected Environment

3-55

Mammals

Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and whitetailed deer (O. virginianus) were the only big-game species that were observed on the Ross 

Project area during the 2009 and 2010 surveys (Strata, 2011a). American elk (Cervus elaphus) 

have been recorded in the area by the WGFD; however, none were observed during the 

Applicant’s field surveys. No crucial big-game habitats or migration corridors are recognized by 

the WGFD at the Ross Project or the surrounding 1.6-km [1-mi] vicinity. 

Pronghorn antelope and mule deer are common but not abundant on the Ross Project area. 

Pronghorn herds were most often observed in sagebrush-shrubland and upland-grassland 

habitats, and the mule deer frequented the sagebrush-shrubland habitat (Strata, 2011a). Both 

species used haylands and cultivated fields in the area. White-tailed deer were not abundant, 

but they were observed in the riparian habitats and on the cultivated fields within and near the 

Ross Project area. Pronghorn antelopes’ use of the Ross Project and surrounding areas has 

been classified by the WGFD as yearlong, and mule deer use within the areas as winter and 

yearlong. White-tailed deer and elk use has been classified by the WGFD as out of their normal 

range. The Ross Project is located within the WGFD’s North Black Hills pronghorn-herd unit, 

the Powder River and Black Hills mule deer-herd units, and the Powder River and Black Hills 

white-tailed deer-herd units. The Ross Project area is not within a specific elk-herd unit, but it is 

included in the WGFD-designated area referred to as “Hunt Area 129” (Strata, 2011a).

A variety of small- and medium-sized mammals could potentially be present on the Ross Project 

area. These mammals include a variety of predators and furbearers, such as coyote (Canis 

latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoon (Procyon lotor), bobcat (Lynx rufus), badger (Taxidea 

taxus), beaver (Castor canadensis), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). Prey species that were 

observed included rodents (e.g., mice, rats, voles, gophers, ground squirrels, chipmunks, prairie 

dogs), jackrabbits (Lepus spp.), and cottontails (Sylvilagus spp.). These species are cyclically 

common and widespread throughout the vicinity, and they are important food sources for 

raptors and other predators. Each of these prey species was either directly observed during 

Strata’s field surveys or was known to exist through the presence of burrow formation or of 

droppings. Jackrabbit and cottontail sightings were common.

While black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) are listed as occurring in the general 

area of the Ross Project, no black-tailed prairie-dog colonies (important as habitat for blackfooted ferrets) were located within the 1.6-km [1-mi] survey area. Other mammal species, such 

as the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), and various weasels 

(Mustela spp.) inhabit sagebrush grassland and riparian communities, and these species were 

recorded within the Ross Project area during the Applicant’s wildlife field surveys. No bat 

species were observed during the surveys. There are no records of prior use of the Ross 

Project by swift fox (Vulpes velox), and none were observed during the 2009 or 2010 field 

surveys.

Birds

Suitable habitat for several raptor species occurs at the Ross Project area and within the 1.6-km 

[1-mi] vicinity surrounding it. Several raptor species were observed during the wildlife surveys; 

these included the bald eagle, red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), golden eagle (Aquila 

chrysaetos), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), northern 
Affected Environment

3-56

harrier (Circus cyaneus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter 

cooperii), Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus), great 

horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and short-eared owl (Asio flammeus). Turkey vultures 

(Cathartes aura) and prairie falcons (Falco mexicanus) have also been recorded on the Ross 

Project area, but they were not seen during the Applicant’s field surveys.

In the vicinity of the Ross Project area, nests were observed for the ferruginous, red-tailed, and 

Swainson’s hawks (Strata, 2011a). The only nest observed within the Project area itself was a 

Swainson’s hawk’s nest, which was observed to be inactive during the 2010 field survey. A total 

of seven intact nesting sites were observed within 1.6 km [1 mi] of the Ross Project area.

The wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), 

sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) were 

observed at the Ross Project area by the Applicant. Mourning doves were recorded during the 

spring and summer months. 

The Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is listed as a Federal candidate species 

and a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in Wyoming (75 Federal Register (FR) 

13090; WGFD, 2005). Potential sage-grouse habitat is present at the Ross Project area 

(upland grassland, sagebrush shrubland, pastureland, hayland, and reservoir/stock ponds). 

Two leks, where male sage-grouse congregate for competitive mating displays, have been 

recorded within a few miles of the Ross Project area. Male sage-grouse assemble before and 

during the breeding season on a daily basis; the same group of males meet at the same 

traditional locations each season. Nonetheless, the Ross Project area is not located within a 

region currently designated as a sage-grouse core area by the WGFD. See SEIS Section 

3.6.1.4, Protected Species, for further information regarding the Greater sage-grouse.

Breeding-bird surveys were conducted within the Ross Project area in four habitat types: 

upland grassland, sagebrush shrubland, pastureland/hayland, and wetland/reservoir. Twentyseven species were recorded during the 2010 breeding-bird surveys. The wetland/reservoir 

habitat produced the greatest species diversity, with 19 species observed. The upland 

grassland habitat had the fewest species, with six species observed. 

Natural aquatic habitats on the Ross Project occur at the Oshoto Reservoir and along the Little 

Missouri River. During the Applicant’s wildlife field surveys, 17 waterfowl and 8 shorebird 

species were observed. In these categories, the horned grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) and 

upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) are the only USFWS’s BCC observed within or near 

the Ross Project area.

3.6.1.3 Reptiles, Amphibians, and Aquatic Species

During the Applicant’s pre-licensing, site-characterization wildlife field surveys in 2009 and 

2010, the eastern short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglassi brevirostre) and northern 

sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus graciosus) were often observed. Other reptiles 

observed in the area included the bullsnake (Pituophis cantenifer), wandering garter snake 

(Thamnophis elegans vagrans), and the prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis viridis).

Water is a limiting factor for wildlife on the Ross Project area, where only one stream flows 

occasionally, and the Oshoto Reservoir is the major water feature within the Ross Project area. 
Affected Environment

3-57

All other natural drainages are categorized as intermittent or ephemeral (see SEIS Section 

3.5.1). The lack of deep-water habitat and perennial water sources decreases the potential for 

many aquatic species to exist. Three aquatic or semi-aquatic amphibian species and two 

aquatic reptiles were recorded during the Applicant’s pre-licensing, site-characterization

surveys: the tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), 

northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens), common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentine), and 

western painted turtle (Chrysemys picta). All five species were heard and/or seen in the Oshoto 

Reservoir, Little Missouri River, or near stock reservoirs. All five species are common to the 

Ross Project area and the local vicinity as a whole. No egg masses were identified during the 

egg-mass surveys completed in early June 2010. The reason for their absence could have 

been that recent high winds might have broken up the egg masses and dispersed the individual 

eggs. During walking surveys along shorelines and riparian areas in August 2010, the leopard 

frog appeared to be quite common—over 500 individual adults were counted—while the chorus 

frog was uncommon. 

The Applicant also conducted fish sampling from the Oshoto Reservoir in September 2010, 

under a WGFD Chapter 33 Collection Permit, as part of its establishing pre-licensing, sitecharacterization radiological conditions for the Ross Project. The dominant fish population in 

the Oshoto Reservoir included black bullheads (Ameiurus melas) and green sunfish (Lepomis 

cyanellus); white suckers (Catastomus commeroni) and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) were 

also present. The sample fish from this population were stunted in size for their ages; high 

reproductive rates and limited predation leads to over-population and stunted growth. The 

Oshoto Reservoir and the other water bodies within the Ross Project area are not considered 

viable sport fisheries (see SEIS Section 3.2.2). 

3.6.1.4 Protected Species

The Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) is Federally listed as threatened. The 

species is a perennial, terrestrial orchid that occurs in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, 

Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Within Wyoming, this orchid inhabits moist meadows with 

moderately dense but short vegetation cover. As noted in Fertig (2000), this species is found at 

elevations of 1,280 – 2,130 m [4,200 – 7,000 ft], though no known populations occur in 

Wyoming above 1,680 m [5,500 ft]. This species was not located during the Applicant’s 

vegetation surveys, and it is not known to occur on or in the vicinity of the Ross Project area.

The blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) is Federally listed as endangered, although it is 

not included on the list for Crook County. However, it is on the list for neighboring Campbell 

County, and the Applicant therefore evaluated the potential for the blowout penstemon to occur 

in the Ross Project area. This species is found exclusively in sparsely vegetated, early 

successional sand dunes or blowout areas at elevations of 1,786 – 2,268 m [5,860 – 7,440 ft] 

(Fertig, 2008). The Ross Project does not have sand-dune habitat, and it is outside of the 

elevation range in which this species is typically found. This species was not identified during 

Strata’s vegetation field surveys; appropriate habitat was not identified; and it is not known to 

occur on or in the vicinity of the Ross Project area. 

The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) is a Federally listed endangered species, which 

inhabits prairie-dog colonies. A black-footed ferret survey was not required by USFWS 

requirements, because black-footed ferrets live exclusively in prairie-dog colonies, which are not 

present on or within 1.6 km [1 mi] of the Ross Project area (Strata, 2011a).
Affected Environment

3-58

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was delisted from Federal threatened status in 2007, 

but it is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act. Potential habitat for bald-eagle nesting and roosting activities is quite limited within 

the Ross Project because of the lack of trees. Bald eagles were observed from the Ross 

Project area during wildlife surveys that took place November and December of 2009 and 

January through September of 2010 (Strata, 2011a). No nests were observed, however, and 

the bald eagle is considered to be a winter migrant to the area.

The Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is Federally listed as a Candidate 

species, as a Wyoming SGCN, and as a BLMSS. On March 5, 2010, the USFWS published a 

finding in the FR stating that listing of the species was warranted but was precluded by higher 

priority listing actions (75 FR 13909). The Governor of Wyoming issued Executive Order (EO)

2010-4 in August 2010, which was subsequently replaced in June 2011 by EO 2011-5. This is 

the State’s current guidance, and it sets forth a permitting process and stipulations for 

developments that include ground-disturbing activities in designated sage-grouse core areas 

(WGFD, 2013). 

The Greater sage-grouse inhabits open sagebrush plains in the western U.S. and is found at 

elevations of 1,200 – 2,700 m [3,900 – 8,860 ft], corresponding with the occurrence of 

sagebrush habitat (69 FR 933). The Greater sage-grouse is a mottled brown, black, and white 

ground-dwelling bird that can be up to 0.6 m [2 ft] tall and 76 cm [30 in] in length (69 FR 933). 

The birds’ breeding habitat, referred to as leks (see SEIS Section 3.6.1.2), and the stands of 

sagebrush surrounding leks are used by sage-grouse in early spring. These areas are 

particularly important habitat because the birds often return to the same leks and nesting areas 

each year. Leks are generally more sparsely vegetated areas, such as ridgelines or disturbed 

areas adjacent to stands of sagebrush habitat. 

One sage-grouse lek is known to occur within 3 km [2 mi] of the Ross Project area, the Oshoto 

Lek (Sections 28 and 29, T53N, 67W). The Cap’n Bob Lek (Section 32, T53 N, R67W) is 

located approximately 3.5 km [2.2 mi] from the Ross Project area; no other sage-grouse leks 

have been identified. Details of sage-grouse mating activities at these Leks are summarized in 

Table 3.12. A ground survey of the Oshoto and Cap’n Bob Leks were conducted by the 

Applicant on two days in April 2010. On the Cap’n Bob Lek, a total of two males and one 

female were observed on one day, and two males were observed on the second day; no sagegrouse were observed at the Oshoto Lek during the survey. No broods or brood-rearing areas 

were identified during the Applicant’s 2010 survey. In addition, no sage-grouse wintering areas 

were identified on the Ross Project area (Strata, 2011a). Surveys completed by the WGFD in 

2012 recorded one male at the Oshoto Lek, and four males at the Cap’n Bob Lek, as indicated 

in Table 3.12. 

The primary threat to this species’ survival is habitat loss and fragmentation (WGFD, 2013). 

Although the two Leks described earlier were recorded near the Ross Project, the Project area 

itself is not located within a designated sage-grouse core area; the area’s location is, however,

within the western range of the Greater sage-grouse. Sharp-tailed sage-grouse were observed 

on the Ross Project area during the 2009 winter field survey, and they are consequently 

considered yearlong residents of the Project area.
Affected Environment

3-59

Table 3.12

Summary of Sage-Grouse Activity

in Oshoto and Cap’n Bob Leks

Year of

Survey Oshoto Cap’n Bob

1985 6 males No information

1988 0 ′′

1988 0 ′′

1991 0 ′′

1994 0 ′′

1997 0 ′′

2000 0 ′′

2001 5 males ′′

2004 2 males ′′

2007 0 10 males

2007 0 10 males

2010 0 2 males

1 female

2010 0 2 males

2012 1 male 4 males

 Sources: Strata, 2011a; WGFD, 2013.

Table 3.13 lists species that occur in Crook County and that are listed by the USFWS as a 

BCC, are listed as a BLMSS, and/or are State-listed under the Final Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy for Wyoming. 

Table 3.13

Species of Concern in Crook County and at Ross Project Area

Common Name

Scientific Name

USFWS 

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

BLM 

Sensitive 

Species

Wyoming 

Species of 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Need 

(by Tier Status)

Observed 

on the 

Ross Project 

Area

Mammals

Hayden’s Shrew

Sorex haydeni Tier III
Affected Environment

3-60

Table 3.13

Species of Concern in Crook County and at Ross Project Area

(Continued) 

Common Name

Scientific Name

USFWS 

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

BLM 

Sensitive 

Species

Wyoming 

Species of 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Need 

(by Tier Status)

Observed 

on the 

Ross Project 

Area

Mammals (Continued)

Western Harvest Mouse

Reithrodontomys megalotis 

Prairie Vole

Microtus ochrogaster Yes

Vagrant Shrew 

Sorex vagrans Tier III

Long-eared Myotis 

Myotis evotis Yes Tier II

Northern Myotis 

Myotis septentrionalis Tier II

Little Brown Myotis 

Myotis lucifugus Tier II

Long-legged Myotis 

Myotis volans Tier II

Fringed myotis 

Myotis thysanodes Yes Tier II

Hoary Bat 

Lasiurus cinereus 

Silver-haired Bat 

Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Big Brown Bat 

Eptesicus fuscus Tier II

Black-tailed Prairie Dog 

Cynomys ludovicianus Yes

Plains Pocket Gopher

Geomys bursarius Tier II

Olive-backed Pocket Mouse

Perognathus fasciatus Tier II

Silky Pocket Mouse

Perognathus flavus Tier II
Affected Environment

3-61

Table 3.13

Species of Concern in Crook County and at Ross Project Area

(Continued) 

Common Name

Scientific Name

USFWS 

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

BLM 

Sensitive 

Species

Wyoming 

Species of 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Need 

(by Tier Status)

Observed 

on the 

Ross Project 

Area

Mammals

(Continued)

Sagebrush Vole 

Lemmiscus curtatus 

Swift Fox 

Vulpes velox Yes Tier II

Black-footed Ferret 

Mustela nigripes Tier I

Birds

Waterfowl and Shorebirds

Trumpeter swan

Cygnus buccinator Yes Tier II Yes

Northern Pintail 

Anas acuta Tier II Yes

Canvasback

Aythya valisineria Tier II Yes

Redhead

Aythya americana Tier II Yes

Lesser Scaup

Aythya affinis Tier II Yes

Horned Grebe

Podiceps auritus Yes

Western Grebe 

Aechmophorus occidentalis 

American Bittern 

Botauosus lentiginosus Yes Tier II

Great Blue Heron 

Ardea herodias Yes

Black-crowned Night-Heron 

Nycticorax nycticorax Tier II

White-faced Ibis 

Plegadis chihi Yes Tier II
Affected Environment

3-62

Table 3.13

Species of Concern in Crook County and at Ross Project Area

(Continued) 

Common Name

Scientific Name

USFWS 

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

BLM 

Sensitive 

Species

Wyoming 

Species of 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Need 

(by Tier Status)

Observed 

on the 

Ross Project

Area

Birds (Continued)

Waterfowl and Shorebirds (Continued)

Sandhill Crane 

Grus canadensis Tier III

Mountain Plover 

Charadrius montanus Yes Yes Tier I

Upland Sandpiper

Bartramia longicauda Yes Tier II Yes

Marbled Godwit

Limosa fedoa 

Long-billed Curlew

Numenius americanus Yes Yes Tier II

Raptors

Bald Eagle 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Yes Tier I Yes

Northern Goshawk

Accipiter gentilis Yes Yes Tier I

Swainson's Hawk

Buteo swainsoni Yes Tier II Yes

Ferruginous Hawk

Buteo regalis Yes Yes Tier I Yes

Golden Eagle

Aquila chrysaetos Yes Yes

Merlin

Falco columbarius Tier III

Peregrine Falcon

Falco peregrinus Yes Tier II

Prairie Falcon

Falco mexicanus Yes Yes

Burrowing Owl

Athene cunicularia Yes Yes Tier I
Affected Environment

3-63

Table 3.13

Species of Concern in Crook County and at Ross Project Area

(Continued) 

Common Name

Scientific Name

USFWS 

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

BLM 

Sensitive 

Species

Wyoming 

Species of 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Need 

(by Tier Status)

Observed 

on the 

Ross Project

Area

Birds (Continued)

Raptors (Continued)

Short-eared Owl 

Asio flammeus Yes Tier II Yes

Upland Game

Greater Sage-grouse 

Centrocercus urophasianus Yes Tier I Yes

Other

White Pelican 

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Yes

Franklin's Gull

Larus pipixcan Tier II

Forster's Tern 

Sterna forsteri Tier II

Black Tern 

Chlidonias niger Tier II Yes

Black-billed Cuckoo 

Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo 

Coccyzus americanus Yes Tier III

Lewis’s Woodpecker 

Melanerpes lewis Tier II

Pinyon Jay 

Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus 

Willow Flycatcher

Empidonax traillii Tier III

Pygmy Nuthatch

Sitta pygmaea Tier II

Sage Thrasher

Oreoscoptes montanus Yes Tier II Yes

Loggerhead Shrike 

Lanius ludovicianus Yes Yes
Affected Environment

3-64

Table 3.13

Species of Concern in Crook County and on the Ross Project Area

(Continued) 

Common Name

Scientific Name

USFWS 

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

BLM 

Sensitive 

Species

Wyoming 

Species of 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Need 

(by Tier Status)

Observed 

on the 

Ross Project 

Area

Birds (Continued)

Other (Continued)

Dickcissel 

Spiza americana Tier II

Brewer's Sparrow 

Spizella breweri Yes Yes Tier II Yes

Sage Sparrow 

Amphispoza belli Yes Yes Tier II

Lark Bunting

Calamospiza melanocorys Tier II Yes

Baird's Sparrow

Ammodramus bairdii Yes Yes

Grasshopper Sparrow

Ammodramus savannarum Tier II Yes

McCown's Longspur

Calcarius mccownii Yes Tier II Yes

Chestnut-collared Longspur

Calcarius ornatus Tier II

Bobolink

Dolichonyz oryzivorus Tier II

Cassin's Finch

Carpodacus cassinii 

Amphibians

Tiger Salamander

Ambystoma tigrinum Yes

Plains Spadefoot

Scaphiopus bombifrons Tier III

Great Plains Toad

Bufo cognatus Tier III

Boreal Chorus Frog

Pseudaris triseriata 

maculate 

Yes
Affected Environment

3-65

Table 3.13

Species of Concern in Crook County and at Ross Project Area

(Continued) 

Common Name

Scientific Name

USFWS 

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

BLM 

Sensitive 

Species

Wyoming 

Species of 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Need 

(by Tier Status)

Observed 

on the 

Ross Project

Area

Amphibians (Continued)

Bullfrog

Rana catesbeiana 

Northern Leopard Frog

Rana pipiens Yes Tier III Yes

Reptiles

Northern Sagebrush Lizard

Sceloporus graciosus 

graciosus 

Yes

Western Painted Turtle 

Chrysemys picta belli Tier III Yes

Prairie Rattlesnake

Crotalus viridis viridis Yes

Plains Hognose Snake

Heterondon nasicus 

nasicus 

Tier II

Bullsnake

Pituophis melanoleucas 

sayi 

Wandering Garter Snake

Thamnophis elegans 

vagrans

Eastern Yellowbelly Racer 

Coluber constrictor 

flaviventris 

Sources: Strata, 2011a; USFWS 2012b; WGFD, 2010. 

In addition to the species previously discussed above, 17 bird species on the USFWS’s list of 

Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) could potentially be present within the Ross Project area. 

Of these 17 bird species, 8 have been observed within or near the Ross Project (see Table 

3.13). Ten non-raptor or non-game bird species on the BLMSS list could potentially occur within 

the Ross Project. Of the ten bird species, four have been observed on or near the Ross Project 

area (see Table 3.14). Thirty-two non-raptor or non-game bird species on the SGCN list could 

potentially be present within the Ross Project area. Of the 32 bird species, 15 have been 

actually observed on or near the Project area (see Tables 3.13 and 3.14). 
Affected Environment

3-66

In addition to the species previously discussed above, 20 bird species on the USFWS’s BCC list 

could potentially be present within the Ross Project area. Of these 20 bird species, 7 have 

been observed within or near the Ross Project (see Table 3.13). Ten non-raptor or non-game 

bird species on the BLMSS list could potentially occur within the Ross Project. Of the ten bird 

species, four have been observed on or near the Ross Project area (see Table 3.14). Thirty-two 

non-raptor or non-game bird species on Wyoming’s SGCN list could potentially be present 

within the Ross Project area. Of the 32 bird species, 15 have been actually observed on or near 

the Project area (see Tables 3.13 and 3.14). 

Table 3.14

Avian Species of Concern Observed at Ross Project Area

Common Name

Scientific Name

Primary Nesting 

Habitat(s)1 Status2

Level 1 Species of Concern/Conservation Needed

Bald Eagle 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

Montane Riparian, 

Plains/Basin Riparian

Uncommon yearlong

resident

Ferruginous Hawk 

Buteo regalis

Shrub Steppe and 

Short-Grass Prairie

Summer uncommon

resident

Upland Sandpiper 

Bartramia longicauda

Short-Grass Prairie Summer uncommon

resident

Short-eared Owl 

Asio flammeus

Short-Grass Prairie and 

Meadows Common yearlong resident

Brewer's Sparrow 

Spizella breweri

Shrub Steppe and 

Mountain-Foothills Shrub Common summer resident

Level 2 Species of Concern/Continued Monitoring Recommended

Sage Thrasher 

Oreoscoptes montanus Shrub Steppe Common summer resident

Loggerhead Shrike 

Lanius ludovicianus Shrub Steppe Common summer resident

McCown's Longspur 

Calcarius mccownii

Shrub Steppe and 

Short-Grass Prairie Common summer resident

Grasshopper Sparrow 

Ammodramus 

savannarum

Shrub Steppe and 

Short-Grass Prairie Common summer resident
Affected Environment

3-67

Table 3.14

Avian Species of Concern Observed at Ross Project Area

(Continued)

Common Name

Scientific Name

Primary Nesting 

Habitat(s)1 Status2

Level 2 Species of Concern/Continued Monitoring Recommended

(Contined) 

Lark Bunting 

Calamospiza 

melanocorys

Shrub Steppe and 

Short-Grass Prairie Abundant summer resident

Level 3 Species of Concern/Species of Local Interest

Golden Eagle 

Aquila chrysaetos Specialized (Cliffs) Common yearlong resident

Prairie Falcon 

Falco mexicanus Specialized (Cliffs) Common yearlong resident

 Sources: USFWS, 2011; USGS, 2006.

3.7 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality

3.7.1 Meteorology

The region within which the Ross Project area is located is characterized by hot summers and 

cold winters, and rapid temperature fluctuations are common. The Rocky Mountains (the 

“Rockies”) have a great influence on the climate. As air crosses the Rockies from the west, 

much moisture is lost on the windward sides of the Mountains, and the air becomes warmer as 

it descends on the eastern slopes of the Rockies (NRC, 2009b). The Ross Project area is 

located in this semi-arid area (Strata, 2011a). 

The closest National Weather Service (NWS) station with a long recording period is Gillette 

Airport, which is located 56 km [35 mi] southwest of the Ross Project (Strata, 2011a). As GEIS 

Section 3.4.6.1 noted, there is a NWS station in Crook County, at Colony, Wyoming (72 km [45 

mi] northeast of the Ross Project) (NRC, 2009b). This station, however, ceased operation in 

2008. In addition, the Applicant has installed a site-specific meteorology station in 2010, where 

meteorology data have been collected every month since the station went online (Strata, 

2011a). 

3.7.1.1 Temperature

As described in GEIS Section 3.4.6.1, the northwest Great Plains region has summer nights that 

are normally cool, even though daytime temperatures can be very warm. Winters can be quite 

cold; however, warm spells during winter months are common. The average temperatures for 

the two NWS stations in the vicinity of the Ross Project area, Colony and Gillette Airport, are 
Affected Environment

3-68

shown in Table 3.15, in addition to the information collected by the Applicant in 2010 (NRC, 

2009b; NWS, 2011; Strata, 2011a). 

Table 3.15

Average, Minimum, and Maximum Temperatures in Ross Project Vicinity

Station

Average 

Temperature

°C [°F]

Average Minimum 

Temperature

°C [°F]

Average Maximum 

Temperature

°C [°F]

Ross Project1 8.9 [48] - 4.3 [24.3] 23.9 [75]

Gillette Airport2 8.1 [46.5] N/A N/A

Colony3 8.3 [47] - 5.3 [22.5] 22.4 [72.3]

Source: Strata, 2011a; NRC, 2009b; NWS, 2011.

Notes: N/A = Data not available. 1

Monitoring period = 2010. 2

Monitoring period = 1902 – 2009. 3

Monitoring period = 1971 – 2000. 

At the Gillette Airport station, the warmest month of the year is July, with an average 

temperature of 23.6 °C [74.5 °F] (Strata, 2011a). The coldest month is December, with an 

average temperature of -4.7 °C [23.6 °F]. This trend was also observed at the Ross Project’s 

meteorology station, with an average July temperature of 23.1 °C [73.6 °F] and an average 

December temperature of -4.7 °C [23 °F] for 2010.

3.7.1.2 Wind

The wind speed at the Gillette Airport from 2000 – 2009 averaged 16.9 km/hr [10.5 mi/hr], with a 

maximum monthly wind speed of 77 km/hr [48 mi/hr] (see Figure 3.18) (Strata, 2011a). The 

highest winds were recorded in January through March, with the lowest speeds from July 

through September. As shown on the wind rose for the Ross Project area, the prevailing wind 

direction (as shown on Figure 3.19) is generally southerly. This is true throughout the year 

except for May, when the prevailing wind direction is from the southeast. Despite this southerly 

trend, the highest wind speeds tend to occur from the north-northwest.

During the 12 months of monitoring at the Applicant’s meteorology station in 2010, the average 

annual wind speed was 18.7 km/hr [11.6 mi/hr], ranging from a minimum wind speed of 0.8 

km/hr [0.5 mi/hr] to a maximum wind speed of 73.4 km/hr [45.6 mi/hr]. More southerly winds

were recorded at the Ross Project than at the Gillette Airport station (as shown in Figure 3.18); 

however, as at Gillette Airport, the highest wind speeds are from the northwest. 

 
3-69

 

Figure 3.19

Ross Project Area Wind Ro

Source: Strata, 2012a. Source: IML, 2010, as shown in Strata, 2012a.

Figure 3.18

Gillette Airport Wind Rose
Affected Environment

3-70

3.7.1.3 Precipitation

The Ross Project area and the surrounding area receive relatively little rainfall, with average 

annual precipitation ranging from 25 – 38 cm [10 – 15 in]. The region receives an average 

annual snowfall of 127 – 152 cm [50 – 60 in]. At the Gillette Airport station, between 2005 – 

2009, the average annual precipitation was measured at 30.5 cm [12 in] (Strata, 2011a). 

Approximately one-half of the precipitation is associated with spring snows and thunderstorms. 

May is the wettest month, with more than 5 cm [2 in] of precipitation, while January is the driest 

month, with average precipitation of approximately 1.3 cm [0.5 in] or less (Strata, 2011a).

At the Applicant’s onsite meteorology station, the total precipitation measured in 2010 was 24.8 

cm [9.8 in], compared to 32.5 cm [12.8 in] for the same period at the Gillette Airport station 

(Strata, 2011a). The difference in precipitation during 2010 was primarily due to the fact that 

Gillette Airport received 6.4 cm [2.5 in] more in the month of May than the Ross Project. 

Otherwise, the monthly precipitation data are very similar. 

3.7.1.4 Evaporation

As with the majority of the western U.S., the evaporation rate in northeastern Wyoming exceeds 

the rate of precipitation. As discussed in GEIS Section 3.4.6.1, evaporation rates in the region 

range from 102 – 127 cm/yr [40 – 50 in/yr] (NRC, 2009b). An evaporation pan was installed at 

the Ross Project’s meteorology station in June 2010; however, data are available from only 

June through late October 2010, because the gauge was removed to prevent its freezing. At 

the Gillette Airport station, evaporation in 2010 varied from slightly more than 10 cm [4 in] in 

April to almost 25 cm [10 in] in July and August. For the period of time the evaporation pan 

operated at the Ross Project, similar rates were observed (Strata, 2011a). 

3.7.1.5 Atmospheric Stability Classification and Mixing Height

Atmospheric stability classification and mixing height are environmental variables that influence 

the ability of the atmosphere to disperse air pollutants. The stability class is a measure of 

atmospheric turbulence, and mixing height characterizes the vertical extent of contaminants 

mixing in the atmosphere. The nearest upper-air data available from the NWS are from Rapid 

City, South Dakota, approximately 170 km [106 mi] southeast of the Ross Project (Strata, 

2011a). However, Rapid City is approximately 300 m [1,000 ft] lower in elevation than the 

Ross Project, and it is on the other side of the Black Hills. Therefore, the data are likely not 

representative of conditions at the Ross Project area.

Stability-class information was collected using the Applicant’s meteorological station, which 

demonstrated that the class distributions were predominantly neutral approximately 62 percent 

of the time. Other calculated conditions were Stability Class D (17 percent) and Class E (12.6 

percent) (Strata, 2011a). The classification that results in the least vertical mixing, Class F, was 

approximately 4.7 percent of the time at the Ross Project area, while Classes A through C 

ranged from 3 – 6.7 percent (Strata, 2011a).

Average annual mixing heights were not reported, although Wyoming has provided statewide 

mixing heights to be used in dispersion modeling (see Table 3.16) (Strata, 2011a).
Affected Environment

3-71

Table 3.16

Statewide Mixing Heights for 

Dispersion Modeling

Stability Class

Mixing Height

(m [ft])

Class A 3,450 [11,319]

Class B 2,300 [7,546]

Class C 2,300 [7,546]

Class D 2,300 [7,546]

Class E 10,000 [32,808]

Class F 10,000 [32,808]

 Source: Strata, 2011a.

Stability classes E and F are given an arbitrarily high number by the WDEQ/Air Quality Division 

(AQD) to indicate an absence of a distinct boundary in the upper atmosphere.

3.7.2 Climatology

On a larger scale, climate change is a subject of national and international interest. The recent 

compilation of the current scientific understanding in this area by the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program (GCRP), a Federal advisory committee, was considered in preparation of 

this SEIS (GCRP, 2009). Average temperatures in the U.S. have risen more than 1.1 °C [2 °F] 

over the past 50 years and are projected to rise more in the future. During the period from 1993 

– 2008, the average temperature in the Great Plains increased by approximately 0.83 °C [1.5 

°F] from 1961 – 1979 temperatures (GCRP, 2009). The projected change in temperature over 

the period from 2000 – 2020, which encompasses the period that the Ross Project would be 

licensed, ranges from a decrease of approximately 0.28 °C [0.5 °F] to an increase of 

approximately 1.1 °C [3.4 °F]. Although the GCRP did not incrementally forecast a change in 

precipitation by decade, it did project a change in spring precipitation from the base period 

(1961 – 1979) to the next century (2080 – 2099). For the region in Wyoming where the Ross 

Project is located, the GCRP forecast a 10 – 15 percent increase in spring precipitation (GCRP, 

2009).

The EPA has determined that potential changes in climate caused by greenhouse-gas (GHG) 

emissions endanger public health and welfare based upon a body of scientific evidence 

assessed by the GCRP as well as the National Research Council (74 FR 66496). The 

Administrator of the EPA has issued an endangerment finding based upon a technical-support 

document compiled by these scientific organizations. This endangerment finding specifies that, 

while ambient concentrations of GHG emissions do not cause direct adverse health effects 

(such as respiratory issues or toxic effects), public-health risks and impacts can result indirectly 

from changes in climate. Based upon the EPA’s determination, the NRC recognizes that GHGs 

could have an effect on climate change. In Memorandum and Order CLI-09-21, the 

Commission provided guidance to the NRC staff to consider carbon dioxide and other GHG 
Affected Environment

3-72

emissions in its National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) reviews (NRC, 2009a). 

GHG emissions, as projected for the Ross Project, are considered as an element of the airquality impacts evaluation in this SEIS; GHG emissions are discussed in SEIS Section 5

“Cumulative Impacts.” 

3.7.3 Air Quality

As described in GEIS Section 3.4 

(NRC, 2009b), all of the NSDWUMR is 

classified as an attainment area for all 

the primary criteria pollutants under the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) (NRC, 2009b). (The EPA 

sets NAAQS for air pollutants 

considered harmful to the public’s

health and the environment [40 CFR 

Part 50]. Some states, including

Wyoming, also set their own Ambient 

Air Quality Standards, such as the 

Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards [WAAQS].) Primary NAAQS are established to directly 

protect public health, and secondary NAAQS are established to protect public welfare by 

safeguarding against environmental and property damage. As discussed in GEIS Section 3.4.6, 

the NAAQS defines acceptable ambient-air concentrations for six common nonradiological 

particulate and gaseous air pollutants (i.e., primary or criteria pollutants): nitrogen oxides (as 

NO2), ozone (O3), sulfur oxides (as SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), and particulate 

matter (less than 10 and 2.5 μm in diameter [PM10 and PM2.5]). In particular, most of the 

Powder River Basin, where significant coal mining is ongoing, and which includes the Ross 

Project area, is currently designated an attainment area for all air pollutants (Strata, 2011a). 

As noted above, states may develop standards that are more strict than or that supplement the 

NAAQS. The WDEQ/AQD has submitted a draft revision of its own WAAQS to the appropriate 

State boards. These revisions would result in Wyoming’s adding one-hour NO2 and SO2

standards and revoking the current 24-hour and 1-hour standards for SO2 of the existing 

WAAQS to be identical with NAAQS (see Table 3.17). The Wyoming-specific annual (arithmetic 

mean) PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3 (0.025 ppm), which is required for short-term modeling of 

surface coal-mine emissions, will be retained. Some primary and secondary NAAQS are 

presented in Table 3.17 (WDEQ/AQD, 2010).

The air quality in the vicinity of the Ross Project area is currently in compliance with the NAAQS 

for all primary air pollutants, including particulates (i.e., fugitive dusts) and combustion-engine 

gaseous emissions. 

3.7.3.1 Particulates 

“Particulates” refers to particles that are suspended in the air. Some particulates are large 

enough to be seen (e.g., smoke and wind-blown dust), while others are too small to be visible. 

Agriculture, forestry, transportation, wind, and fire all contribute airborne particulates to the 

atmosphere. The NAAQS and WAAQS specify the allowable concentration of airborne 

particulates of 10 microns in diameter or smaller, or “PM10,” to 150 μg/m3 [9.4 x 10-9 lb/ft3

] over 

What is an air-quality attainment area?

The attainment status of an area refers to whether or not 

its air quality “attains” the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for specific air pollutants (“criteria 

pollutants”). That is, an attainment area is a particular

geographic area where the respective concentrations of 

primary (or “criteria”) air pollutants meet the health-based 

NAAQS for the corresponding primary air pollutants. If the 

area persistently exceeds the NAAQS for one or more 

primary air pollutants, it is classified as being in “nonattainment” for the particular air pollutant(s) that exceed(s) 

the respective NAAQS standard. The Powder River Basin 

is an attainment area for PM10. 
Affected Environment

3-73

Table 3.17

National and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards

Criteria 

Pollutant

National 

Primary

Standards

Wyoming 

Primary 

Standards

Averaging 

Time

Secondary

Standards

Carbon Monoxide

9 ppm

(10,000 μg/m3

) 

9 ppm

(10,000 μg/m3) 8 Hours† N/A*

35 ppm

(40,000 μg/m3

) 

35 ppm

(40,000 μg/m3) 1 Hour† N/A

Nitrogen Dioxide

0.053 ppm

(100 μg/m3

) 

0.05 ppm

(100 μg/m3) 

Annual Arithmetic 

Mean Same as Primary 

0.100 ppm

(187 μg/m3

)

0.100 ppm 

(187 μg/m3) 1 Hour N/A

Particulate Matter

(10-μm Diameter)

(PM10) 

150 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 24 Hours Same as Primary 

N/A 50 μg/m3 Annual Arithmetic 

Mean N/A

Particulate Matter

(2.5-μm Diameter)

(PM2.5) 

12.0 μg/m3 12.0 μg/m3 Annual Arithmetic 

Mean Same as Primary

35 μg/m3 35 μg/m3 24 Hoursa Same as Primary

Ozone 0.08 ppm

(157 μg/m3) 

0.08 ppm

(157 μg/m3) 8 Hoursb Same as Primary

Sulfur Oxides

N/A

23 ppm

(Will Revoke) 

60 μg/m3

Annual Arithmetic 

Mean N/A

N/A

100 ppm 

(Will Revoke) 

260 μg/m3 24 Hours† N/A

75 ppm

200 μg/m3

75 ppm

(Will Add) 

200 μg/m3 1 Hour N/A

N/A 0.5 ppm

(1,300 μg/m3) 3 hours† 0.5 ppm

(1,300 μg/m3) 

Sources: Modified from EPA’s “National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” 

as of October 2011; WDEQ/AQD, 2012. 

Notes: 

† Not to be exceeded more than once per year.

* N/A = Not applicable. a To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each 

population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35.0 μg/m3 (effective December 18, 2006). b To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm.

Italics: Standard is in the rulemaking process in Wyoming. The intention is for WAAQS to reflect NAAQS, 

 while retaining the State annual-average PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3

.
Affected Environment

3-74

24 hours (see Table 3.17). Wyoming has a supplemental annual (arithmetic mean) PM10

standard of 50 μg/m3 [3.1 x 10-9 lb/ft3

] that is averaged over the year (WDEQ/AQD, 2010). The 

NAAQS also limits allowable concentrations of airborne particulates that are 2.5 microns in 

diameter or smaller, or “PM2.5”. Based upon the pre-licensing, site-characterization data 

collected by the Applicant, three radionuclide particulates of interest (natural uranium, Ra-226, 

and Th-230) are found at concentrations at or below the lowest analytical detection limit and one 

radionuclide particulate (Pb-210) is found at concentrations just above the lowest analytical 

detection limits. The Pb-210 particulate concentrations are consistent with the radon flux, as 

Pb-210 is a progeny of the radon-222 (Rn-222) radioactive decay.

The eastern portion of the Powder River Basin has an extensive network of PM10 monitoring 

stations that are operated by the mining industry because of the number of the coal mines in the 

region. There are five surface coal mines within approximately 50 km [30 mi] of the Ross 

Project area. PM10 compliance with the NAAQS and WAAQS 24-hour standards at these five 

mines (and, by inference, at the Ross Project area) has been consistently demonstrated by 

these stations (Strata, 2011a). However, there have been three small excursions over the 24-

hour PM10 at the mines; these were determined to be due to high-wind conditions. There are 

also monitoring stations operated by the WDEQ/AQD in the cities of Sheridan, Gillette, Arvada, 

and Wright, where particulates are generally measured as PM10. 

The WDEQ/AQD operates a PM2.5 particulate sampler at the Buckskin Mine, about 50 km [30 

mi] west of the Ross Project area. Ambient air-quality monitoring data from 2005 – 2009 from 

the Buckskin Mine show that the average PM2.5 ranged from 5.1 – 6.2 μg/m3 [3.2 – 3.9 x 10-10

lb/ft3

], about one-third the annual mean PM2.5 standard of 12 μg/m3 [9.4 x 10-10 lb/ft3]. No 

excursions above the 24-hour standard of 5 μg/m3 were recorded at the Mine. The data 

indicate that particulates from highway and non-road-construction vehicles comprise 

approximately 28 percent of the total PM10 and PM2.5 particulate emissions. 

As discussed in GEIS Section 3.4.6, prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements

identify maximum allowable increases in concentrations for particulate matter for areas

designated as in attainment. Different increment levels are identified for different classification 

areas, with Class I areas having the most stringent requirements. The nearest Class I areas to 

the Ross Project area is the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation (in Montana) and Wind 

Cave National Park (South Dakota); these areas are 130 km [80 mi] and 160 km [100 mi] from 

the Ross Project area, respectively. The other sensitive areas are the Class II Devils Tower and

the Class II Cloud Peak Wilderness Area. These areas are approximately 16 km [10 mi] and 

180 km [110 mi], respectively, from the Ross Project area (Strata, 2011a).

3.7.3.2 Gaseous Emissions

Existing regional air pollutants are known to include gaseous emissions, such as CO, CO2, NO2, 

NOx, O3, and SO2, as well as volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants in 

addition to PM2.5 and PM10, all of which have been extensively monitored near the Ross Project 

area and in the Powder River Basin since 1975 (Strata, 2011a). Please refer to SEIS Table 

3.17, which presents both the respective NAAQS and WAAQS gaseous-emission standards. 

Radon is a radioactive, gaseous air emission which is discussed further in SEIS Section 3.12.1, 

Air. Based upon the Applicant’s pre-licensing, site-characterization air sampling, the naturally 

occurring radon concentrations in the air at the Ross Project range from 0.007 – 0.07 Bq/L (0.2 
Affected Environment

3-75

– 2.0 pCi/L) with a resultant exposure between 9.0 x 10-5 – 3.82 x 10-4 Sv [9.2 – 38.2 mrem]. 

These values are consistent with levels for radon in air overlying mineralized environments (as 

cited in NRC, 2009b). Air-quality monitoring for gaseous emissions within the Powder River

Basin includes measuring ozone (as O3) and nitrogen oxides (as NO2) at two WDEQ/AQD 

stations, the closest of which is 29 km [18 mi] from the Ross Project area. A Wyoming Air 

Resources Monitoring System (WARMS), which is operated by the BLM, monitors sulfur- and 

nitrogen-oxide concentrations near Buffalo, Sheridan, and Newcastle. Nitrogen oxides (as NO2) 

are also monitored by the WDEQ/AQD at the Thunder Mountain Basin National Grassland 

monitoring station, 29 km [18 mi] west of the Ross Project area as well as at private monitoring 

stations at the Belle Ayr and Antelope coal mines (see SEIS Section 5.2). All of these 

monitoring stations routinely indicate that the annual mean NO2 emissions are well below the 

NAAQS and WAAQS. 

Ozone is also monitored in the Powder River Basin which is considered an ozone attainment 

area. Although no violations of the ozone standard have occurred in the area, the levels 

reported by these nearby air-quality monitoring stations are occasionally close to the respective 

ozone standard.

PSD requirements also incorporate gaseous-emission standards (e.g., for NO2, SO2, and O3) for 

maximum allowable increases in concentrations for areas designated as “in attainment,” as 

discussed above. Class I areas have the most stringent PSD requirements; Class I areas 

nearest to the Ross Project area are presented in SEIS Section 3.7.3.2.

3.8 Noise

As described in GEIS Section 3.4.6, 

eastern Wyoming is predominantly 

rural and undeveloped, except for 

the heavily mined Powder River 

Basin. Rural areas tend to be quiet, 

and natural phenomena, such as 

wind, rain, insects, and livestock, 

tend to contribute the most to 

ambient noise. As noted in the 

adjacent text box, the unit of 

measure used to represent soundpressure levels is the decibel (dB) or the A-weighted decibel (dBA). dBA is a measure designed 

to simulate human hearing by placing less emphasis on lower frequency noises, because the 

human ear does not perceive sounds at low frequencies in the same manner as sounds at 

higher frequencies. In the 

undeveloped rural areas of 

Wyoming, the existing ambient noise 

levels range from 22 decibels (dB) 

on calm days up to 38 dB, 

depending upon factors such as 

wind and traffic (NRC, 2009b). It 

should be noted that noise levels 

lessen with increasing distance from 

the respective source. Noise from a 

How Is sound measured?

The human ear responds to a wide range of sound pressures. 

The range of sounds people normally experience extends 

from low to high pressures by a factor of 1 million. Sound is 

commonly measured using decibels (dB). Another common 

sound measurement is the A-weighted sound level (dBA). 

The equivalent sound level is expressed as an A-weighted 

sound level over a specified period of time—usually 1 or 24 

hours. The A-weighting measures different sound 

frequencies and the variation of the human ear’s response

over the frequency range. Higher frequencies receive less Aweighting than lower ones. 

What is noise?

Sound waves are characterized by frequency and 

measured in hertz (Hz). Noises that are perceptible to 

human hearing range from 31 to 20,000 Hz. Audible 

sounds (those that can be heard) range from about 60 

dB at a frequency of 31 Hz to less than about 1 dB 

between 900 and 8,000 Hz. dBAs assume a human 

receptor to a particular noise-producing activity.
Affected Environment

3-76

line source, such as a highway, is reduced by approximately 3 dB per doubling of distance. For 

example, road noise at 15 m [49 ft] from a highway is reduced by 3 dB at 30 m [98 ft] and further 

reduced by an additional 3 dB at 60 m [196 ft]. For point sources, such as equipment, 

compressors, and pumps, the reduction factor with distance is greater, at approximately 6 dB 

per doubling of distance. 

The land uses in the Ross Project area include livestock grazing, oil production, crop 

production, ordinary transportation, recreation, and wildlife habitat (see SEIS Section 3.2). 

Existing ambient noise levels at the Ross Project area were measured by the Applicant to 

establish pre-licensing, site-characterization noise levels at the 11 residences in a 3-km [2-mi] 

vicinity of the Ross Project (including the nearest 2 along New Haven Road, adjacent to the 

Project area) (see Figure 3.1). Future site-specific noise levels associated with uraniumrecovery activities would be measured against these levels to identify relative increases in noise 

levels. 

The Applicant’s noise study specifically considered the two nearest residences to the Ross 

Project. The first nearest residence is 210 m [690 ft] from the Ross Project’s respective 

boundary and approximately 760 m [2,500 ft] from the location of the CPP in the Proposed 

Action. The second residence is 255 m [835 ft] from the respective boundary and 1,700 m 

[5,600 ft] from the proposed location of the CPP. Because these residences are so close to the 

Ross Project area, they bound the upper range of noise for all four of the residences next to the 

Ross Project area, where all of the residences are located within 0.5 km [0.3 mi] of the Ross 

Project’s boundary (Strata, 2011a). The noise levels at these two residences averaged 35.4 

dBA and 37.4 dBA, depending upon simultaneous factors such as wind speed, traffic volume, 

vehicular speed, and the type of load being transported (Strata, 2011a). 

Truck traffic, in particular bentonite-hauling trucks from the Oshoto bentonite mine 8 km [5 mi] 

northeast of the Ross Project area and, less frequently, livestock hauling, are the main 

contributors to existing traffic noise on D and New Haven Roads. According to the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (USDOT), typical noise levels at road speeds ranging from 80 – 

113 km/hr [50 – 70 mi/hr] are 62 – 68 dBA for passenger automobiles, 74 – 79 dBA for medium 

trucks, and 80 – 82 dBA for heavy trucks (USDOT, 1995). Posted speed limits for D Road, 

which passes adjacent to the Ross Project area, are 88 km/hr [55 mi/hr] for automobiles and 72 

km/hr [45 mi/hr ] for trucks. Peak noise levels attributed to truck traffic have been measured at 

80 – 90 dBA (Strata, 2011a). However, a passing truck hauling bentonite registered 73.4 dBA 

at the residence on New Haven Road nearest to the Project area, lower than the USDOT values 

for either medium or heavy trucks. 

In a separate noise study, the Applicant collected noise measurements at the Applicant’s Field 

Office for an entire week; the data yielded an average day-night noise level (ldn) of 41.6 dBA 

overall, with no variance between weekday and weekend measurements (Strata, 2011a). The 

ldn is the A-weighted equivalent noise level for a 24-hour period that includes a noise level at 

nighttime that is 10 dBA lower than the daytime noise level. Nighttime hours are considered to 

be from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. (EPA, 1978).

The Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) has defined Noise Abatement Criteria 

(NAC) that take into account land use, because different land-use areas are sensitive to noise in 

different ways (NACs are used for impact determinations only). The WYDOT procedures 

consider a person to be affected by traffic noise from highways when existing or future sound 
Affected Environment

3-77

levels approach or exceed the NAC, or when expected future sound levels exceed existing 

sound levels by 15 dBA. In addition, the sound characteristics of noise can affect the 

acceptability of noise levels to receptors and the acceptability of noise levels is increased when 

the noise is familiar and routine (WYDOT, 2011). There are no NACs for undeveloped land. 

The exterior of residential structures would be considered affected by highway traffic above 67 

dBA Leq(h) (i.e., equivalent continuous noise level).

Ambient noise levels in larger communities would be expected to be similar to other urban areas 

(i.e., approximately 50 – 78 dBA). However, the nearest cities to the Ross Project are all quite 

distant from the Ross Project area and are, thus, not expected to be affected by the noise levels 

at the Ross Project (nor, conversely, affect the noise levels at the Ross Project). For example, 

Casper, Wyoming, which has a population of 55,000 and is 230 km [140 mi] away from the 

Ross Project area (USCB, 2010), and smaller communities, such as Hulett and Moorcroft, which 

are located 22 km [14 miles] and 35 km [22 miles] away from the Ross Project area, 

respectively, are too distant to contribute to the noise environment at the Ross Project area.

3.9 Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources

Both NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, require 

Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historical and cultural 

properties. The historical-preservation review process is outlined at regulations promulgated by 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in 36 CFR Part 800. Historic properties 

are resources that are eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

Historic properties may include sites, buildings, structures, districts, or objects generally more 

than 50 years old. In 1992, amendments to Section 101 of the NHPA added traditional cultural 

properties (TCPs) as another property type whose eligibility can be considered for listing on the 

NRHP. To be eligible for listing, historical and cultural resources must exhibit integrity of setting, 

location, design, materials, feeling, and association. 

The site condition is an important factor in an assessment of site integrity. The property must 

be able to convey its significance (NPS, 1997a). Once integrity is established, a resource is 

evaluated against criteria which define eligibility, as required by 36 CFR Part 60.4; at least one

criterion must be met for a resource to be eligible. The criteria include: 1) association with

significant events in the past; 2) association with the lives of persons significant in the past; 3) 

embodiments of distinctive characteristics of type, period, or construction; or 4) yielding or is 

likely to yield important information about prehistory or history. Both the Secretary of Interior's 

“Guidelines for Evaluation” and the U.S. National Park Service’s (NPS’s) Bulletin 15, How to 

Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation describe a process in which a historical 

context is established with associated property types. Historic contexts for evaluation are 

defined by states (in the case of the Ross Project, Wyoming). Under this process, property-type 

definitions include characteristics, integrity requirements, and applicable historical contexts. 

The NRHP-evaluation process is an assessment of whether any given property possesses the 

characteristics and integrity requirements needed to meet the significance requirements 

specified by the applicable historical context. Resources that meet these requirements can be 

evaluated as historic properties.

NEPA established the responsibility of the Federal government to employ all practicable means 

to preserve important historical, cultural, and natural aspects of national heritage. Implementing 

regulations for Section 106 provide guidance on how NEPA and Section 106 processes can be 
Affected Environment

3-78

coordinated (at Section 800.8[a]) and set forth the manner in which the NEPA process and its 

documentation can be used to comply with Section 106 (Section 800.9[c]). The NHPA 

regulations also address the Federal government’s responsibility to identify historical and 

cultural properties and to assess the effects of a given Federal undertaking on those properties 

(Sections 800.4 through 800.5).

As a Federal undertaking, the issuance of source and byproduct material license by the NRC for 

the Ross Project could have the potential to affect historic properties located on, in, beneath, or 

near the Project area. The NRC is therefore required, in accordance with NHPA, to make a 

reasonable effort to identify historic properties in the area of potential effect (APE) for the 

Project. The APE is defined for the Project by the Ross Project area boundaries and the area’s 

immediate environs. The APE denotes the area that could be impacted during the Ross 

Project’s phases (i.e., during its construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning). If historic properties are known to be present within the APE, the NRC is 

required to assess the effects of its issuing a license for uranium-recovery operations on any 

identified properties and to resolve any adverse impacts to those properties.

Several additional statutes and EOs also apply to the Federal lands managed by the BLM, most 

notably the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA). NAGPRA is applicable to burials 

found on BLM-managed lands and, in that context, provides for the protection of Native 

American remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and/or objects of cultural patrimony as well 

as their repatriation to affiliated Native American Tribes following a consultation process 

between Tribes and the land-managing Federal agency (e.g., the BLM). ARPA regulates the 

permitting of archaeological investigations on public lands, including those managed by BLM. 

Wyoming also has a statute pertaining to archaeological sites and human remains, entitled 

Archaeological Sites (Wyoming Statute Annotated §36-1-114, et seq.). The Wyoming State 

Historic Preservation Office (WYSHPO) administers and is responsible for oversight and 

compliance review for Section 106 of NHPA and NAGPRA as well as compliance with other 

Federal and State historic-preservation statutes and regulations. The WYSHPO and the 

Wyoming State Office of the BLM have entered into a programmatic agreement that describes 

the manner in which the two entities would interact and cooperate under the BLM’s National 

Programmatic Agreement.

3.9.1 Cultural Context of Ross Project Area 

The following information is included as an aid to the reader, for an understanding of the Ross 

Project area in terms of potential prehistoric and historic events that would reasonably be 

expected to have occurred and that would have left behind artifacts (archaeological resources) 

of interest to present-day archeologists, paleontologists, and present-day Native American 

Tribes of the area. 

The Ross Project area is within a portion of Wyoming inhabited by aboriginal hunting and 

gathering people for more than 13,000 years. Throughout the prehistoric past, this area was 

used by highly mobile hunters and gatherers who exploited a wide variety of resources. The 

immense expanse of grassland in the Plains region was home to vast herds of bison, also 

known as buffalo. Exploitation of this resource by indigenous groups organized the Northwest 

Plains culture. Fur traders, explorers, and the military were the first Euro-Americans to enter the 
Affected Environment

3-79

region and encounter the mounted Indians of the region. These bison-dependent people and 

their way of life were eventually displaced by permanent farming and ranching settlement.

3.9.1.1 Prehistoric Era

Past research activities within the Northwestern Plains culture area have defined a sequence of 

cultural periods that provide a general context for identification and interpretation of 

archaeological resources within the proposed Ross Project area. This chronology for the 

Northwestern Plains was developed from the work of Frison (1991; 2001) with age ranges 

provided in years Before Present (B.P.): 

■ Paleoindian period (13,000 – 7,000 years B.P.). 

■ Early Archaic period (7,000 – 5,000 years B.P.). 

■ Middle Archaic period (5,000/4,500 – 3,000 years B.P.). 

■ Late Archaic period (3,000 – 1,850 years B.P.). 

■ Late Prehistoric period (1,850 – 400 years B.P.). 

■ Protohistoric period (400 – 250 years B.P.). 

■ Historic period (250 – 120 years B.P.). 

The two most recent cultural periods, about which more is known, are more thoroughly 

discussed in a separate section below.

The Paleoindian period includes various complexes (Frison, 1991; Frison, 2001). Each of these 

complexes is correlated with a distinctive projectile-point style derived from generally large, 

lanceolate, and/or stemmed-point morphology. The Paleoindian period is traditionally thought to 

be synonymous with the “big-game hunters” who exploited megafauna such as bison and 

mammoth (Plains Paleoindian groups), although evidence of the use of vegetation resources 

has been noted at a few Paleoindian sites (foothill-mountain groups).

The Early Archaic period projectile point styles reflect the change from large, lanceolate types 

that characterized the earlier Paleoindian complexes to large side- or corner-notched types. 

Subsistence patterns reflect exploitation of a broad spectrum of resources, with a muchdiminished use of large mammals.

The onset of the Middle Archaic period has been defined on the basis of the appearance of the 

McKean Complex as the predominant complex on the Northwestern Plains approximately 4,900 

years B.P. (Frison, 1991; Frison, 2001). McKean Complex-projectile points are stemmed 

variants of the lanceolate point. These projectile-point types continued until 3,100 years B.P., 

when they were replaced by a variety of large corner-notched points (e.g., Pelican Lake points) 

(Martin, 1999, as cited in Strata, 2011a). Sites dating to this period exhibit a new emphasis on 

vegetation procurement and processing.

The Late Archaic period is generally defined by the appearance of corner-notched dart points. 

These projectile points dominate most assemblages until the introduction of the bow and arrow 

around 1,500 years B.P. (Frison, 1991). This period witnessed a continued expansion of 

occupations into the interior grasslands and basins as well as the foothills and mountains.
Affected Environment

3-80

The Late Prehistoric period is marked by a transition in projectile-point technology around 1,500 

years B.P. The large corner-notched dart points characteristic of the Late Archaic period are 

replaced by smaller corner- and side-notched points for use with the bow and arrow. 

Approximately 1,000 years B.P., the entire Northwestern Plains appears to have suffered an 

abrupt collapse or shift in population (Frison, 1991). This population shift appears to reflect a 

narrower subsistence base, focused mainly on communal procurement of pronghorn antelope 

and bison.

3.9.1.2 Protohistoric/Historic Periods

The Protohistoric period witnessed the beginning of European influence on prehistoric cultures 

of the Northwestern Plains. Additions to the material culture include, most notably, the horse 

and European trade goods such as glass beads, metals, and firearms. Projectile points of this 

period include side-notched, tri-notched, and un-notched points with the addition of metal points. 

Introduction of the horse on the southern Plains in the 1600s spread northward to other Tribes, 

and mounted buffalo hunters became the classic Plains culture known in the period of EuroAmerican contact. New diseases also spread across the North American continent with the first 

arrival of Europeans, affecting Native peoples even before the physical appearance of the 

newcomers.

The Plains Tribes shared a basic commonality of style in their material culture, with regional and 

Tribal variation. This material culture was strongly characterized by its dependence on bison. 

Bison played a part in all aspects of physical life by providing food, clothing, shelter, tools, and 

fuel (e.g., dung) as well as embodying a spiritual force (DeMallie, 2001). The need to follow the 

seasonal movements of bison herds resulted in seasonal variation in residential patterns. 

Summer encampments of large groups gathered to hunt, using cooperative hunting techniques 

such as driving a herd over a cliff (e.g., “buffalo-jump sites”) or into a corral at the bottom of a 

slope or a cut bank. 

Extended family and village groups moved along with the herds, hauling their belongings and 

portable dwellings to new encampments. Originally, long, low, multiple-family tents, the classic 

Plains teepee built on a foundation of supporting poles, developed following the adoption of the 

horse (DeMallie, 2001). Extended families were organized in nomadic bands or semi-sedentary 

villages; each band or village was independent, but each shared the same language and 

culture, with the size of their aggregations determined by ecological factors. Communal hunting 

needed for the bison hunts gave way to smaller, scattered social groups that were optimal at 

other times. The need for horse pasturage also limited the size and duration of residential 

groups. Smaller Tribes stayed together more of the year, but larger Tribes might only 

congregate for summer hunts. The largest Tribes, such as the Blackfoot and Crow, might only 

rarely gather in a single place and tended toward more lasting divisions that can be viewed as 

separate Tribes with their own territories and linguistic distinctions (DeMallie, 2001).

Plains groups shared a fundamental belief in the power inherent in all living beings. This power 

was accessible to individuals in dreams and visions, but it was particularly useful to medicine 

men and priests whose more heightened understanding and experience of power gave them a 

special role in the ritual life of Plains communities. Sacred power was acquired by individuals 

through vision seeking during a retreat which was accompanied by fasting and prayer while 

awaiting the appearance of spiritual beings in a special form, sometimes an animal that 

embodied a teaching and protective spirit (DeMallie, 2001).
Affected Environment

3-81

During the historic period, the Plains Tribes came under duress from the effects of a rapidly 

changing world. As soldiers, settlers, bison hunters, and other Tribes relocated westward, 

epidemic diseases ravaged the native populations, and the dislocation of conflict increased, 

leading to changing demographic patterns and a breakdown of traditional systems of food 

gathering and inter-group exchange patterns. As Christian missionaries came onto the Plains, 

they professed belief systems that conflicted with, and sometimes even forbade, native 

traditional rites related to a life view that often mingled the spirit and physical worlds. The influx 

of trading-post goods, the shift in hunting patterns, and the loss of access to the seasonal 

migrations of prey, produced a distorting effect that challenged native life. Cultural 

transformation was rapid and was characterized by a long period of hostilities with the white 

settlers and disagreements among various Tribal entities regarding the course of action in the 

face of encroachment. Eventual resolution of conflict came through military means and treaties 

that established the present-day reservation system.

The only Tribal reservation in Wyoming is the Wind River Indian Reservation, located 

approximately 270 km [170 mi] southwest of the Ross Project. The Crow and Northern 

Cheyenne Indian Reservations in Montana (approximately 160 and 146 km [100 and 91 mi] 

northwest, respectively) and the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota (approximately 

185 km [115 mi] southeast) are the other Tribal-reservation communities nearest the proposed 

Ross Project area. A review of the literature indicates that Devils Tower has been called Mato 

Tipila by some Native Americans (which means “Bear Lodge”) as well as Bear’s Tipi, Home of 

the Bear, Tree Rock and Great Gray Horn) (NPS, 2012). This geologic formation is located 

approximately 16 km [10 mi] from the Ross Project area and is a sacred area for several Plains 

Tribes (Hanson and Chirinos, 1991, as cited in Strata, 2011a). According to the NPS, over 20 

Tribes have potential cultural affiliation with Devils Tower. Six Tribes (i.e., Arapaho, Crow, 

Lakota, Cheyenne, Kiowa, and Shoshone) have historical and geographical ties to the Devils 

Tower area (NPS, 1997b). Many Native American Tribes of the northern Plains refer to Devils 

Tower in their legends as a sacred area. 

3.9.1.3 Historic Era 

The historical context of the Ross Project area includes several themes common to all of 

northeastern Wyoming. The earliest cumulative impact on historical resources was associated 

with intermittent exploration, fur trapping, gold prospecting, and military expedition circa 1810s – 

1870s. This era was followed by large-scale stock raising (1870s – 1900s). The dryland 

farming/homesteading movement was the most substantial historical expansion, occurring from 

the 1910s – 1930s. The Great Depression resulted in the Federal assistance programs of the 

mid- to late-1930s, which affected the settlement patterns of this region. Post-war ranching 

(1945 – present) is the latest historical theme. Crook County, where the Ross Project is 

situated, was formed in 1875 and named for Brigadier General George Crook, a commander 

during the Indian Wars.

Although Euro-Americans began to pass through Wyoming in the early 1800s, these visits were 

limited to government expeditions of discovery and various British and American fur trapping 

brigades. Beginning in the 1840s, emigrants of the “great western migration” passed on the 

Oregon-California Trail, which ran along the Platte River and through South Pass heading for 

lands in Oregon, California, and the Salt Lake Valley, but few Euro-Americans, if any, stayed on 
Affected Environment

3-82

in the region. As the lands in the West became more populated and the cattle industry made its 

way into Wyoming in the 1860s, the region began to attract its own settlers.

The Texas Trail, which operated from 1876 – 1897, was used to move cattle as far north as 

Canada. Most of the early cattle herds passed through Wyoming and were used to establish 

Montana's ranching industry. As cattlemen recognized the value of Wyoming's grassland, 

several large cattle ranches were established and flourished until the devastating blizzards in 

the winter of 1886 – 1887. The close of the cattle-baron era provided an opening for Wyoming's 

sheep industry. Several large ranches, including the 4J and the G-M, were established in the 

Gillette area south of the proposed Ross Project area; however, the industry experienced 

steady declines in the 1900s (Massey, 1992; Rosenberg, 1991, as cited in Ferguson, 2010). 

The dryland farming movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries had a profound effect 

on the settlement of northeastern Wyoming during the years around World War I. The most 

intensive period of homesteading activity in northeastern Wyoming occurred in the late 1910s 

and early 1920s. Promotional efforts by the State and the railroads, the prosperous agricultural 

years of during World War I, and the Stock Raising Act of 1916 with its increased acreage (but 

lack of mineral rights) all contributed to this boom period. It soon became evident, however, that 

dryland farming alone would not provide an affluent living, and farmers began to increase their 

livestock holdings (Ferguson, 2010).

A severe drought in 1919 followed by a severe winter, along with a fall in market prices in 1920, 

forced out many small holders. During the 1920s the size of homesteads in Wyoming nearly 

doubled while the number of homesteads decreased, indicating the shift to livestock raising 

(LeCompte and Anderson, 1982, as cited in Strata, 2011a). A period of drought began in 1932, 

leading to Federal drought-relief programs. In April 1932, the Northeast Wyoming Land 

Utilization Project (“Utilization Project”) began repurchasing the lands of sub-marginal 

homesteads and making the additional acres of government land available for lease. Two 

million acres within five counties, including about 226,600 ha [560,000 ac] of Federally owned 

lands, were included in the Thunder Basin Project, which was designed to alter land use and to 

relocate settlers onto viable farmland (Resettlement Administration, 1936, as cited in Ferguson, 

2010).

During the Utilization Project to rehabilitate the range, impounding dams were erected, wells

were repaired, springs developed, and homestead fences removed while division fences were 

constructed for the new community pastures. The government paid former farmers to remove 

homesteads and their efforts were so successful that almost no trace remains. The remaining 

subsidized ranches were significantly larger and provided a stabilizing effect on the local 

economies. The Thunder Basin Grazing Association, the Spring Creek Association, and the 

lnyan Kara Grazing Association were formed to provide responsible management of the 

common rangeland.

Uranium was first discovered in Wyoming during the early 20th century, near Lusk. Section 

5.2.1.1 provides a more detailed description of local uranium discoveries, reserves, and 

historical attempts to recover uranium resources, up until the period of the proposed Ross 

Project.
Affected Environment

3-83

3.9.2 Historical Resources

Buildings and Structures

No buildings or structures eligible for the NRHP or Wyoming State Register have been identified 

within the Ross Project area (Ferguson, 2010). An earthen structure in the area, the Oshoto 

Dam, does not meet the criteria for eligibility for listing in the NRHP (48 CFR Part 2157). The 

original dam has been rebuilt numerous times because of flood damage, most recently in 2005, 

and the dam is considered to be essentially a reconstruction rather than an original structure. 

Archaeological Sites

A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory (Class III Inventory) was conducted in support of the 

Ross Project in April 2010 and July 2010 (Ferguson, 2010). The Inventory included a 

pedestrian survey in transects of 31.1-m [102-ft] intervals throughout the Ross Project area. 

Subsurface exposures such as cut banks, anthills, rodent burrows, roads ruts, and cow tracks 

were examined. Shovel probes were placed at the discretion of the surveyors, primarily in 

locations where artifacts or features were located or where soil had accumulated. The Inventory 

focused on landforms where intact sites might be expected, such as intact and stable terraces 

and their margins as well as areas of exposure (Ferguson, 2010). 

In November 2011, additional evaluative work was accomplished by the Applicant’s contractor: 

A geophysical mangetometer survey was conducted at several sites, but the equipment was 

found to be ineffective because of the nature of the soils. Then, 6 back-hoe trenches, 

approximately 27 test pits measuring 0.5 m x 0.5 m [1.6 ft x 1.6 ft], and approximately 44 test 

pits measuring 1.0 m x 1.0 m [3.3 ft x 3.3 ft] were excavated to further evaluate areas where

historical sites seemed to be located. The placement of the excavations was focused on the

sites near areas where road construction would be expected during the Project. This additional 

work was described in Strata, 2012a. 

In preparation for the Class Ill Inventory, a Class 1 Inventory (i.e., a records search) was 

conducted for the Ross Project area in 2010; this search included the records of the Wyoming 

Cultural Records Office (WYCRO), the WYCRO’s online database, and the BLM’s Newcastle 

Field Office (Ferguson, 2010). The records search showed that, prior to the 2010 Class III 

Inventory, no substantial block inventory (i.e., survey) had been conducted in the Project area. 

Small-scale investigations, including two associated with power lines and buried telephone 

cables as well as drilling-pad and access-road installations, have been conducted in the Ross 

Project area. Only one survey, an inventory for a linear, buried telephone cable in Section 13,

identified one prehistoric campsite, Site No. 48CK1603. Avoidance of this campsite was 

recommended as a result. The campsite lies on both State and private land, and it was 

described as “bisected” by D Road (Ferguson, 2010). 

During the Applicant’s initial Class III Inventory for the Ross Project, 24 new sites and 21 

isolated finds were recorded. Twenty-three of the recorded sites are prehistoric camps, and one 

is a historic-period homestead. The 24 sites along with the previously identified Site No. 

48CK1603 are listed in Table 3.18. A number of sites yielded projectile points that represent 

Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, and Late Prehistoric occupations. All but two of the isolated finds 

are prehistoric artifacts; the two historic isolated finds were described as trash scatters. In 

addition to the sites identified during the Class Ill Inventory, the potential exists for deeply buried 
Affected Environment

3-84

sites to be exposed within the Ross Project area because of its propitious location near the 

headwaters of the Little Missouri River and the percentage of the Ross Project area that 

consists of deep alluvium. 

Of the 24 new sites identified during the Applicant’s 2010 Class III Inventory for the Ross Project 

and the previously identified site, two sites (Sites Nos. 48CK1603 and 48CK2083) have been 

determined by the NRC staff to be eligible for listing on the NRHP (Ferguson, 2010), and the 

WYSHPO has concurred with this determination (i.e., these are consensus determinations). 

The NRC staff and the WYSHPO have also made consensus determinations that Site Nos. 

48CK2071, 48CK2072, 48CK2074, 48CK2077, 48CK2084, 48CK2086, 48CK2088, and 

48CK2093 are not eligible for listing on the NRHP. The NRC staff and the WYSHPO have 

determined that the remaining 15 sites (Site Nos. 48CK2070, 48CK2073, 48CK2075, 

48CK2076, 48CK2078, 48CK2079, 48CK2080, 48CK2081, 48CK2082, 48CK2085, 48CK2087, 

48CK2089, 48CK2090, 48CK2091, and 48CK2092) are currently unevaluated. Site Nos.

48CK2070, 48CK2076, and 48CK2087 were determined by the NRC staff and SHPO to require 

additional consultation with the Tribes before an NRHP-eligibility determination could be made.

Two field surveys, performed in accordance with Class III cultural-resource inventory methods, 

have been recently conducted at the Ross Project area. The surveys were designed to identify

and to evaluate the NRHP significance of the TCPs in the Ross Project area. The first was

performed by representatives of six Tribes on May 13 – 16, 2013, and the second survey was 

performed by representatives of four Tribes on June 3 – 6, 2013. During the June field survey,

additional archaeological content, including bone and lithic artifacts, was found at Site No. 

48CK2087, a site formerly limited to a hill-top cairn. The new cultural finds at Site No.

48CK2087 extended the boundaries of that site and required re-interpretation and re-evaluation 

of the NRHP significance. Additionally, three new archaeological sites were found within the 

Ross Project Area: Site Nos. 48CK2229, 48CK2230, and 48CK2231. The NRC staff and the 

WYSHPO have determined that the three new archaeological sites are unevaluated. 

Traditional Cultural Properties

In order to complete government-to-government consultation as required by Section 106 of 

NHPA, the NRC requested from various interested Tribes information about places of cultural,

religious, and traditional significance that could be affected by the Ross Project. Places of 

cultural, religious, and traditional significance that meet the NRHP criteria are included in the 

definition of “historic property” under 36 CFR Part 800.16(l)(1). According to the NPS’s 

American Indian Liaison Office (at http://www.nps.gov/tribes/Documents/TCP.pdf), “[a]

Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) is a property that is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP based 

upon its associations with the cultural practices, traditions, beliefs, lifeways, arts, crafts, or social 

institutions of a living community.”

TCPs that are considered eligible for listing on the NRHP could include any prehistoric or 

historic entity (i.e., a district, site, building, structure, or object), as defined in 36 CFR Part 64.4 

(Parker and King, 1998). TCPs also include all artifacts, records, and remains that are related 

to and located within such TCPs. Not all TCPs qualify as eligible properties; consequently, not

all TCPs are subject to preservation measures or mitigation treatments. The process for the 

evaluation of NRHP eligibility involves three steps: 
Affected Environment

3-85

Table 3.18

Historic and Cultural Properties Identified To Date 

within Ross Project Area

Smithsonian Number

NRHP

Eligibility Determination*

or Recommendation**

Cultural Affiliation/

Site Type

48CK1603 Eligible* Prehistoric Campsite

48CK2070† Eligible Stone Circles and 

Stone Arcs

48CK2071 Not Eligible* Prehistoric Campsite

48CK2072 Not Eligible* Late Prehistoric Campsite

48CK2073 Unevaluated* Prehistoric Campsite

48CK2074 Not Eligible* Prehistoric Campsite

48CK2075 Unevaluated* Unknown Prehistoric Campsite

48CK2076 Unevaluated* Prehistoric Stone Feature

Historic Cans

48CK2077 Not Eligible* Prehistoric Campsite

48CK2078 Unevaluated*

Unknown Prehistoric Campsite

and

Historic Debris

48CK2079 Unevaluated* Unknown Prehistoric Campsite

48CK2080† Eligible Fasting Bed

48CK2081 Unevaluated* Unknown Prehistoric Campsite

48CK2082 Unevaluated* Unknown Prehistoric Campsite

48CK2083 Eligible* Late Archaic Prehistoric 

Campsite

48CK2084 Not Eligible* Prehistoric Campsite

48CK2085 Unevaluated* Unknown Prehistoric Campsite

48CK2086 Not Eligible* Prehistoric Campsite

48CK2087† Eligible

Fasting Beds, Cairn, Lithic 

Artifacts, 

and Bone

48CK2088 Not Eligible* Historic Homestead (Maros 

Homestead)

48CK2089† Eligible Fasting Beds

48CK2090 Unevaluated* Unknown Prehistoric Campsite

48CK2091 Unevaluated* Middle Archaic Campsite

48CK2092 Unevaluated* Unknown Prehistoric

Campsite

48CK2093 Not Eligible* Prehistoric Lithic Scatter

48CK2214† Eligible Fasting/Warming Circle 

and Cairn
Affected Environment

3-86

Table 3.18

Historic and Cultural Properties Identified To Date

within Ross Project Area

(Continued) 

Smithsonian Number

NRHP

Eligibility Determination*

or Recommendation**

Cultural Affiliation/

Site Type

48CK2215† Eligible Cairns, Fasting Ring, 

Stone Circle, Historic Artifacts

48CK2216† Eligible Fasting Beds

48CK2217† Eligible Fasting Bed and Cairn

48CK2218† Eligible Stone Circles or Arcs,

Cairn, Fasting Bed

48CK2219† Eligible

Stone Alignment (Ceremonial 

Site), Stone Circles or 

Stone Arcs, 

Cairn, Fasting Circle

48CK2220† Eligible Stone Alignment 

(Ceremonial Site)

48CK2221† Not Eligible Possible Stone Circle 

or Partial Stone Arc

48CK2222† Eligible Fasting Circle and Partial 

Stone Circle

48CK2223† Unevaluated Cairn

48CK2224† Unevaluated Cairn

48CK2225† Not Eligible Possible Fasting Bed

48CK2226† Not Eligible Possible Hunting Pit

48CK2227† Eligible Plant Gathering Area

48CK2229†† Unevaluated

Cultural Material Scatter 

Exposed in a 

Reclaimed Road Bed

48CK2230†† Unevaluated Cultural Material Scatter 

Exposed in a Terrace

48CK2231†† Unevaluated

Exposures of Bone, 

Tools, Flakes

And

Middle Archaic Projectile Point

 * = The WYSHPO has concurred with these eligibility recommendations. 

** = The remainder of the eligibility determinations in this table are NRC determinations 

 that will be provided to the WYSHPO for concurrence. † = Properties of religious and cultural significance located, recorded, and evaluated for 

 NRHP eligibility in the May and June 2013 TCP surveys †† = New archaeological sites identified during the June 2013 TCP survey

■ The first step in the evaluation process is to determine if the entity being evaluated for 

eligibility for inclusion on the NRHP is tangible (Parker and King, 1998). In this respect, 

the entity must be a “site” as defined for the NRHP, that is, the location of a significant 

event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether 

standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or 
Affected Environment

3-87

archeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure. All TCP resources 

identified in the Ross Project area meet this threshold.

■ The second step in the evaluation process is to assess site integrity. In order to be 

eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, an entity must also exhibit “integrity of location, 

design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association” per 36 CFR Part 60. 

As with other historic properties, a TCP that once had traditional cultural significance can 

lose its significance through physical alteration of its location, setting, design, or 

materials (Parker and King, 1998). This loss can occur if the traditional, spiritual, or 

ceremonial values upon which the TCP might achieve NRHP eligibility have been 

significantly altered by severe erosion, post-use damage, or surrounding land-use 

developments inconsistent with the setting of the TCP.

■ The final step in the evaluation process is to assess the TCP in terms of four NRHP 

criteria (A – D) found in 36 CFR Part 60.4. All TCPs in the Ross Project area have been 

evaluated under Criterion A, which refers to an “association with events that have made 

a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.” As applied to the Ross 

Project TCPs, Criterion A has been met if the TCP is associated with significant 

traditional events reflecting a broad pattern or theme in a Native American group’s 

history. Criterion A applies where the cultural practices or beliefs of a living community 

(e.g., a Tribe) 1) are rooted in that community's history and 2) are important in its 

maintaining continuing cultural identity of the community (Parker and King, 1998).

The NRC staff invited the Consulting Tribes identified for the Ross Project to participate in a 

field survey in the Project area. Such a field survey, designed to identify and evaluate the 

NRHP significance of TCPs in the Ross Project area, was performed by the representatives of 

six Tribes on May 13 – 16, 2013. The six Tribes participating in the May field survey included:

■ Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska (Niobrara, Nebraska)

■ Crow Creek Sioux Tribe (Fort Thompson, South Dakota)

■ Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Rosebud, South Dakota) 

■ Yankton Sioux Tribe (Wagner, South Dakota)

■ Northern Cheyenne Tribe (Lame Deer, Montana)

■ Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians (Belcourt, North Dakota)

A second field survey for identification and evaluation of TCPs was performed by the 

representatives of four Tribes on June 3 – 6, 2013. The four Tribes participating in the June

field survey included:

■ Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma (Concho, Oklahoma)

■ Northern Arapaho Tribe (Fort Washakie, Wyoming)

■ Fort Belknap Indian Community (Harlem, Montana)

■ Eastern Shoshone Tribe (Fort Washakie, Wyoming)

As a result of the May and the June 2013 field surveys, 18 TCP sites were located, recorded, 

and evaluated for NRHP eligibility in the Ross Project area. Based upon the recommendations 

provided by the Tribes, the NRC has determined that 13 TCP sites in the Ross Project area are 

eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under Criterion A: Site Nos. 48CK2070, 48CK2080, 

48CK2087, 48CK2089, 48CK2214, 48CK2215, 48CK2216, 48CK2217, 48CK2218, 48CK2219, 
Affected Environment

3-88

48CK2220, 48CK2222, and 48C2227. The latter site, Site No. 48CK2227, is determined to be 

eligible as an NRHP District. The NRHP eligibilities of two sites are unevaluated: Site Nos. 

48CK2223 and 48CK2224. The NRC has determined that the remaining three sites—Site Nos. 

48CK2221, 48CK2225, and 48CK2226—are not eligible for listing on the NRHP.

A report documenting the NRC staff’s eligibility determinations for the 18 TCP sites will be

submitted to the WYSHPO for concurrence. The Section 106 consultation process between the 

NRC and the WYSHPO, the Ross Project Consulting Tribes, the BLM, the ACHP, and the 

Applicant is ongoing and will be completed in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement for 

the Ross Project, the draft of which was issued for comment in January 2014 and is included as 

Appendix E to this SEIS.

3.9.3 Cultural Resources

The NRC, in consultation with WYSHPO, as provided at 36 CFR Parts 800.4(a) and 800.16(d), 

established the APE for the undertaking as the area at the Ross Project site and its immediate 

environs (see Figure 3.1), which may be impacted by activities associated with the construction

and operation of the proposed Ross Project. The direct APE is comprised of the areas within 

the Ross Project boundaries that could be directly affected by physical ground disturbance and 

the construction of the Project, and the indirect APE is comprised of the area within three miles 

of the Ross Project boundaries wherein potential visual and audible effects to historic properties 

could occur. 

3.9.3.1 Tribal Consultation

According to EO 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” the 

NRC is encouraged to “promote government-to-government consultation and coordination with 

Federally-recognized Tribes that have a known or potential interest in existing licensed uraniumrecovery facilities or applications for new facilities” (NRC, 2009b). Although the NRC, as an 

independent regulatory agency, is explicitly exempt from the Order, the NRC remains committed 

to EO’s spirit. The Commission has demonstrated a commitment to achieving the Order’s 

objectives by implementing a case-by-case approach to interactions with Native American 

Tribes. The NRC’s case-by-case approach allows both the NRC and the Tribes to initiate 

outreach and communication with one another. 

As part of its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA and the regulations at 36 CFR Part 

800.2(c)(2)(B)(ii)(A), the NRC must provide Native American 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.” Tribes that have been identified as potentially having 

concerns about actions in the Powder River Basin include the Assiniboine and Lakota 

(Montana), Blackfoot, Blood (Canada), Crow, Cheyenne River Lakota, Crow Creek Lakota, 

Devil's Lake Lakota, Eastern Shoshone, Flandreau Santee Dakota, Kootenai and Salish, Lower 

Brule Lakota, Northern Arapaho, Northern Cheyenne, Oglala Lakota, Pigeon (Canada), 

Rosebud Lakota, Sisseton-Wahpeton Dakota, Southern Arapaho, Southern Cheyenne, 

Standing Rock Lakota, Three Affiliated Tribes, Turtle Mountain Chippewa, and Yankton Dakota 

(NPS, 2010). On February 9, 2011, the NRC staff formally invited 24 Tribes (see SEIS Section 

1.7.3.8) to participate in the Section 106 consultation process for the proposed Ross Project. 
Affected Environment

3-89

The NRC staff invited the Tribes to participate as consulting parties (as Consulting Tribes) in the 

NHPA Section 106 process and sought their assistance in identifying Tribal historic sites and 

cultural resources that may be affected by the Proposed Action.

3.10 Visual and Scenic Resources

The Ross Project area is located in a landscape of gently rolling topography and large, open 

expanses of upland grasslands, pasturelands, haylands, sagebrush shrublands, and intermittent 

riparian drainages. Intermittent streams are fed by ephemeral drainages that seasonally drain 

the adjacent uplands. A mountainous landscape east of the Ross Project can be seen; this 

landscape includes Devils Tower and the Missouri Buttes. 

To quantify visual and scenic resources 

on the land it administers, the BLM has 

established an evaluation methodology 

that defines the visual and scenic 

quality of land through a Visual 

Resource Inventory (VRI). The VRI 

process provides a means for 

determining visual values. The VRI 

consists of a scenic-quality evaluation, 

sensitivity-level analysis, and a 

delineation of distance zones. Based 

upon these three factors, BLMadministered lands are placed into one 

of four VRI classes. These classes 

represent the relative value of the 

visual resources. 

Classes I and II are designated as the 

most valued, Class III represents a 

moderate value, and in Class IV, visual 

resources are of the least value. The 

VRI classes provide the basis to assess 

visual values during the resource 

management planning (RMP) process 

conducted for all BLM-administered 

lands (see Figure 3.20) (BLM, 2010b). 

The VRI classes are considered in 

addition to other land uses, such as 

livestock grazing, recreational pursuits, 

and energy development when the

BLM establishes its Visual Resource Management (VRM) classes during the RMP process. All 

public lands must be placed into one of the four VRM classes. VRM classes may or may not 

reflect the VRI classes, depending upon other resource considerations (i.e., a VRI Class II area 

could be managed as a VRM Class III, or vice versa). The text box above describes the VRM 

classes and the BLM objectives for each visual classification (BLM, 2007c). 

What are the objectives for the visual resource 

classes?

Class I: To preserve the existing character of the 

landscape. This class provides for natural ecological 

changes; however, it does not preclude very limited 

management activity. The level of change to the 

characteristic landscape should be very low and must not 

attract attention.

Class II: To retain the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be low. Management activities may be 

seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual 

observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements 

of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant 

natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Class III: To retain partially the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be moderate. Management activities 

may attract attention but should not dominate the view of 

the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic 

elements found in the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape.

Class IV: To provide for management activities that 

require major modifications of the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape can be high. These management activities 

may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer 

attention. However, every attempt should be made to 

minimize the impact of these activities through careful 

location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic 

elements.
Affected Environment

3-90

Figure 3.20

Regional Visual Resources Management Classifications

Sources: BLM, 2000; BLM, 2001; Strata, 2011a.

LICENSE BOUNDARY)

PROPOSED ROSS PROJECT 

LICENSE BOUNDARY

Note: Most of the Ross Project Area is categorized as VRM Class III, but there are some Class 

II areas identified around Devils Tower National Monument (i.e., Bear Lodge) and the Black Hills 

National Forest along the Wyoming-South Dakota border.

3-KM [2-MI] BOUNDARY
Affected Environment

3-91

3.10.1 Regional Visual and Scenic Resources

Five areas of visually managed land are located within approximately 32 km [20 mi] of the Ross 

Project area, including Devils Tower (16 km [10 mi]) and the Missouri Buttes to the east of the 

Ross Project; Thunder Basin National Grassland (9 km [6 mi]) to the west and south; Keyhole 

State Park (18 km [11 mi]) to the southeast; and Black Hills National Forest (64 km [40 mi]) to 

the east (Strata, 2011a). These monuments, parks, and forests in the general vicinity of the 

Ross Project are indicated in Figure 3.21 (Strata, 2011a). 

President Theodore Roosevelt established Devils Tower as a National Monument on 

September 24, 1906. The Monument rises 386 m [1,270 ft] above the Belle Fourche River and 

is visible for at least 16 km [10 mi]. Devils Tower is visible from a portion of the Ross Project 

area but, conversely, the Project area is not visible from the base of Devils Tower or its Visitor 

Center. Devils Tower and the surrounding countryside of pine forest, woodlands, and 

grasslands attract visitors from around the world. The 545-ha [1,350-ac] park allows climbing, 

hiking, backpacking, and picnicking. Recreational climbing at Devils Tower has increased 

significantly in recent years. In 1973, there were approximately 312 climbers; currently, there 

are approximately 5,000 – 6,000 climbers a year (NPS, 2008). As noted above, the BLM VRM 

classification for Devils Tower is Class II. Beginning in 1995, climbers have enacted a voluntary 

closure, or a “no climbing period,” for the entire month of June as an act of respect for Native 

American cultural values (NPS, 2008) (see SEIS Section 3.9.1.2). 

The Black Hills National Forest (VRM Class II) encompasses streams, lakes, reservoirs, 

canyons and gulches, caves, varied topography, and vegetation, all of which provide habitat for 

an abundance of wildlife (Strata, 2011a). Keyhole State Park (VRM Class III) is home to a 

variety of wildlife. Keyhole Reservoir is the primary attraction to the Park and provides visitors 

many recreational opportunities including fishing, camping, and hiking (Strata, 2011a). The 

Thunder Basin National Grassland (VRM Class IV) also provides many opportunities for 

recreation, including fishing, hiking, and bicycling. Lush, green pastures at the Grassland 

provide abundant wildlife habitat. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) manages the Grassland to 

conserve the natural resources of grass, water, and wildlife habitats (Strata, 2011a).

3.10.2 Ross Project Visual and Scenic Resources

The Applicant conducted a site-specific scenic-quality inventory and evaluation of the Ross 

Project area in October 2010, using the BLM’s VRI methodology (BLM, 2010b). The scenicquality evaluation for the visual-resource study area was evaluated based upon the key factors 

of landform, vegetation, water, color, influence of adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural 

modifications. The average scenic-quality index for the Ross Project area was determined by a 

rating of the scenic quality of four individual aspects (the cardinal compass points) viewed from 

a high point in the center of the Ross Project. The individual scores were averaged to get a 

scenic-quality score for the entire Ross Project area. The scenic-quality evaluation presented in 

Table 3.19 shows that the visual-resource evaluation rating calculated for the Ross Project area 

is a 10.5 out of a possible 32. More explicit information on (e.g., photographs of) the Ross 

Project area’s scenic-quality inventory and evaluation can be found in Appendix D to this SEIS. 

The BLM VRM classifications for the lands within and near the Ross Project area are shown on 

Figure 3.21 (BLM, 2000; BLM, 2001). The land west of the Ross Project is located in Campbell 
Affected Environment

3-92

PROPOSED 

ROSS PROJECT

LICENSE BOUNDARY

Source: PLIC, 2010, as shown in Strata, 2011a.

Figure 3.21

Roads, National Parks, National Monuments, and Forests 

in Vicinity of Ross Project Area
Affected Environment

3-93

Table 3.19

Scenic-Quality

Inventory and Evaluation

(Arithmetic Average of Four Views)

Key Factor Score

Landform 2.00

Vegetation 3.00

Water 0.50

Color 2.50

Influence of Adjacent Scenery 1.25

Scarcity 2.00

Cultural Modifications -0.75

TOTAL 10.50

Source: Strata, 2011a.

County and is categorized as VRM Class IV, while the land surrounding the Ross Project in 

Crook County to the east is categorized as VRM Class III. The areas studied for visual

resources include the Ross Project and the 3-km [2-mi] surrounding vicinity. Thus, this visualresources area is located entirely within Crook County, and it is consequently categorized as 

VRM Class III. The level of change allowed by the BLM to the characteristic landscape in Class 

III management areas would be moderate (BLM, 2010b). 

No developed parks or recreational areas are located within the Ross Project and the 3-km [2-

mi] area around the Project (Strata, 2011a). Within this vicinity, there are 11 residences in 

addition to storage tanks; pump jacks; small maintenance buildings; public and private roads 

and road signage; utilities and poles (e.g., power and other utility lines); agricultural features 

(e.g., fences, livestock, stock tanks, and cultivated fields), and environmental-monitoring 

installations are prominent in the immediate foreground, and they are often noticeable in 

foreground views by the casual observer. 

Of the 11 residences within the visual-resources study area, 4 residences have unobstructed 

views to the Ross Project area where the uranium-recovery facility and wellfields would be 
Affected Environment

3-94

constructed, and they are in close proximity to the Ross Project in general. The closest 

residence is 210 m [690 ft] from one Ross Project boundary (see also Figure 3.1). Of the 11 

residences, 7 are located to the east of the Project area with views to the east (e.g., Devils 

Tower) and 3 of the 11 residences are northwest of the Ross Project area. Figure 3.22

indicates the areas where the Ross Project facility (i.e., CPP and surface impoundments) would 

be visible, and Figure 3.23 indicates the potential areas where light pollution from the Ross 

Project could impact. Photographs used to document the visual-resource study are included in 

Appendix D. 

3.11 Socioeconomics

The Ross Project’s socioeconomics region of influence (ROI) is defined as the area within which 

the Ross Project’s socioeconomic impacts and benefits would be reasonably anticipated to be 

concentrated. The Ross Project would be located in Crook County, but that location is close 

enough to the Campbell County line that both Counties are within this ROI, or the region of 

potential impacts. The ROI extends approximately 92 km [57 mi] to the eastern boundary of 

Crook County, 66 km [41 mi] to the northern boundary of Crook County, 185 km [115 mi] to the 

western boundary of Campbell County, and 195 km [121 mi] to the southern boundary of

Campbell County. The ROI would include all of the towns and unincorporated areas within 

Crook County, in which the Project’s facility and wellfields would be located and, therefore, 

would benefit from mineral-production (e.g., uranium recovery) tax revenues. It would also 

include adjacent Campbell County, which hosts the nearest, largest urban area (i.e., Gillette) 

and would be, consequently, a potential source of labor, services, and materials to support the 

Ross Project. 

3.11.1 Demographics

In Campbell County, Gillette, Wyoming, is the nearest urban area to the Ross Project; it is 

approximately 53 km [33 mi] to the southwest of the Project. Gillette would likely serve as a 

regional logistics hub as well as a source of personnel and supplies for the Ross Project (Strata, 

2011a). Moorcroft, Wyoming, is approximately 35 km [22 mi] from the Ross Project area and 

could be a source of personnel as well as a place of residence for Project staff (Strata, 2011a). 

Table 3.20 presents the 2000 and 2010 population data for the potentially affected jurisdictions 

in the ROI. The population in Crook County was 7,083 persons as of 2010, having increased 

20.3 percent over 2000 levels (USCB, 2012). The population in Campbell County was 46,133 

persons as of 2010, having increased 36.9 percent over 2000 levels. In contrast, the population 

of Wyoming as a whole increased only 14.1 percent between 2000 and 2010. Crook County is 

the third least populous county in Wyoming, whereas Campbell County is the third most 

populous. 

Between 2000 and 2010, Gillette grew by 48.1 percent, faster than the County as whole and 

much faster than the entire State. This is largely attributable to the growth in the energy sector, 

conventional oil, gas, and coal extraction, and power-plant construction. 
Affected Environment

3-95

PROPOSED ROSS PROJECT 

LICENSE BOUNDARY

3-KM [2-MI] BOUNDARY

 LEGEND

Source: Strata, 2012a.

Figure 3.22

Viewshed Analysis of Ross Project Area
Affected Environment

3-96

Figure 3.23 

Light-Pollution Study Area

PROPOSED ROSS PROJECT

LICENSE BOUNDARY

1.6-KM [2-MI] BOUNDARY 

Note: Prior to construction of the Ross Project, additional monitoring for potential light pollution 

would be conducted at eight sites.

Source: Strata, 2012a.
Affected Environment

3-97

The population of Campbell County is younger than the Wyoming average, has more people per 

household, more households with individuals under 18 years of age, fewer households with 

individuals over 65 years of age, and slightly more female householders with no husband 

present and with their own children under 18 years old (USCB, 2012). Conversely, the 

population of Crook County is older than the Wyoming average with a higher median age, 

smaller percentage of households with individuals under 18 years of age, and a higher 

percentage of households with persons 65 years of age or older. 

Table 3.20

Populations in Crook County, Campbell County, and Wyoming

2000 and 2010

Jurisdiction 2000 2010 Change

Total 

Change 

(percent)

Annual 

Average 

Change 

(percent)

Crook County 5,887 7,083 1,196 20.3% 1.9%

Hulett 408 383 -25 -6.1% -0.6%

Moorcroft 807 1,009 202 25.0% 2.3%

Pine Haven 222 490 268 120.7% 8.2%

Sundance 1,161 1,182 21 1.8% 0.2%

Campbell County 33,698 46,133 12,435 36.9% 3.2%

Gillette 19,646 29,087 9,441 48.1% 4.0%

Wright 1,347 1,807 460 34.1% 3.0%

TOTAL ROI 39,585 53,216 13,631 34.4% 3.0%

TOTAL WYOMING 493,782 563,626 69,844 14.1% 1.3%

 Source: USCB, 2012

3.11.2 Income

Per capita personal income in Crook County was $45,843 per person in 2009 and was $49,986 

per person in Campbell County (USBEA, 2011). By comparison, per capita personal income in 

Wyoming was $49,887 and $40,936 in the U.S. (USBEA, 2011). Based upon the population

characteristics discussed above, total personal income in the two-County area was $2.6 billion. 

Per capita income in Crook and Campbell counties grew at an average annual rate of 3.9 

percent over the 2000 – 2009 period (USBEA, 2011). In contrast, per capita personal income in 

Wyoming grew at a slightly lower rate of 3.4 percent per year, while the rate of growth in the 

U.S. over the same period was only 0.8 percent.

Average earnings per job in Crook County were $35,371 in 2009, having increased 2.9 percent 

annually since 2000. Average earnings per job in Campbell County are almost twice as high as 
Affected Environment

3-98

in Crook County and were $64,612 in 2009, having increased 2.9 percent annually since 2000. 

In contrast, earnings per job State-wide were $46,831 and $52,358 in the U.S. for the same 

period.

3.11.3 Housing

As of 2010, there were 18,955 housing units in Campbell County (USCB, 2012). Of these, 

1,783 were vacant housing units, representing an overall vacancy rate of 9.4 percent (USCB 

2012). Of the 1,783 vacant units, 689 of the vacant units were for rent. In contrast, there were 

only 3,595 housing units in Crook County in 2010. Of these, 674 were vacant housing units, for 

an overall vacancy rate of 18.7 percent. Of the vacant units, only 54 vacant units were for rent.

Homeownership rates in the two Counties are high by State and national standards. Owneroccupied units accounted for 73.3 percent of all occupied units in Campbell County and 79.3 

percent of all occupied units in Crook County (USCB, 2012). Homeownership for the State is 

69.2 percent of the population, compared to the entire U.S. where homeownership is 65.1 

percent of the population.

3.11.4 Employment Structure

Wyoming State Data

In October 2009, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in Wyoming reached 7.4 percent 

for the first time since September 1987. Unemployment rates have been on the decline since 

that time, with the August 2011 rate reported at 5.5 percent (BLS, 2011; WDWS, 2011a).

State-wide employment grew 6.5 percent between the years 2000 – 2010 and stood at 273,313 

employed persons in 2010 (WDWS, 2011a). By August 2011, employment was 296,424 

persons, up from 277,625 persons in August 2010. 

Trade, transportation, and utilities employment represent the largest employment sector in 

Wyoming, with 24.0 percent of employed persons as of 2010 (WDWS, 2011a); in the U.S. the

average is 23.0 percent. State-wide employment in the natural resources and mining sector 

amounted to 13.4 percent of all employment, significantly higher than the U.S. average of 1.7 

percent.

Crook and Campbell County Data

Employment in Crook County over the past decade has typically been in the 3,000 – 3,400 

range, with peak employment registered at 3,404 persons in 2008 (WDWS, 2011a). Average 

annual employment in 2010 was 3,284 persons. The August 2011 monthly level was 3,475 

persons, down slightly from the August 2010 level of 3,527 persons.

Unemployment rates in Crook County have been typically low by national standards, ranging 

from 2.7 percent to 4.3 percent over the 2000 – 2007 period, but subsequently rose to 5.8 

percent in both 2009 and 2010 (BLS, 2011). The unemployment rate as of August 2011 stood 

at a slightly reduced level of 5.0 percent, representing 175 unemployed persons.
Affected Environment

3-99

In contrast to Crook County, employment in Campbell County over the past decade has typically 

been in the 20,000 – 28,000 range, with peak employment registered at 28,492 persons in 2009 

(WDWS, 2011a). Employment dropped slightly in 2010 to 27,531 persons and the August 2011 

level was 25,542 persons, up slightly from the comparable period in 2010 but still down from 

2010 averages.

Unemployment rates in Campbell County also have been typically low by national standards, 

ranging from 2.0 – 3.7 percent over the 2000 – 2008 period, but the rates subsequently rose to 

5.5 percent in 2009 and 6.0 percent in 2010 (BLS, 2011). The unemployment rate as of August 

2011 stood at a reduced level of 4.4 percent, representing 1,166 unemployed.

3.11.5 Finance

Wyoming does not levy a personal or corporate income tax, nor does Wyoming impose a tax on 

intangible assets such as bank accounts, stocks, or bonds (Strata, 2011a). In addition, 

Wyoming does not assess any tax on retirement income earned and received from another 

state. Revenues to Wyoming come from three sources: 1) taxes on mineral production, 2) 

earnings on investments, and 3) general-fund revenues. Taxes on mineral production include 

property taxes on the assessed value of production, severance taxes, royalties on production of 

State-owned minerals, and the State’s share of Federal mineral royalties. General-fund 

revenues include sales (at 4 percent) and use taxes, charges for sales and services, franchise 

taxes, and cigarette taxes. The third source of State revenues is earnings from the Wyoming 

Permanent Mineral Trust Fund and pooled investments. 

Wyoming cities and counties receive revenues in the form of property taxes as well as local 

sales and use taxes up to 2 percent, including special assessments such as capital-facilities 

taxes and revenue sharing by the State. Local governments are responsible for collection of 

property taxes, which are the primary source of funding for public schools and for municipalities, 

counties, and other local government units. Although Crook County has a slightly higher 

average mill levy than Campbell County, the mill levy is applied to a much lower evaluation; 

thus, the property taxes raised in Crook County amounted to only a little more than 4 percent of 

those raised in Campbell County in fiscal year 2010 (Strata, 2011a). 

3.11.6 Education

Kindergarten through 12th grade (K – 12) public schools in Wyoming are generally organized at 

the county or sub-county level by school district. Campbell and Crook counties each have one 

public-school district. Campbell County School District operates 16 elementary schools, 2 junior 

high schools, 2 high schools, and 1 combined junior/high school (Strata, 2011a). Crook County 

operates a single K – 12 school, 2 elementary schools, 2 secondary (grades 7 – 12) schools, 

and 1 high school (grades 8 – 12).

Campbell County has higher school-attendance rates than Wyoming as a whole at all grade 

levels, except college or graduate school (Strata, 2011a). The student:teacher ratio is 19.6:1 

(Campbell County School District, 2012). Crook County is below the State average at the 

nursery and preschool ages as well as at the kindergarten and college/graduate school levels, 

but it is well above the State average at elementary (grades 1 – 8) and high-school levels. The 

student:teacher ratio is 11:1 (Education.com, Inc., 2012).
Affected Environment

3-100

Wyoming also has seven community-college districts. The Northern Wyoming Community 

College District consists of the main campus in Sheridan, Wyoming, a satellite campus in 

Gillette, Wyoming, and outreach centers in Buffalo, Kaycee, and Wright, Wyoming. The Gillette 

campus is the nearest post-secondary school to the Ross Project area (Strata, 2011a).

3.11.7 Health and Social Services

Campbell County Memorial Hospital is the principal health-care provider in northeast Wyoming 

and offers a full range of health services, including emergency room and outpatient surgery 

services (Strata, 2011a). It is located approximately 65 miles (i.e., driving distance) from the 

Ross Project area. The Heptner Radiation Oncology Center was completed in 2002, and an 

expansion of oncology services was completed in 2008, to form the Cancer Care Center at 

Campbell County Memorial Hospital. An approximately 560-m2 [6,000-ft2

] expansion of the 

Emergency Department was completed in 2009 and an extensive laboratory was completed in 

late 2009. A $68-million expansion project on the Hospital began in June 2009, with 

construction of a 3.5-levels, 294-space parking structure adjacent to the main entrance of the 

Hospital. Construction began on a three-levels Hospital addition, capable of supporting three 

additional levels, in 2010. In addition to Memorial Hospital, Campbell County also has 

outpatient and walk-in clinics, surgery and rehabilitation centers, and numerous seniorresidence facilities. 

The Crook County Medical Services District consists of Crook County Memorial Hospital and a 

clinic located in Sundance, Wyoming, as well as clinics located in Moorcroft and Hulett, 

Wyoming. The District also provides a long-term-care facility attached to the Hospital in 

Sundance (Strata, 2011a). 

Sundance, Moorcroft, and Hulett have an ambulance service to cover each town and the 

surrounding vicinities. Each service has Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) Intermediates, 

EMT Basics, and Emergency Medical Responders (EMRs) serving on their teams. Of these, 

Moorcroft’s is nearest to the Ross Project area. 

A community survey of needs and services was published in June 2010 by the Campbell 

County CARE Board. The primary purpose of this needs assessment was to better understand 

the needs of people who are living in poverty in Campbell County. This survey indicated that 

both low-income clients and agencies ranked the following services as the most highly rated 

needs of the County (in order): 

■ Emergency Services

■ Housing

■ Health

■ Nutrition/Food

■ Employment and Training

3.12 Public and Occupational Health and Safety

The pre-licensing, site-characterization conditions with respect to both radiological and chemical 

health and safety that currently exist at the Ross Project area today are discussed below.
Affected Environment

3-101

3.12.1 Existing Site Conditions: Radiological

As required by 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 7, the Applicant has conducted one year 

of pre-licensing, site-characterization radiological monitoring at the Ross Project area. This 

monitoring began in August 2009. The resulting radiological environmental- and radiationmonitoring data characterize the Ross Project area prior to NRC’s issuing a final license to 

Strata. These pre-licensing, site-characterization environmental- and radiation-monitoring 

efforts were developed and implemented in accordance with the following NRC guidelines:

■ NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14, Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring at Uranium 

Mills, Revision 1 (NRC, 1980).

■ NRC Regulatory Guide 3.46, Standard Format and Content of License Applications, 

Including Environmental Reports, For In Situ Uranium Solution Mining, Section 2.9, 

“Radiological Background Characteristics” (NRC, 1982a).

■ NRC Regulatory Guide 3.8, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Uranium Mills (NRC, 

1982b).

■ NUREG–1569, Standard Review Plan For In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications (NRC, 2003b).

These pre-licensing, site-characterization radiological data represent the environmental 

conditions at the Ross Project area prior to any NRC-licensed construction or development of 

any Ross Project facility, wellfield, or any other structural improvements, other than 

preconstruction activities (see SEIS Section 2.1.2). These data would support future 

assessments of the environmental impacts that could be a result of the Ross Project’s 

construction, operation, and decommissioning, including accidental spills, leaks, or other 

releases. 

Note that, in the case of ground-water resources, however, additional post-licensing, preoperational radiological data would be collected (i.e., after a Source and Byproduct Materials 

License has been issued by the NRC to Strata, but before actual uranium recovery in a 

particular wellfield is initiated). These post-licensing, pre-operational data sets, which would be 

established for each wellfield prior to uranium recovery in that respective wellfield, would serve 

as a benchmark for the Applicant to determine whether an excursion has occurred (i.e., by way 

of the UCLs established for that particular wellfield) and/or whether the ground water in a 

wellfield has been restored to the respective target values during the aquifer-restoration phase 

of the Project. These additional sampling and analysis efforts are discussed further in SEIS 

Sections 2.1.1.1 and 3.5.3. 
Affected Environment

3-102

As discussed in SEIS Section 

3.5.3, results from sitecharacterization ground-water 

samples can be compared to the 

specific regulatory standards 

promulgated by the NRC, the 

EPA and the WDEQ/WQD for 

radiological constituents 

(primarily by the NRC). 

However, most of the analytical 

results discussed in this section 

cannot be compared easily to 

existing standards because the 

standards are specified in units 

other than those reported by the

laboratory. That is, for example, gross-alpha results are reported in picoCuries per volume 

(pCi/L) (e.g., Becquerels/volume [Bq/L]) or picoCuries per mass (pCi/kg [Bq/kg]) (i.e., in liquid or 

solid matrices, respectively). These units are measurements of the radioactivity in a particular 

sample (such as ground water or soil). However, the units of radiation-dose standards are 

specified in radiation dose per time (Sievert or millirem [Sv or mrem]/ time), and pCi/L or pCi/kg 

concentrations cannot be straightforwardly converted to mrem/time, which is a standard for a 

human’s radiation dose, without extensive modeling (including the conversion to a Total 

Effective Dose Equivalent [TEDE] which is one of the units also used in radiation-protection 

regulations) (see SEIS Section 4.13). The NRC staff has taken the pre-licensing, sitecharacterization data supplied by the Applicant and reviewed the modeling that the Applicant 

performed to determine the respective total radiation dose currently, naturally present at the

Ross Project area, given the radioactivity-concentration values included in Strata’s license 

application (Strata, 2011b; Strata, 2012b). The modeling and the pre-licensing, sitecharacterization monitoring results obtained by the Applicant indicate that the existing conditions 

at the Ross Project area do not exceed any radiation-dose guidelines or standards.

Radiation dose is a measure of the amount of ionizing energy that is deposited in a human 

body. Ionizing radiation is a natural component of the environment and ecosystem, and 

members of the public are exposed to natural radiation continuously. Radiation doses to the 

general public occur as a result of the radioactive elements found in the Earth’s soils, rocks, and 

minerals (including those in the Ross Project area). For example, Rn-222 is a radioactive gas 

that escapes into ambient air as a result of the decay of uranium (and its progeny Ra-226), 

which is found in most soils and rocks. Naturally occurring low levels of uranium and radium are 

also found in drinking water and foods. Cosmic radiation from space is another natural source 

of radiation. In addition to these natural sources, there are also artificial or human-made

sources that contribute to the radiation dose the general public routinely receives. For example, 

medical diagnostic procedures using radioactive material(s) and x-rays are the primary humanmade source of radiation the general public receives. For comparison, the National Council for 

Radiation Protection estimates the average dose to the public from all natural radiation sources 

(i.e., terrestrial and cosmic) is 3.1 milliSieverts (mSv) [310 mrem] per year. In Wyoming, this 

figure is approximately 3.15 mSv/year [316 mrem/yr] (NRC, 2009b). 

How are potential radiation exposures and doses calculated?

Radiation dose estimates are quantified in units of either Sievert or 

rem and are often referred to in either milliSieverts (mSv) or 

millirem (mrem) where 1,000 mSv = 1 Sv and 1,000 mrem = 1 rem 

(Sv = 100 rem). These units are used in radiation protection to 

quantify the amount of damage to human tissue expected from a 

dose of ionizing radiation.

Person-Sv (or person-rem) is a metric used to quantify population 

radiation dose (also referred to as collective dose). It represents 

the sum of all estimated doses received by each individual in a 

population and is commonly used in calculations to estimate latent 

cancer fatalities in a population exposed to radiation.
Affected Environment

3-103

Pre-Licensing, Site-Characterization Radiological Conditions

Table 3.21 presents the range (i.e., the minimum and maximum values) of selected prelicensing, site-characterization data for some of the radiological constituents required by the 

NRC’s Regulatory Guide 4.14, Revision 1 (Strata, 2011b; NRC, 1980). Individual, reported 

values for the various radiological parameters can be found in the Applicant’s TR (Strata, 

2011b).

Pre-Licensing, Site-Characterization Sample Matrices, Locations, and Results

The Applicant’s pre-licensing, site-characterization environmental-monitoring program was 

conducted under rigorous sampling-and-analysis procedures and quality-control methods 

(Strata, 2011b). During the Applicant’s environmental-monitoring efforts, local surface and 

ground waters were sampled and analyzed as were samples of soils, sediments, air, vegetation, 

wildlife, and fish. Direct gamma (“γ”) radiation was also measured. The pre-licensing, sitecharacterization monitoring program included the Applicant’s obtaining samples of the matrices 

described below, at the specified locations, and then having the samples analyzed for the 

radiological parameters shown in Table 3.21. The range of the values obtained by laboratory 

analyses of these samples is presented in Table 3.21 as well.

Surface Water

The surface water at the Ross Project area was sampled by the Applicant quarterly from March 

2010 – 2011 at 14 locations. These locations included one from the Oshoto Reservoir, one 

from Deadman Creek, and two from the Little Missouri River. Ten other reservoirs within or just 

outside of the Ross Project area were sampled as well. Three locations on the Project area are 

currently set up to automatically collect samples during any significant runoff events, although 

none occurred during the monitoring period (Strata, 2011b). Figure 3.12, presented earlier in 

SEIS Section 3.5.1, shows these locations.

Table 3.21

Range of Analytical Results of Pre-Licensing Site-Characterization Samples*

All Sample Matrices

Matrix Type

Selected 

Parameters

Range 

(If Any)

of Results** (Minimum to Maximum) Units

Any 

Samples

Greater 

than 

Detection 

Limit?

Water

Surface Water†,††

Lead-210 <1 – 3.3 pCi/L Yes

Polonium-210 <1** pCi/L No

Radium-226 < 0.02 – 0.46 pCi/L Yes

Radium-228 <1 – 1.7 pCi/L Yes

Thorium-230 <0.2 pCi/L No

Uraniuma < 0.001 – 0.087 mg/L Yes
Affected Environment

3-104

Table 3.21

Range of Analytical Results of Pre-Licensing Site-Characterization Samples*

All Sample Matrices

(Continued) 

Matrix Type

Selected 

Parameters

Range 

(If Any)

of Results**

(Minimum to Maximum) Units

Any 

Samples

Greater 

than 

Detection 

Limit?

Water (Continued)

 Surface Water†,†† (Continued)

Gross Alpha < 2 – 48.7 pCi/L Yes

Ground Water†,††

SA Zone

Lead-210 <1 – 1.4 pCi/L Yes

Polonium-210 <1 pCi/L No

Radium-226 <0.2 – 0.5 pCi/L Yes

Radium-228 <1 – 1.8 pCi/L Yes

Thorium-230 < 0.2 pCi/L No

Uranium < 0.0003 – 0.007 mg/L Yes

Gross Alpha < 6 – 13.8 pCi/L Yes

SM Zone

Lead-210 < 1 – 5.2 pCi/L Yes

Polonium-210 < 1 – 1.9 pCi/L Yes

Radium-226 < 0.2 – 3.7 pCi/L Yes

Radium-228 < 1 – 2.27 pCi/L Yes

Radon-222 < 28 – 443 pCi/L Yes

Thorium-230 < 0.2 pCi/L No

Uranium < 0.0003 – 0.004 mg/L Yes

Gross Alpha < 7 – 12.2 pCi/L Yes

Ore Zone

Lead-210 < 1 – 13.6 pCi/L Yes

Polonium-210 < 1 – 22.9 pCi/L Yes

Radium-226 0.6 – 12.1 pCi/L Yes

Radium-228 < 1 – 1.6 pCi/L Yes

Radon-222 4,580 – 35,100 pCi/L Yes

Thorium-230 < 0.2 pCi/L No

Uranium 0.005 – 0.109 mg/L Yes

Gross Alpha < 5 – 222 pCi/L Yes

DM Zone

Lead-210 < 1 – 1.2 pCi/L Yes

Polonium-210 < 1 – 1.3 pCi/L Yes

Radium-226 < 0.2 – 0.7 pCi/L Yes

Radium-228 < 1 – 2.2 pCi/L Yes
Affected Environment

3-105

Table 3.21

Range of Analytical Results of Pre-Licensing Site-Characterization Samples*

All Sample Matrices

(Continued) 

Matrix Type

Selected 

Parameters

Range 

(If Any)

of Results**

(Minimum to Maximum) Units

Any 

Samples

Greater 

than 

Detection 

Limit?

Water (Continued)

 Ground Water†,†† (Continued)

DM Zone (Continued)

Radon-222 < 25 – 242 pCi/L Yes

Thorium-230 < 0.2 – 0.24 pCi/L Yes

Uranium < 0.0003 – 0.003 mg/L Yes

Gross Alpha < 14 – 28.3 pCi/L Yes

Piezometers in SA Zone

Lead-210 < 1 – 5.5 pCi/L Yes

Polonium-210 < 1 – 1.4 pCi/L Yes

Radium-226 < 0.2 – 1.3 pCi/L Yes

Radium-228 < 0.01 – 2.5 pCi/L Yes

Thorium-230 < 0.2 – 0.7 pCi/L Yes

Uranium < 0.0067 – 0.264 mg/L Yes

Gross Alpha < 15 – 218 pCi/L Yes

Existing Water Supply Wells

Lead-210 < 1 – 17.4 pCi/L Yes

Polonium-210 < 1 – 6.4 pCi/L Yes

Radium-226 < 0.2 – 47.23 pCi/L Yes

Radium-228 < 1 – 3.2 pCi/L Yes

Radon-222 390 – 18,000 pCi/L Yes

Thorium-230 < 0.2 pCi/L No

Uranium < 0.0003 – 0.388 mg/L Yes

Gross Alpha < 6 – 324 pCi/L Yes
Affected Environment

3-106

Table 3.21

Range of Analytical Results of Pre-Licensing Site-Characterization Samples*

All Sample Matrices

(Continued) 

Matrix Type

Selected 

Parameters

Range 

(If Any)

of Results**

(Minimum to Maximum) Units

Any 

Samples

Greater 

than 

Detection 

Limit?

Water

Surface Water†,††

Lead-210 <1 – 3.3 pCi/L Yes

Polonium-210 <1** pCi/L No

Radium-226 < 0.02 – 0.46 pCi/L Yes

Radium-228 <1 – 1.7 pCi/L Yes

Thorium-230 <0.2 pCi/L No

Uraniuma < 0.001 – 0.087 mg/L Yes

Gross Alpha < 2 – 48.7 pCi/L Yes

Ground Water†,††

SA Zone

Lead-210 <1 – 1.4 pCi/L Yes

Polonium-210 <1 pCi/L No

Radium-226 <0.2 – 0.5 pCi/L Yes

Radium-228 <1 – 1.8 pCi/L Yes

Thorium-230 < 0.2 pCi/L No

Uranium < 0.0003 – 0.007 mg/L Yes

Gross Alpha < 6 – 13.8 pCi/L Yes

SM Zone

Lead-210 < 1 – 5.2 pCi/L Yes

Polonium-210 < 1 – 1.9 pCi/L Yes

Radium-226 < 0.2 – 3.7 pCi/L Yes

Radium-228 < 1 – 2.27 pCi/L Yes

Radon-222 < 28 – 443 pCi/L Yes

Thorium-230 < 0.2 pCi/L No

Uranium < 0.0003 – 0.004 mg/L Yes

Gross Alpha < 7 – 12.2 pCi/L Yes

Ore Zone

Lead-210 < 1 – 13.6 pCi/L Yes

Polonium-210 < 1 – 22.9 pCi/L Yes

Radium-226 0.6 – 12.1 pCi/L Yes

Radium-228 < 1 – 1.6 pCi/L Yes

Radon-222 4,580 – 35,100 pCi/L Yes

Thorium-230 < 0.2 pCi/L No

Uranium 0.005 – 0.109 mg/L Yes
Affected Environment

3-107

Table 3.21

Range of Analytical Results of Pre-Licensing Site-Characterization Samples*

All Sample Matrices

(Continued)

Matrix Type

Selected 

Parameters

Range 

(If Any)

of Results** (Minimum to Maximum) Units

Any 

Samples

Greater 

than 

Detection 

Limit?

Water (Continued)

Ground Water†,†† (Continued)

Ore Zone (Continued)

Gross Alpha < 5 – 222 pCi/L Yes

DM Zone

Lead-210 < 1 – 1.2 pCi/L Yes

Polonium-210 < 1 – 1.3 pCi/L Yes

Radium-226 < 0.2 – 0.7 pCi/L Yes

Radium-228 < 1 – 2.2 pCi/L Yes

Radon-222 < 25 – 242 pCi/L Yes

Thorium-230 < 0.2 – 0.24 pCi/L Yes

Uranium < 0.0003 – 0.003 mg/L Yes

Gross Alpha < 14 – 28.3 pCi/L Yes

Piezometers in SA Zone

Lead-210 < 1 – 5.5 pCi/L Yes

Polonium-210 < 1 – 1.4 pCi/L Yes

Radium-226 < 0.2 – 1.3 pCi/L Yes

Radium-228 < 0.01 – 2.5 pCi/L Yes

Thorium-230 < 0.2 – 0.7 pCi/L Yes

Uranium < 0.0067 – 0.264 mg/L Yes

Gross Alpha < 15 – 218 pCi/L Yes

Existing Water Supply Wells

Lead-210 < 1 – 17.4 pCi/L Yes

Polonium-210 < 1 – 6.4 pCi/L Yes

Radium-226 < 0.2 – 47.23 pCi/L Yes

Radium-228 < 1 – 3.2 pCi/L Yes

Radon-222 390 – 18,000 pCi/L Yes

Thorium-230 < 0.2 pCi/L No

Uranium < 0.0003 – 0.388 mg/L Yes

Gross Alpha < 6 – 324 pCi/L Yes
Affected Environment

3-108

Table 3.21

Range of Analytical Results of Pre-Licensing Site-Characterization Samples*

All Sample Matrices

(Continued) 

Matrix Type

Selected 

Parameters

Range 

(If Any)

of Results** (Minimum to Maximum) Units

Any 

Samples

Greater 

than 

Detection 

Limit?

Soil 

Surface and Subsurface Soils

Lead-210 <0.2 – 2.0 ± 0.7 pCi/g Yes

Radium-226 <0.005 – 14.4 ± 2.0 pCi/g Yes

Thorium-230 <0.2 – 1.29 ± 0.59 pCi/g Yes

Uranium <0.004 – 2.80 mg/kg Yes

Gross Alpha <1 – 3.6 ± 1.7 pCi/g Yes

Lead-210 <0.2 – 2.0 ± 0.7 pCi/g Yes

Radium-226 <0.005 – 14.4 ± 2.0 pCi/g Yes

Thorium-230 <0.2 – 1.29 ± 0.59 pCi/g Yes

Uranium <0.004 – 2.80 mg/kg Yes

Gross Alpha <1 – 3.6 ± 1.7 pCi/g Yes

Sediments

Lead-210 <1 – 471 ± 6.1 pCi/g Yes

Radium-226 0.8 ± 0.1 – 1.5 ± 0.1 pCi/g Yes

Thorium-230 0.39 ± 0.14 – 371 ± 58 pCi/g Yes

Uranium 0.876 – 2.24 mg/kg Yes

Gross Alpha 1.1 ± 0.4 - 2.8 ± 0.6 pCi/g Yes

Air

Particulates

Lead-210 1.51 x 10-6 – 2.54 x 10-5 pCi/L Yes

Radium-226 <Detection Limits – 2.08 x 10-8 pCi/L Yes

Thorium-230 <Detection Limits – 2.07 x 10-7 pCi/L Yes

Uranium <Detection Limits – 3.59 x 10-7 pCi/L Yes

Radon

Average Radonb 0.2 ± 0.02 – 2.0 ± 0.13 pCi/L Yes

Vegetation

Grazing Vegetation

Lead-210 3.9 ± 0.5 – 264 ± 19.1 pCi/kg

Polonium-210 0.225 ± 0.51 – 23.4 ± 7.2 pCi/kg

Radium-226 1.12 ± 0.08 – 1,530 ± 0.4 pCi/kg

Thorium-230 <0.2 – 89.5 ± 16.4 pCi/kg

Uranium 0.0017 – 13.9 mg/kg

Lead-210 9.07 ± 4.1 – 43.1 ± 6.1 pCi/kg
Affected Environment

3-109

Table 3.21

Range of Analytical Results of Pre-Licensing Site-Characterization Samples*

All Sample Matrices

(Continued)

Matrix Type

Selected 

Parameters

Range 

(If Any)

of Results**

(Minimum to Maximum) Units

Any 

Samples

Greater 

than 

Detection 

Limit?

Vegetation (Continued)

Grazing Vegetation

Polonium-210 1.87 ± 1.7 – 5.88 ± 2.8 pCi/kg

Wetland Vegetation

Radium-226 0.3 ± 0.1 – 11.4 ± 0.5 pCi/kg

Thorium-230 <0.2 – 3.9 ± 1.5 pCi/kg

Uranium 0.0005 – 0.0019 mg/kg

Hayc

Lead-210 122 ± 13 pCi/kg

Polonium-210 11.3 ± 4.7 pCi/kg

Radium-226 123 ± 1.1 pCi/kg

Thorium-230 0.96 ± 0.23 pCi/kg

Uranium 3.10 mg/kg

Vegetablec

Lead-210 2.95 ± 4.9 pCi/kg

Polonium-210 2.55 ± 1.8 pCi/kg

Radium-226 <0.05 pCi/kg

Thorium-230 0.40 ± 0.90 pCi/kg

Uranium 0.0001 mg/kg

Animal

Livestock (Beef)c

Lead-210 3.12 ± 4.8 pCi/kg

Polonium-210 <1.0 pCi/kg

Radium-226 0.288 ± 0.05 pCi/kg

Thorium-230 <0.2 pCi/kg

Uranium <0.001 mg/kg

Wildlife (Deer)c

Lead-210 13.0 ± 7.5 pCi/kg

Polonium-210 3.68 ± 3.75 pCi/kg

Radium-226 1.8 ± 1.5 pCi/kg

Thorium-230 7.6 ± 4.2 pCi/kg
Affected Environment

3-110

Table 3.21

Range of Analytical Results of Pre-Licensing Site-Characterization Samples*

All Sample Matrices

(Continued) 

Matrix Type

Selected 

Parameters

Range 

(If Any)

of Results** (Minimum to Maximum) Units

Any 

Samples

Greater 

than 

Detection 

Limit?

Animal (Continued)

Wildlife (Deer)c (Continued)

Uranium <0.001 mg/kg

Fishc

Lead-210 60.4 ± 93.6 pCi/kg

Polonium-210 <1.0 pCi/kg

Radium-226 175 ± 15 pCi/kg

Thorium-230 0.6 ± 0.6 pCi/kg

Uranium 0.0160 mg/kg

Direct Gamma

Gamma 

Survey 5.3 – 25.3 ± 1.54 μR/hr

TLD 

Exposured 0.269 – 0.340 mrem/day

Source: Strata, 2011b.

Notes: 

* = As suggested by NRC’s Regulatory Guide 4.14.

** = “<” = “Less than,” where the value following the “<” value is the detection limit.

† = Results also discussed in SEIS Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.3, Water Quality. †† = all metals concentrations in water matrices reported as dissolved concentrations 

 (i.e., the samples were filtered).

 a = All uranium concentrations were obtained by wet-chemistry analysis, 

 not isotope speciation by alpha or gamma spectrometry. 

b

 = Averages are radon concentrations taken over three months at each monitoring station. c

 = One sample only.

 d

 = Daily radiation-dose rates derived from values recorded by thermo-luminescent dosimeters (TLDs)

 at 17 positions around the Ross Project area over approximately 3 calendar quarters.

Ground Water

Ground-water samples were collected during the Applicant’s pre-licensing, site- characterization 

monitoring efforts at the Ross Project area. The samples were collected by the Applicant at six 

locations within or near the Project area, using monitoring wells screened at various units within 

the Lance and Fox Hills aquifers from onsite and from nearby privately owned water-supply 

wells. The Applicant’s sampling methodology and the corresponding analytical results of all 

water samples are more fully discussed in SEIS Section 3.5.3. Note that for samples where 
Affected Environment

3-111

metals, including uranium, were to be analyzed, these samples were filtered, yielding 

“dissolved” concentrations in the data reported. This methodology is described in SEIS Section 

3.5.3.

As discussed in the Applicant’s license application and in SEIS Section 3.5.3, several groundwater samples exceeded radiological standards specified by the EPA for its drinking-water 

MCLs, and some exceeded more than one of the standards. The three radiological MCLs are: 

■ Uranium = 30 μg/L

■ Radium-226+228 = 5.1 pCi/L [0.19 Bq/L]

■ Gross Alpha (α) = 15 pCi/L [0.56 Bq/L]

Monitoring Wells and Piezometers

Six well clusters were used by the Applicant to sample ground water quarterly in 2010 and 2011 

(Strata, 2011a). An additional four piezometers in the CPP area were also used quarterly 

beginning in May 2010. (A piezometer is a device that measures the pressure [more precisely, 

the piezometric head] of ground water at a specific location.) As described in SEIS Section 

2.1.1.1, the six well clusters allowed access to four different ground-water systems in the SA, 

SM, OZ, and DM aquifers. 

Water-Supply Wells

As described in SEIS Section 3.5.3, 29 local drinking-water wells were also sampled quarterly, 

beginning in July 2009. Some of this sampling could not always take place because some of 

the wells were inaccessible during the winter, the respective landowner’s permission could not 

be obtained, or the well was non-functioning (see SEIS Section 3.5.1) (Strata, 2011a). 

Sediments

The sediments at Oshoto Reservoir as well as those at the three surface-water monitoring 

stations were sampled in August 2010 (see Figure 3.12) (Strata, 2011b). Two cups of sediment 

were sampled at each location and analyzed for uranium, Ra-226, Th-230, Pb-210, and gross 

alpha. One sediment sample analyzed had elevated Pb-210 and Th-230 concentrations, as 

noted in Table 3.21. However, the Applicant attributed these anomalous results (in only one 

sample) to analytical error. The Applicant re-analyzed additional samples in 2011 and none of 

the results replicated the high concentrations found in the one earlier sample. 

Soil

Surface-soil samples at the Ross Project area were obtained from 39 locations; 18 of these 

locations were sampled both at the surface and subsurface (Strata, 2011b). Figure 3.24 

indicates the locations of the soil-sampling activities. These include the nearest residences, 

Strata’s Oshoto Field Office, the potential locations of the surface impoundments and the CPP, 

and locations over the delineated major ore bodies where injection, recovery, and other 

monitoring wells would be located during active uranium-recovery operations.
Affected Environment

3-112

Figure 3.24

Soil Sampling Locations at Ross Project Area

PROPOSED ROSS PROJECT

LICENSE BOUNDARY

Source: Strata, 2011b.
Affected Environment

3-113

Air

Particulates

Samples of airborne particulates (e.g., fugitive dust) were collected by the Applicant at the six 

air-sampling stations shown in Figure 3.25. Five of these stations commenced operation in 

January 2010; the sixth began operating in November 2010. The filters at each air-sampling 

location were collected weekly and then later consolidated (or “composited”) for analysis (i.e., 

the filters from each sampling station were composited with the filters from only that respective 

station, the filters having been collected weekly over an entire quarter for a total of 

approximately 13 filters per composite sample) (Strata, 2011b).

Radon

Seventeen radon-sampling locations were established by the Applicant, and the results at each 

were collected quarterly beginning in January 2010; two of these stations were established in 

mid-2010, resulting in fewer samples. The radon (i.e., a potential gaseous emission) samplers 

were situated at each of the particulate-sampling locations as well as in the proposed CPP and 

surface-impoundment areas, the nearest residences, the former Nubeth research and 

development operation, and over two ore bodies that have been identified for potential uranium 

recovery (Strata, 2011b). 

Vegetation

Vegetation at the Ross Project area was sampled by the Applicant in cooperation with the 

neighboring landowners after a field study to determine the best vegetation-sample locations 

was conducted in 2010. Eleven vegetation samples were ultimately collected at downwind 

locations and near the potential locations of the CPP and surface impoundments as well as 

along the major ore bodies in the mid- to late summer of 2010. In addition, the Applicant 

sampled vegetation from the wetlands near the confluence of Oshoto Reservoir and the Little 

Missouri River. Finally, food-crop samples obtained by the Applicant included hay as well as

vegetables from one personal garden adjacent to the Project area.

Animals

Livestock

Beef from locally raised cattle were sampled in cooperation with nearby landowners. Because 

horses are not raised in the area for human consumption, no horse-meat samples were 

obtained. A single beef sample was collected in July 2010 (Strata, 2011b).

Wildlife

Based upon the wildlife surveys described in SEIS Section 3.6, the only wildlife species 

potentially hunted at or near the Ross Project area for human consumption are deer and 

pronghorn antelope. One deer-meat sample was obtained from a local landowner who had 

hunted the deer in the Project’s vicinity during the 2010 hunting season (Strata, 2011b).
Affected Environment

3-114

Figure 3.25 

Air-Particulate Sampling Stations at Ross Project Area

PROPOSED ROSS PROJECT LICENSE BOUNDARY

Source: Strata, 2011b.
Affected Environment

3-115

Fish

A single composite sample from 99 fish that were caught at the Oshoto Reservoir was analyzed. 

Although it is reported by local landowners that fish from the Reservoir are not consumed by 

humans (Strata, 2011b), this sample was nonetheless submitted for analysis in September 

2010.

Direct (Gamma) Radiation

Gamma Field Survey

A field survey performed by a contractor to the Applicant was conducted during July 19 – 22, 

2010. During this survey, gamma radiation was surveyed at a total of 80,833 points (Strata, 

2011a). In addition, ten soil samples were obtained for an evaluation of the potential 

relationship between radiation levels and radium concentrations in the corresponding soils 

(Strata, 2011b). The survey was performed according to the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey 

and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM), which is the generally accepted methodology for 

gamma field surveys.

Long-Term Gamma Study

A long-term study to measure long-term gamma radiation by thermo-luminescent dosimeters 

(TLDs) was implemented by the Applicant at the same time the radon monitoring stations were 

established. Ultimately, a total of 17 TLDs (and 2 controls) were installed around the Ross 

Project area to measure quarterly gamma exposures.

3.12.2 Public and Occupational Health and Safety

The exposure of members of the public to hazardous chemicals is regulated by the EPA and by 

Wyoming under a variety of statutes, regulations, and guidance. The NRC, however, has the 

statutory responsibility, under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), to protect public and 

occupational health and safety with respect to radioactive materials, radiation exposures, and 

radiation doses. NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 20 specify annual radiation-dose standards to 

members of the public of 1 mSv [100 mrem] TEDE and 0.02 mSv [2 mrem] per hour from any 

external radiation sources (see SEIS Section 3.12.1 for a discussion of the units of radiation 

dose) (10 CFR Part 20). The existing public and occupational health and safety concerns that 

exist at the Ross Project area today, where it currently presents minimal chemical and radiation 

exposures, are discussed below.

3.12.2.1 Public Health and Safety

A factor in any assessment of risk to public health and safety, including both chemical and 

radiation exposures, is the proximity of potentially impacted populations and the nearest 

receptors. As described in SEIS Section 3.2, the Ross Project area is located in a sparsely 

populated area of western Crook County (Strata, 2011a). The nearest community is Moorcroft, 

Wyoming, 35 km [22 miles] to the south, with an estimated population of approximately 1,000 

persons. The Ross Project area is adjacent to the unincorporated ranching community of 

Oshoto. There are no residences within the proposed Ross Project area; however, within 3 km 

[2 mi], there are 11 residences with approximately 30 residents. The nearest residence to the 
Affected Environment

3-116

Ross Project’s boundary is approximately 210 m [690 ft] away, and the nearest residence to the 

CPP is about 760 m [2,500 ft] away (see SEIS Sections 3.2 and 3.8).

In addition, access to the Ross Project by non-local members of the public is very limited 

because much of it is privately owned land; there are few public roads that enter the area; and 

there are no actual public attractions or recreational activities within the Ross Project area or its 

immediate environs. Moreover, as described in SEIS Section 3.12.1, the hazardous substances 

known to be present at the Ross Project area are crude oil, associated oil-contaminated water 

and trash, propane and methanol, and, potentially, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (Strata, 

2011a). Thus, there are presently very limited non-radiological public health and safety 

concerns at the Ross Project area because there are: 1) few close residential receptors, all of 

whom are located offsite; 2) few, if any, members of the public who can access the Project area; 

and 3) very few hazardous materials are present. 

With respect to the existing radiological hazards that are present at the Ross Project area, the 

same limitations exist as described above for nonradiological hazards: few nearby residents, no 

public access, and few sources of radiation. The pre-licensing, site-characterization results 

presented in Table 3.21 indicate exposures to only common radiation values as described in 

SEIS Section 3.12.1. Soil results presented in Table 3.21 indicate the radionuclide 

concentrations in soils that are naturally occurring, including the decay products (i.e., progeny) 

of the naturally occurring uranium, thorium, and radium. The surface- and ground-water 

pathways, as described above (see SEIS Section 3.12.1), yield little, if any, radiation exposure 

to those receptors located offsite because the analytical results of surface- and ground-water 

samples indicate concentrations of radionuclides that are essentially at or below the respective 

detection limits and/or below regulatory guidelines. Finally, animal samples indicate limited 

concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides. Thus, there are very limited public health 

and safety concerns at the Ross Project area as it is currently characterized.

3.12.2.2 Occupational Health and Safety

Nonradiological 

Occupational health and safety (i.e., industrial safety) is regulated by Wyoming under the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration Program. However, occupational health and 

safety hazards within the Ross Project area are limited by the existing land uses, which are 

primarily grazing, agriculture, and oil production (see SEIS Section 3.2). Known occupational 

health and safety concerns include common physical health and safety hazards as well as, 

potentially, exposures to hazardous substances. Occupational exposures could include normal, 

industrial, airborne hazardous substances associated with servicing equipment (e.g., vehicles); 

fugitive dust generated by agricultural activities and by access-road use during well-drilling 

activities; and various chemicals used in agriculture or during oil extraction. 

Another common type of occupational hazard includes injuries and illnesses. According to the 

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), the most common lost-day injuries 

among mineral-extraction workers, including oil-production workers (currently the only type of 

consistent occupational worker present at the Ross Project area), were from strains and sprains 

that often resulted from slips, trips, falls, or lifting. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

compiles annual reports of incidence rates of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses by 

industry and case types. The most recent reports include data from 2009 and 2010. For the 
Affected Environment

3-117

category “uranium-radium-vanadium ore mining,” annual average employment is given as 1,000 

and 900 in 2009 and 2010, respectively. For both years, no total recordable cases either during 

work or not during work were reported (BLS, 2009; BLS, 2010). 

Radiological 

The occupational radiation-dose standard promulgated by the NRC is 50 mSv [5 rem] for TEDE 

over the entire human body (other limits pertain to exposures other than whole body). In 

addition, all radiation exposures are to be limited to “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA). 

However, only a few preconstruction activities are currently taking place at the Ross Project 

area—activities such as drillhole plugging and abandonment, monitoring-well installation, and 

environmental-monitoring sample collection by the Applicant’s workers. As the pre-licensing, 

site-characterization data demonstrate (Strata, 2011a), little radioactivity is available to come 

into contact with these personnel at the Ross Project area today. As a result, there is currently 

only a small occupational exposure to radiation (i.e., there are few personnel to be exposed and 

few sources of radiation that yield measureable doses).

3.13 Waste Management

Few wastes, either liquid or solid, are generated at the Ross Project area at the present time. 

Those that are generated are described below.

3.13.1 Liquid Waste 

Sources of liquid wastes generated at the Ross Project area currently include uraniumdelineation drilling, monitoring-well drilling and installation, and oil production (Strata, 2011a).

Drilling the many uranium-delineation drillholes on the Ross Project generates drilling fluids and 

muds (i.e., cuttings). These wastes are classified as technologically enhanced naturally 

occurring radioactive material (TENORM); they are defined by EPA as “[n]aturally occurring 

radioactive materials that have been concentrated or exposed to the accessible environment as 

a result of human activities such as manufacturing, mineral extraction, or water processing” 

(EPA, 2008). Drilling wastes (i.e., fluids, muds, cuttings) are collected and disposed of by the 

Applicant in onsite excavated pits, or mud pits, that are dug for this specific purpose pursuant to 

the various EPA regulations governing TENORM and that are constructed adjacent to the

individual drilling pads. The drilling wastes are allowed to evaporate and dry, and then the dried 

pits are reclaimed according to WDEQ/LQD requirements, usually within one construction 

season.

Drilling fluids and muds similar to those created during uranium-delineation drilling are also 

generated during the Applicant’s drilling of its preconstruction monitoring wells and drillholes 

that it is using to support its license application to the NRC (Strata, 2011a). These fluids are 

contained and evaporated in mud pits in the same manner as those described above (Strata, 

2011b). An average of 23,000 L [6,000 gal] of ground water, in addition to 12 m3 [15 yd3

] of

drilling muds, are produced during the development and sampling of monitoring wells (Strata, 

2011b). 
Affected Environment

3-118

Ground water has also been produced during well testing conducted to characterize aquifer 

properties (Strata, 2011a). This TENORM liquid waste is discharged under a temporary 

WYPDES Permit No. WYG720229 (WDEQ/WQD, 2011a). 

Crude oil and water used in its production could be present at the three oil-producing wells on 

the Ross Project area. These wastes are categorized by EPA as “special wastes” and are 

exempt from the Federal hazardous-waste regulations under Subtitle C of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

3.13.2 Solid Waste 

Few solid wastes are currently generated at the Ross Project area; no AEA-regulated wastes 

are presently generated. The solid wastes currently generated include predominantly 

miscellaneous trash from the existing agricultural and oil-production activities that presently take 

place at the Project area. Agricultural wastes are either disposed of at private landfills or at the 

local State-permitted landfill in Moorcroft; no private landfills have been identified at the Ross 

Project area (Strata, 2011a).

Oil-production solid wastes, such as oil-contaminated rags, propane, or methanol, are “special 

wastes” according to EPA regulations (i.e., they are generated in the production of crude oil) 

and are also exempted from the EPA’s hazardous-waste regulations under Subtitle C of RCRA 

(Strata, 2011a). There is one existing stockpile of discarded oil-production tubing that has been 

identified on the Ross Project area.

3.14 References

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

of Source Material,” Appendix A, “Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the 

Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source 

Material from Ores Processed Primarily for their Source Material Content.” Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office (GPO). 1985, as amended.

33 CFR Part 328. Title 33, “Navigation and Navigable Waters,” Code of Federal Regulations, 

Part 328, “Definition of Waters of the United States.” Washington, DC: GPO. 1986, as 

amended.

36 CFR Part 60. Title 36, “Parks, Forests, and Public Property,” Code of Federal Regulations, 

Part 60, “National Register of Historic Places.” Washington, DC: GPO. 1966, as amended.

36 CFR Part 800. Title 36, “Parks, Forests, and Public Property,” Code of Federal Regulations, 

Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” Washington, DC: GPO. 2004, as amended.

40 CFR Part 50. Title 40, “Protection of the Environment,” Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50. 

“National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.” Washington, DC: U.S. GPO. 

40 CFR Part 61. Title 40, “Protection of the Environment,” Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

61, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,” Subpart B, “National Emission 

Standards for Radon Emissions from Underground Uranium Mines.” Washington, DC: GPO. 

1989, as amended.
Affected Environment

3-119

40 CFR Part 141. Title 40, “Protection of the Environment,” Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

141, “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.” Washington, DC: GPO. 1975, as 

amended.

40 CFR Part 143. Title 40, “Protection of the Environment,” Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

143, “National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations.” Washington, DC: GPO. 1970, as 

amended.

40 CFR Part 192. Title 40, “Protection of the Environment,” Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

192, “Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings.” 

Washington, DC: GPO. 1983, as amended.

68 FR 53083. Federal Register. Volume 68, Page 53083. “Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to 

List the Mountain Plover as Threatened.”

74 FR 66496. Federal Register. Volume 74, Page 66496. “Endangerment and Cause or 

Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.”

(US)ACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. 

Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS: USACE. January 1987.

(US)ACE. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: 

Great Plains Region. ERDC/EL TR-08-12. Washington, DC: USACE. March 2008. 

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. 

ML13024A331. 

(US)ACE. Letter from Paige Wolken, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Omaha 

District, Wyoming Regulatory Office to Tony Simpson, Strata Energy, Inc. December 9, 2010.

Algermissen, S. T., D. M. Perkins, P. C. Thenhaus, S. L. Hanson, and B. L. Bender. 

Probabilistic Estimates of Maximum Acceleration and Velocity in Rock in the Contiguous United 

States. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 82-1033, Scale 1:7,500,000. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1982. ADAMS Accession No. ML13022A452.

Andres, Brad A. and Kelli L. Stone. Conservation Plan for the Mountain Plover (Charadrius 

montanus). Version 1.0. Manomet, MA: Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. 2009. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML13022A455.

(US)BEA (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, USDOC). Regional Economic Information 

System. Employment, earnings per job, per capita personal income estimates, Crook County, 

Campbell County, State of Wyoming, and United States. Washington, DC: USDOC. 2011.

BLM (Bureau of Land Management, USDOI). Visual Resource Contrast Rating. Manual 8431-

1. Washington, DC: USBLM. 1986. ADAMS Accession No. ML13011A379.

BLM. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for Public Lands 

Administered by the Newcastle Field Office. BLM/WY/PL-00/027+1610. Newcastle, WY: 

USBLM. September 2000. ADAMS Accession No. ML13016A384.
Affected Environment

3-120

BLM. Approved Resource Management Plan for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management, Buffalo Field Office. Buffalo, WY: USBLM. April 2001.

BLM. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the Powder 

River Basin Oil and Gas Project. Volumes 1 – 4. WY-072-02-065. Buffalo, WY: USBLM. 

January 2003.

BLM. Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review, Past and Present and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State 

Office, BLM Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office. Fort Collins, 

CO: ENSR Corporation. July 2005a. ADAMS Accession No. ML13016A451.

BLM. Task 1A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review, Current Air Quality Conditions. 

Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles 

City Field Office. Fort Collins, CO: ENSR Corporation. September 2005b.

BLM. Task 3A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Cumulative Air Quality Effects. 

Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles 

City Field Office. Fort Collins, CO: ENSR Corporation. February 2006.

BLM. Final Report, Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) Biological Evaluation. Cheyenne, 

WY: USBLM, USFWS, U.S. Forest Service (USFS). March 2007a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13016A463.

BLM. Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System for Paleontological Resources on 

Public Lands. Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-009. Washington, DC: USBLM. October 

2007b.

BLM. Visual Resource Management. Manual 8400. Washington, DC: USBLM. 2007c. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML101790184.

BLM. Update of Task 3A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review, Cumulative Air 

Quality Effects for 2015. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Casper Field Office, 

and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office. Fort Collins, CO: ENSR Corporation. October 

2008a.

BLM. Rawlins Resource Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Rawlins, 

WY: USBLM. 2008b.

BLM. Update of Task 3A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review, Cumulative 

Air Quality Effects for 2020. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Casper 

Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office. Fort Collins, CO: ENSR

Corporation. December 2009a.

BLM. Gunnison and Greater Sage-Grouse Management Considerations for Energy 

Development Instruction (Supplement to National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy). 

Memorandum No. 2010-071. Washington, DC: USBLM. 2010a.
Affected Environment

3-121

BLM. Visual Resource Inventory. Manual H–8410–1. Washington, DC: USBLM. 2010b. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML13014A644.

(US)BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). “Incidence rates of non-fatal occupational injuries 

and illnesses by industry and case types.” At http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb2435.pdf 

(as of June 25, 2012). 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML13014A700.

(US)BLS. “Incidence rates of non-fatal occupational injuries and illnesses by industry and case 

types”. 2010. At http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb2813.pdf (as of June 25, 2012). 

ADAMS Accession No. ML13014A709.

(US)BLS. Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Original Data Value, Campbell and Crook 

Counties, WY, 2001 to 2011. Washington, DC: USDOL. 2011. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13017A248.

Buswell, M. D. Subsurface Geology of the Oshoto Uranium Deposit, Crook County, Wyoming, 

M.S. Thesis, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. Rapid City, SD: South Dakota 

School of Mines and Technology. May 1982. 

Campbell County School District (Campbell County School District No. 1.) Facts About 

Campbell County School District. Gillette, WY: Campbell County School District. 2012. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML13011A252.

Case, James C. and J. Annette Green. Earthquakes in Wyoming. Information Pamphlet 6. 

Laramie, WY: Wyoming State Geological Survey (WSGS). 2000. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13017A259.

Case, James C., Robert Kirkwood, and Rachel N. Toner. Basic Seismological Characterization 

for Crook County, Wyoming. Laramie, WY: WSGS. 2002. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13023A274.

 

(US)CB (U.S. Census Bureau). “The United States Census Bureau.” 2010. At www.census.gov 

(as of June 25, 2012).

(US)CB. “State and County QuickFacts, Wyoming, Crook County, Campbell County.” 2012. At 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/56000.html (as of June 25, 2012).

Connor, Carol W. The Lance Formation—Petrography and Stratigraphy, Powder River Basin 

and Nearby Basins, Wyoming and Montana. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1917-I. 

Washington, DC: USGS. 1992. ADAMS Accession No. ML13022A443.

Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward T. LaRoe. Classification of 

Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. Department of Interior [DOI]). 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 1979. 

(US)DA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2007 Census of Agriculture. Washington, DC: 

USDA. 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML13014A730.
Affected Environment

3-122

De Bruin, R. H. Oil and Gas Map of the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Wyoming Geological 

Survey, MS-51-CD, Scale 1:350,000. Cheyenne, SD: Wyoming Geological Survey. 2007.

DeMallie, Raymond J. “Introduction” in Plains (Raymond J. DeMallie, Volume Editor) in 

Handbook of the American Indian, Vol. 13 (William C. Sturtevant, General Editor). Washington, 

DC: Smithsonian Institution. 2001.

Dodge, Harry W. Jr. and J. Dan Powell. Stratigraphic and Paleoenvironment Data for the 

Uranium-bearing Lance and Fox Hills Formations, Crook and Northern Weston Counties, 

Northeastern Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 75-502. Washington, DC: 

USGS. 1975. ADAMS Accession No. ML13023A235.

Dodge, Harry W. Jr. and C. W. Spencer. “Thinning of the Fox Hills Sandstone, Crook County, 

Wyoming – A Possible Guide to Uranium Mineralization” in Short Papers of the U.S. Geological 

Survey, Uranium-Thorium Symposium (John S. Campbell, Editor). U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 753. Washington, DC: USGS. 1977. ADAMS Accession No. ML13023A250.

(US)DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). Bureau of Land Management, National SageGrouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. Washington, DC: USDOI. November 2004. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13016A323.

(US)DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement 

Policy and Guidance. Washington, DC: Noise and Air Quality Branch, Office of Environment 

and Planning, Federal Highway Administration, USDOT. June 1995. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13023A373.

Dunlap, C. M. “The Lewis, Fox Hills and Lance Formations of Upper Cretaceous Age in the 

Powder River Basin, Wyoming” in Thirteenth Annual Field Conference Guidebook, Powder 

River Basin. Casper, WY: Wyoming Geological Association (WGA). 1958.

Education.com, Inc. “Crook County School District No. 1 Student-Teacher Ratio.” 2012. 

Redwood City, CA: Education.com, Inc. 2012. ADAMS Accession No. ML13011A266.

(US)EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). “Approval of the Non-Significant Revision of 

the State of Wyoming Underground Injection Control Program Comprised by the Aquifer 

Exemption of the Minnelusa Formation underlying Portions of Campbell County, WY.” Letter to 

Mr. Dennis Hemmer, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, from Kerrigan G. 

Clough, Assistance Regional Administrator, Office of Pollution, Tribal and Assistance. 

December 1997. ADAMS Accession No. ML13024A059.

(US)EPA. “Protective Noise Levels: Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document.” EPA 

Report No. 550/9-79-100. ML13015A552. Washington DC: EPA. November 1978.

(US)EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Technical Report on Technologically 

Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials from Uranium Mining: Mining and 

Reclamation Background. Volume 1. EPA–402–R–08–005. Washington, DC: Office of 

Radiation and Indoor Air/Radiation Protection Division, USEPA. 2008. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13015A579. 
Affected Environment

3-123

Ferguson, D. A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of Strata Energy’s Proposed Ross ISR 

Uranium Project, Crook County, Wyoming (Redacted Version). Prepared for Strata Energy, 

Inc., Gillette, Wyoming. Butte, MT: GCM Services, Inc. 2010.

Fertig, Walter. “Status Review of the Ute ladies tresses (Spiranthes diluvalis) in Wyoming” in 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming. 2000. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13023A267.

Fertig, Walter. “State Species Abstract: Penstemon Haydenii, Blowout Penstemon” in 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming. 2008.

Frison, George C. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Second Edition. San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press, Inc. 1991.

Frison, George C. “Hunting and Gathering Tradition: Northwestern and Central Plains” in

Plains (Raymond J. DeMallie, Volume Editor) in Handbook of the American Indian, Vol. 13 

(William C. Sturtevant, General Editor). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. 2001.

(US)FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDOI). Black-Footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes),

Five-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Pierre, SD: USFWS. November 2008. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13024A061.

(US)FWS. “National Wetlands Inventory.” At http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/

(as of June 25, 2012). April 2012a.

(US)FWS. “Birds of Conservation Concern.” At http://www.fws.gov/wyominges/Pages/Species/

Species_ SpeciesConcern/BirdsConsvConcern.html (as of June 25, 2012). February 2012b.

(US)FWS. “Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming.” At 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BMC.html (as of June 25, 

2012). 2012c.

(US)FS (U.S. Forest Service, USDOI). Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Northern 

Great Plains Management Plan. May 2001. At http://www.fs.fed.us/ngp/plan/feis_chpts 

_appx.htm (as of January 8, 2013). ADAMS Accession No. ML13029A319.

(US)GCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). “Regional Climate Impacts, Great 

Plains.” 2009. At http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/usimpacts/regional-climate-change-impacts/great-plains (as of April 12, 2012). ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13017A256. 

(US)GS (U.S. Geological Survey, USDOI). “Bird Checklists of the United States, Birds of 

Northeastern Wyoming.” August 2006. At http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds 

/chekbird/r6/newyomin.htm (as of June 25, 2012).

(US)GS. “2009 Earthquake Probability Mapping.” November 2010. At 

http://geohazards.usgs.gov/eqprob/2009/ (as of June 25, 2012).
Affected Environment

3-124

(US)GS. “Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States.” February 2011. At 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/ (as of June 25, 2012).

(US)GS. “USGS Surface-Water Data for the Nation (Historical Monthly and Annual Flow 

Statistics from Gaging Stations 06334000, 06334500, 06335500, 06336000, and 06337000)” 

April 2012a. At http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/sw/ (as of June 25, 2012).

(US)GS. “Water Quality Samples for Wyoming.” April 2012b. At http://nwis.waterdata. 

usgs.gov/wy/nwis/qwdata (as of June 25, 2012[b]).

Hinaman, Kurt. Hydrogeologic Framework and Estimates of Ground-Water Volumes in Tertiary 

and Upper Cretaceous Hydrogeologic Units in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. U S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5008. Prepared in Cooperation with 

the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Reston, VA: USGS. 2005. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13011A278.

Langford, Russell H. “The Chemical Quality of the Ground Water” in Harold A. Whitcomb and 

Donald A. Morris, Ground-Water Resources and Geology of Northern and Western Crook 

County, Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1698. Prepared in 

Cooperation with the State Engineer of Wyoming. Washington, DC: GPO. 1964.

Lisenbee, Alvis L. “Tectonic History of the Black Hills Uplift” in Thirty-Ninth Field Conference 

Guidebook, Eastern Powder River Basin – Black Hills. Casper, WY: WGA. 1988. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13023A327.

Merewether, Edward Allen. Stratigraphy and Tectonic Implications of Upper Cretaceous Rocks 

in the Powder River Basin, Northeastern Wyoming and Southeastern Montana. U.S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin 1917. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services. 1996. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML13011A281.

ND Resources. Nubeth Joint Venture, Environmental Report Supportive Information to 

Application for Source Material License In-Situ Solution Mining Test Site Sundance Project 

Crook County, Wyoming. December 1977.

(US)NPS (U.S. National Park Service, USDOI). “How is Devil’s Tower a Sacred Site to 

American Indians?” August 1994. At http://www.nps.gov/deto/historyculture/sacredsite.htm (as 

of June 25, 2012).

(US)NPS. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 

No. 15. Washington, DC: USNPS. 1997a. ADAMS Accession No. ML13024A164.

(US)NPS, Jeffery R. Hanson, and Sally Chirino. Ethnographic Overview and Assessment of 

Devils Tower National Monument, Wyoming. Paper 4. Washington, DC: USNPS. 1997b.

(US)NPS. Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Devils Tower 

National Monument, Crook County, WY. At http://www.nps.gov/deto/parkmgmt/devils-towergeneral-management-plan.htm (as of January 8, 2013). November 2001.
Affected Environment

3-125

(US)NPS. “Standing Witness: Devils Tower National Monument A History.” By J. Rodgers. 

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/deto/history/index.htm (as of February 24,

2013). 2008.

(US)NPS. Devils Tower National Monument Frequently Asked Questions. 

http://www.nps.gov/deto/faqs.htm (as of January 31, 2013). December 2012.

(US)NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). Radiological Effluent and Environmental 

Monitoring at Uranium Mills, Revision 1. Regulatory Guide 4.14. Washington, DC: USNRC. 

1980. ADAMS Accession No. ML003739941.

(US)NRC. “Standard Format and Content of License Applications, Including Environmental 

Reports, For In Situ Uranium Solution Mining.” Regulatory Guide 3.46. Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 1982a. ADAMS Accession No. ML003739441.

(US)NRC. “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Uranium Mills, Revision 2.” Regulatory 

Guide 3.8. Washington, DC: USNRC. 1982b. ADAMS Accession No. ML003740211.

(US)NRC. “Final Environmental Impact Statement To Construct and Operate the Crownpoint

Uranium Solution Mining Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico.” NUREG–1508. Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 1997. ADAMS Accession No. ML062830096.

(US)NRC. “Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications, 

Final Report.” NUREG–1569. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2003a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML032250177.

(US)NRC. “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS 

Programs.” NUREG-1748. Washington, DC: USNRC. August 2003b. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML032450279.

(US)NRC. “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance/Decommissioning Process for 

Materials Licensees. Vol. 1, Rev. 2 (2006); Volume 2, Rev. 1 (2006); and Vol. 3, Rev. 1 (2012).” 

NUREG–1757. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2006. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML063000243, 

ML053260027, and ML12048A683. 

(US)NRC. “In the Matter of Duke Energy Carolinas [and] In the Matter of Tennessee Valley 

Authority, Memorandum and Order.” No. CLI-09-21. November 3, 2009a. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML093070690.

(US)NRC. “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities, Volumes 1 and 2.” NUREG–1910. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2009b. ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML091480244 and ML091480188.

(US)NRC. “Safety Evaluation Report for the Strata Energy, Inc. Ross ISR Project, Crook 

County, Wyoming, Materials License No. SUA-1601, Docket No. 040-09091, Strata Energy, 

Inc.” Washington, DC: USNRC. 2014a. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A107.

(US)NRC. “Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, No. SUA-1601.” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2014b. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A111.
Affected Environment

3-126

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture). “Soil survey 

geographic database for Crook County, Wyoming.” 2010. At http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda. 

gov/download.aspx?Survey=WY011&UseState=WY (as of April 12, 2012).

Nubeth Joint Venture. Environmental Report Supportive Information to Application for Source 

Material License. In Situ Solution Mining Test Site, Sundance Project, Crook County, Wyoming. 

Gillette, WY: Nubeth. 1977. ADAMS Accession No. ML13045A881. 

Nuclear Dynamics. Quarterly Report, Summary of Water Quality Program. Source Material 

License No. SUA-1331, Docket No. 40-8663. 1978. ADAMS Accession No. ML12135A358.

NWS (National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce [DOC]). “Wyoming Climate Summaries” for “Colony, Wyoming 

(481905).” At http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?wycolo (as of June 25, 2012). 2012. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML13024A342.

Parker, Patricia and Thomas King. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional 

Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin No. 38. Washington, DC: U.S. National Park 

Service (USNPS). 1998. ADAMS Accession No. ML13011A335.

Rankl, James G. and Marlin E. Lowry. Ground-water-flow Systems in the Powder River 

Structural Basin, Wyoming and Montana. Water Resources Investigations Report No. 85-4229. 

Washington DC: USGS. 1990. ADAMS Accession No. ML13024A320. 

Robinson, Charles S., William J. Mapel, and Maximilian H. Bergendahl. Stratigraphy and 

Structure of the Northern and Western Flanks of the Black Hills Uplift, Wyoming, Montana, and 

South Dakota. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 404. Washington, DC: USGS. 

1964. ADAMS Accession No. ML13024A325.

Sage-Grouse Working Group (Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse Working Group). “Northeast 

Wyoming Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan.” Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Department of Game 

and Fish (WDGF). August 15, 2006. ADAMS Accession No. ML13016A281.

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Environmental Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130342, ML110130344, and 

ML110130348.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, Technical 

Report, Volumes 1 through 6 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 

2011b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130333, ML110130335, ML110130314, ML110130316,

ML110130320, and ML110130327.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, RAI Question 

and Answer Responses, Environmental Report, Volume 1 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-

09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2012a. ADAMS Accession No. ML121030465.
Affected Environment

3-127

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, RAI Question 

and Answer Responses, Technical Report, Volumes 1 and 2 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-

09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2012b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML121020357 and 

ML121020361.

(UW)WRDS (University of Wyoming’s Water Resources Data System) and U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security. “Earthquakes in Wyoming.” 2010. At http://www.wrds.uwyo.edu/wrds/ 

wsgs/hazards/quakes/quake.html (as of June 25, 2012). ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13017A259. 

UW (University of Wyoming, Department of Geology and Geophysics). “Collection of Fossil 

Vertebrates Database.” No Date. At http://paleo.gg.uwyo.edu (as of June 25, 2012). ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13024A346. 

UW. “Mountain Plover Data Compilation” in Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. 2010. At 

http://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/data-dissemination/priority-data-comp/mtn-plover/ (as of June 25, 

2012).

 

Whitcomb, Harold A. and Donald A. Morris. Ground-Water Resources and Geology of Northern 

and Western Crook County, Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1698. 

Washington DC: GPO. 1964.

Whitehead, R. L. “Ground Water Atlas of the United States, Montana, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Wyoming.” HA 730-I. 1996. At http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_i/index.html (as of 

June 25, 2012).

WDAI (Wyoming Department of Administration and Information). “Wyoming Population 

Estimates and Forecasts.” June 2010. At http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop/ (as of June 25, 2012).

Wyoming (State of Wyoming, Office of the Governor). Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area 

Protection. EO No. 2011-5. Cheyenne, WY: State of Wyoming Executive Department. June 2, 

2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML13015A702. 

WDEQ/AQD (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division). “Air Quality,” 

Rules and Regulations,” Chapter 2. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/AQD. 2010.

WDEQ/LQD (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division). Topsoil 

and Overburden. Guideline 1. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/LQD. November 1994. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13024A064.

WDEQ/LQD. “Noncoal In Situ Mining,” Rules and Regulations, Chapter 11. Cheyenne, WY: 

WDEQ/LQD. 2005a.

WDEQ/LQD. “Appendix 1, Premining Water Quality Sampling.” Hydrology, “Coal and 

Noncoal,” Guideline 8. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/LQD. 2005b.

WDEQ/WQD (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division). 

“Wyoming Surface Water Classification List.” At http://deq.state.wy.us/
Affected Environment

3-128

wqd/watershed/surface standards/Downloads/Standards/2-3648-doc.pdf. 2001. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13016A388.

WDEQ/WQD. “Groundwater Sampling for Metals: Summary.” At http://deq.state. 

wy.us/wqd/groundwater/downloads/CBM/Sampling%20Procedures%20for%20

Metals%20April6.doc%5E.pdf (as of April 26, 2005). 2005a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13015A691.

WDEQ/WQD (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division). “Water 

Quality,” Rules and Regulations, Chapter 8. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/WQD. 2005b.

WDEQ/WQD. “Wyoming Surface Water Quality Standards,” Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1 . 

Cheyenne, WY. WDEQ/WQD. 2007. ADAMS Accession No. ML13024A069.

WDEQ/WQD. Authorization to Discharge Wastewater Associated with Pump Testing of Water 

Wells Under the Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Authorization 

#WYG720229. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/WQD. March 2011a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13015A695. 

WDEQ/WQD. Strata Energy, Inc. – Ross Disposal Injection Wellfield, Final Permit 10-263,

Class I Non-hazardous, Crook County, Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/WQD. April 2011b. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML111380015.

WDWS (Wyoming Department of Workforce Services). Wyoming Labor Force Trends. 

Laramie, WY: Research and Planning Division, WDWS. 2011a.

WDWS. “Wyoming Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Employment, Final Benchmark 1990-2009 

- Preliminary Benchmark 2010.” 2011b. At http://wydoe.state.wy.us/lmi/ces/naanav9002.htm.

WDWS (Wyoming Department of Workforce Services). “Labor and Employment,” Rules and 

Regulations, Chapter 11. Cheyenne, WY: WDWS. 2012.

WGFD. A Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: 

WDGF. July 2005a. ADAMS Accession No. ML13024A147.

WGFD (Wyoming Department of Game and Fish). Avian Species of Special Concern, Native 

Species Status List. Buffalo, WY: WDGF. January 2005a.

WGFD. Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources Within Important 

Wildlife Habitats. Version 6.0. Cheyenne, WY: WDGF. March 2010. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13016A480.

WGFD. “Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ross In-Situ 

Uranium Project.” Letter to C. Bladley, NRC, from M. Konishi, WGFD. May 10, 2013. 

Cheyenne, WY: WGFD. 2013. ADAMS Accession No. ML13137A086. 
Affected Environment

3-129

WSEO (Wyoming State Engineer’s Office). “Water Rights Database.” 2006. At 

http://seo.state.wy.us/wrdb/index.aspx (as of June 25, 2012).

WYDOT (Wyoming Department of Transportation). WYDOT Vehicle Miles Book. Cheyenne: 

WY: WYDOT. 2011.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-1 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

4.1 Introduction

As discussed in this Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS, or FSEIS if the 

respective section, figure, or table did not appear in the Draft SEIS [DSEIS]), Sections 1, 2, and 

3, the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities

(GEIS), NUREG–1910, evaluated the potential environmental impacts of in situ uraniumrecovery (ISR) projects in four distinct geographic regions, including the Nebraska-South 

Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region (NSDWUMR), where the proposed Ross Project area 

is located (NRC, 2009b). Four project phases were evaluated in the GEIS for each of the 

geographic regions (i.e., construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning). 

The activities that would occur during the four Project phases at the Ross Project and their 

timeframes are described in SEIS Section 2. Because of the similarities between the ISR 

projects examined in the GEIS and the proposed Ross Project, many of the conclusions found 

in the GEIS can be used to identify and rate the relative impacts of the Proposed Action in this 

SEIS (see Section 1.4.1). However, if the results of the GEIS’s impact analyses indicated a 

wide range of impacts on a particular resource area (e.g., from SMALL to LARGE), then that 

resource area was evaluated in greater detail within this site-specific SEIS.

The information that has been used to perform these site-specific impact analyses has been 

obtained from Strata Energy, Inc.’s (Strata) (herein also referred to as the “Applicant”) licenseapplication documents, including the Environmental Report (ER) and the Technical Report (TR),

submitted by the Applicant to the United States (U.S.) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 

early 2011 as well as subsequent information provided by the Applicant in 2012 (Strata, 2011a; 

Strata, 2011b; Strata, 2012a; Strata, 2012b). The NRC staff has compiled related information 

from publicly available sources as well (see SEIS Section 2.1). All of this information has 

allowed the NRC to perform site-specific assessments of the environmental impacts of the 

proposed Ross Project facility and wellfields, as needed, and to evaluate the measures that 

would successfully mitigate those impacts.

The NRC has established a standard of significance for its analyses of environmental impacts 

during the conduct of its environmental reviews, as described in the NRC’s Environmental 

Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs, NUREG–1748 (NRC, 

2003b). This standard is summarized as follows: 

SMALL: The environmental impacts 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 impacts are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize, 

important attributes of the resource considered. 

LARGE: The environmental impacts are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

destabilize important attributes of the resource considered. 

This section of this Ross Project SEIS analyzes the four lifecycle phases (i.e., construction, 

operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning) of the proposed Ross Project, consistent 

with the analytical approach used in the GEIS (NRC, 2009b). This assessment is conducted for 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-2 

the Proposed Action and the two Alternatives: No-Action—Alternative 2—and North Ross 

Project—Alternative 3. The impacts are organized by the environmental resource and 

management areas commonly examined for the satisfaction of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requirements. These areas include:

■ Land Use

■ Transportation

■ Geology and Soils

■ Water Resources

(Surface and Ground Waters)

■ Ecology

■ Air Quality 

■ Noise

■ Historical, Cultural, and 

Paleontological Resources

■ Visual and Scenic Resources

■ Socioeconomics

■ Environmental Justice

■ Public and Occupational Health and Safety

(Radiological and Nonradiological)

■ Waste Management

The respective mitigation measures that would moderate the identified environmental impacts 

are also discussed in this section for each resource and management area. Many types of 

mitigation measures can be considered when any particular resource or management area’s 

impacts are evaluated. Some of the mitigation measures that are described in this section of 

the SEIS include:

■ Permit and License Requirements

■ Regulatory Requirements and Standards

■ Facility Design Criteria and Modifications

■ Process and System Adjustments

■ Engineering and Management Techniques

■ Best Management Practices (BMPs)

■ Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)

■ Management and Operating Plans

■ Training Prerequisites

■ Scheduling and Phasing Variations

The respective environmental impacts and associated mitigation measures identified and 

evaluated in this section are also summarized in Section 8, “Summary of Environmental Impacts 

and Mitigation Measures,” in Table 8.1.

4.2 Land-Use Impacts

The Proposed Action could impact local land use during all phases of the Project’s lifecycle. 

Potential land-use impacts could result from land-surface disturbances during, especially, the 

Ross Project’s construction and decommissioning phases; from grazing and area-access 

restrictions; and from competing access for mineral rights. These potential impacts are 

sometimes greater in areas where there are higher percentages of private landownership, like 

the Ross Project area, as some of the current uses (e.g., dryland crop production) could not 

continue once the Ross Project is constructed. As shown in Table 2.1 in Section 2.1.1, the

surface owners of the Ross Project area include private owners (553.2 ha [1,367 ac]), the State 

of Wyoming (Wyoming) (127 ha [314 ac]), and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (16 

ha [40 ac]). At the end of operations, final site restoration and reclamation would occur during 

the decommissioning phase, and all lands would be returned to their current land use. These 

current land uses include livestock grazing, crop agriculture, and wildlife habitat. Detailed 

discussion of the potential environmental impacts to land use during construction, operation, 

aquifer restoration, and decommissioning and site restoration for the proposed Ross Project are 

provided in the following sections.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-3 

4.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action 

Alternative 1 consists of four phases: construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning of an ISR uranium-recovery facility and wellfields.

4.2.1.1 Ross Project Construction

The GEIS identified potential land-use impacts during construction resulting from land-surface 

disturbances and site-access restrictions that could impact other grazing, mineral extraction,

or recreational activities (NRC, 2009b). As discussed 

in GEIS Section 4.4.1, potential impacts from the 

construction of an ISR project to most aspects of land 

use would be SMALL (NRC, 2009b). This is because 

the amount of area disturbed by facility and wellfield

construction would be small in comparison to the 

available land; the majority of the site would not be 

fenced; potential conflicts over mineral access would 

be expected to be negotiated and agreed upon; only a 

small portion of the available land would be restricted 

from grazing; and the open spaces for hunting and 

offroad vehicle access would be minimally impacted 

by the fencing associated with the ISR facility. The 

GEIS defined land-use impacts to be SMALL when they ranged from 49 – 761 ha [120 – 1,880 

ac] (NRC, 2009b).

Construction-phase activities during the Proposed Action would include construction of 

buildings, other auxiliary structures, and surface impoundments; wells, wellfields, and pipelines; 

and transportation and utility infrastructure (e.g., roads and lighting). The Applicant estimated 

that construction activities would disturb a total of 114 ha [282 ac] of land, which represents 16 

percent of the Ross Project area. The impacts on specific areas of the Proposed Action by 

construction activities are summarized in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1

Summary of Land Disturbance during Construction of Proposed Action

Activity

Total Area 

Impacted by 

Proposed Action

(ha [ac])

Total Area Impacted

in the Year Preceding 

Proposed Action 

Operation

(ha [ac])

Primary

Current Use

Central Processing 

Plant 22 [55] 22 [55]

Dryland crop

production

Pasture

Wellfield Modules 65 [160] 14 [85]

Livestock grazing

Oil and gas

production

What are mineral rights, oil rights, and 

drilling rights?

Rights may be conferred to remove 

minerals, oil, gas, or sometimes water 

that may be present on and under some 

land. In jurisdictions supporting such 

rights, they may be separate from other 

rights to the land. The rights to develop 

minerals, and the purchase and sale of 

those rights, are contractual matters that 

must be agreed between the parties 

involved.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-4 

Table 4.1

Summary of Land Disturbance during Construction of Proposed Action

(Continued) 

Activity

Total Area 

Impacted by 

Proposed Action

(ha [ac])

Total Area Impacted

in the Year Preceding 

Proposed Action 

Operation

(ha [ac])

Primary

Current Use

Access Roads 12 [30] 5 [12] Livestock grazing

UIC Class I 

Deep-Injection Wells 3 [7] 1 [3] Livestock grazing

Pipelines 6 [15] 2 [5] Various

Utilities 6 [15] 2 [5] Various

TOTAL ~ 114 [282] ~ 47 [116] 

Source: Strata, 2011a.

The Applicant would mitigate short-term impacts resulting from construction activities by 

phasing its activities and limiting the amount of land disturbance at any one time; promptly 

restoring and reseeding disturbed areas; coordinating efforts with the oil-production company 

currently operating within the Ross Project area (i.e., Merit Oil Company [Merit]); using existing 

roads wherever possible; following existing topography during access-road construction to 

minimize the need to cut and fill; minimizing secondary and tertiary access-road widths; and 

locating access roads, pipelines, and utilities in common corridors. In addition, the Applicant 

would establish surface-use agreements with surface owners/lessees to mitigate and/or to 

compensate for their temporary loss of use in areas where livestock grazing or crop production

is the current land use. Cultivated fields would be specifically avoided, where possible, during 

facility construction and wellfield installation. 

As shown in Table 2.1, of the 16 ha [40 ac] of BLM-administered surface land within the Ross 

Project area, 0.53 ha [1.3 ac] would be disturbed by the Proposed Action. This disturbance 

would take place during the construction phase. The Applicant would restrict hunting 

throughout the lifecycle of the Project in order to protect its workers and visitors. Hunting and 

recreation are not presently major land-use activities within the Ross Project area, and there is 

no straightforward access to BLM land via public roads; therefore, land-use impacts would be 

minimal. 

All of the construction activities at the Ross Project would result in temporary, short-term 

impacts, with the current use restored following construction, except for the area where the 

Central Processing Plant (CPP) and surface impoundments (i.e., the “facility”) would be 

constructed. The current land uses of the Ross Project area, however, could be restored after 

all uranium-recovery activities have ceased. The area of surface disturbance the Applicant 

estimates for the Proposed Action is less than that identified in the GEIS, and no site-specific 

impacts have been identified for the Proposed Action that would change the magnitude of the 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-5 

impacts identified by the GEIS (NRC, 2009b). Thus, the land-use impacts resulting from the 

construction of the Ross Project would be SMALL.

4.2.1.2 Ross Project Operation 

The primary land-use impact during the Ross Project’s operation would be due to the 

Applicant’s installing additional wellfields and operating the processes and circuits located in the 

CPP; however, these impacts are generally the same as those addressed in the constructionphase analysis above. Additionally, the affected area would be reclaimed over the longer term. 

As during the construction phase, the Applicant would reduce ongoing impacts to livestock 

grazing by fencing less than 12 percent of the Ross Project area at any one time, including the 

CPP and wellfields, during active operation of the Ross Project. In addition, the Applicant would 

continue to work with Merit, as discussed above, so as not to impact its oil-recovery operation. 

No further land-use impacts have been identified for the Ross Project beyond those identified in 

the GEIS. Thus, the land-use impacts resulting from the operation of the Proposed Action 

would be SMALL. 

4.2.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration

Land-use impacts during aquifer restoration would be similar to those during construction, as 

they would involve temporary access restrictions, and would be SMALL according to GEIS 

Section 4.4.1 (NRC, 2009b). The impacts to land use during the Proposed Action’s aquiferrestoration phase would be similar to those during the construction and operation phases, and 

they are consistent with the GEIS. These impacts could involve temporary access restrictions, 

but they would be few. Mitigation measures during the Proposed Action’s aquifer-restoration 

phase would be identical to those identified for its construction and operation. Therefore, the 

land-use impacts resulting from aquifer-restoration activities at the Ross Project would be 

SMALL. 

4.2.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.1, land-use impacts would temporarily increase during 

decommissioning and related site restoration of a uranium-recovery facility due to the additional 

equipment that would be used for dismantling and removal of wellfields, pipelines, and other

wellfield components as well as the demolition of the processing plant itself and any surface 

impoundments. In addition, the reclamation of the site would involve heavy equipment and 

significant earth disturbance. However, these short-term impacts would not be greater than 

those experienced during the construction phase. Therefore, the GEIS concluded that the landuse impacts that result from the decommissioning an ISR facility would be SMALL (NRC, 

2009b). 

During decommissioning, the Ross Project area would be returned to its approximate 

preconstruction state, including surface topography and drainage patterns. All roads and 

wellfields would be decommissioned and the land restored and reclaimed. Topsoil would be 

salvaged and redistributed on disturbed areas to a depth approximately equal to the site before 

pre-licensing, site-characterization activities. Additional subsoil would be ripped as needed to 

minimize soil compaction prior to revegetation. Revegetation would be completed in 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-6 

accordance with an approved restoration action plan (RAP) and/or decommissioning plan (DP), 

which would be required as part of Strata’s Permit to Mine and the Source and Byproduct 

Materials License (see the Draft License at NRC, 2014b). A seed mixture approved by 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)/Land Quality Division (LQD) and the 

landowners would be used. Seeding would be conducted by either drill or broadcast methods, 

as appropriate. Once vegetation has been re-established (and all byproduct material has been 

removed), the Project area would be released for unrestricted use and would no longer require 

a license from the NRC. Figure 4.1 indicates the land uses to be restored during the 

decommissioning phase of the Ross Project.

The land-use impacts resulting from the decommissioning of the Proposed Action would be 

SMALL and the site’s restoration would ameliorate all land-use impacts caused by earlier 

phases of the Proposed Action. 

4.2.2 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Ross Project would not be licensed and the land would 

continue to be available for other uses. Although the Applicant could conduct limited 

preconstruction activities, the 114 ha [282 ac] of land surface potentially disturbed during the 

Proposed Action would remain mostly undisturbed. No pipelines would be laid and no 

additional access roads would be constructed. The Applicant could continue with some 

preconstruction activities, such as abandonment of exploration drillholes and the collection of 

environmental-monitoring data, but these activities would have little land-use impact. 

The current land uses of natural-resource extraction and livestock grazing would continue with 

no access restrictions within the Ross Project area. Impacts to current land uses from the 

continued oil-production activities could also occur from accidental breaks or failures in 

equipment and infrastructure; however, these impacts would be no different than would occur 

whether or not the Proposed Action were to be licensed, constructed, or operated. There would 

be no impact from activities associated with construction and operation of the Proposed Action 

under the No-Action Alternative.

Under the No-Action Alternative, there would also be no impacts due to aquifer-restoration or 

decommissioning activities at the Ross Project area, because no wells would have been 

installed nor wellfields developed for uranium recovery. Thus, there would be no impact to the 

current land uses. There would be no impact to land use from decommissioning activities 

because the Ross Project would not have been licensed, constructed, or operated. No 

buildings would require decontamination and dismantling; no topsoil would need to be 

reclaimed; and no land would need to be revegetated. The land-use impacts of the No-Action 

Alternative would be SMALL.

4.2.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project

Under Alternative 3, the North Ross Project would generally be the same as the Proposed 

Action, except that the facility (i.e., the CPP, associated buildings, and auxiliary structures as 

well as the surface impoundments) would be located to the north of where it would be located in 

the Proposed Action, as described in SEIS Section 2.1.3. The facility at the north site would be 

located approximately 900 m [3,000 ft] northwest of that in the Proposed Action. Construction 

activities would still disturb an approximate total of 114 ha [282 ac] of land, which represents 16 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-7 

Figure 4.1

Ross Project Design Components to be Decommissioned 

and Land Uses to be Restored

PROPOSED ROSS PROJECT LICENSE BOUNDARY

Source: Strata, 2012a.

CROPLAND AND 

PASTURELAND
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-8 

percent of the total Ross Project area. The impacts from each activity would be approximately 

the same as those summarized in Table 4.1, except that construction of the surface 

impoundments at the north site could require additional engineering, while the containment 

barrier wall (CBW) would not need to be constructed.

For Alternative 3, the CPP would not be located in an area where dryland agriculture or 

pastureland grazing is conducted. Therefore, Alternative 3 would cause fewer impacts to these 

land uses if the CPP and surface impoundments were to be constructed at the north site. 

Nonetheless, there would be an increased loss of wildlife- and livestock-grazing opportunities 

during the construction and operation phases of Alternative 3, just as in the Proposed Action; 

these impacts would result from the construction of access roads and installation of wells, 

pipelines, and utilities. The total land area disturbed would be essentially the same 

(approximately 114 ha [282 ac]). During Alternative 3’s operation, aquifer restoration (of the 

ore-zone aquifer), and decommissioning, the impacts would be the same as those discussed 

earlier for the Proposed Action, because the area of land-use disturbance would generally be 

the same. Finally, because the impacts to land use would generally be the same in Alternatives 

1 and 3, the mitigation measures for Alternative 3 would be the same, as would be their 

effectiveness, as those described for Alternative 1. Based upon this analysis, the land-use 

impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would be SMALL. 

4.3 Transportation

The Proposed Action could impact transportation during all phases of the Project’s lifecycle. 

Transportation impacts would result from workers commuting to and from the Ross Project area; 

visitors, such as regulatory personnel, travelling to and from the Project; from shipments to the 

Ross Project area of supplies, materials, and chemicals used during the uranium-recovery and 

milling processes; from shipments of other materials including uranium-loaded (or “uraniumbearing” or “pregnant”) ion-exchange (IX) resin from future satellite areas within the Lance 

District (which are considered in SEIS Section 5.2) and/or other offsite ISR or waste-water 

treatment facilities (i.e., toll milling); and shipments of yellowcake and wastes from the Ross 

Project area to other, offsite facilities such as a uranium-conversion facility or licensed wastedisposal facilities. 

Transportation impacts could also include increased fugitive dust that would be released during 

the increased traffic, increased traffic accidents, increased noise, and increased incidental 

wildlife or livestock mortalities, compared to current area conditions. Fugitive-dust impacts are 

evaluated as air-quality impacts in SEIS Section 4.7; noise impacts are evaluated in SEIS 

Section 4.8; public and occupational health and safety impacts are assessed in SEIS Section

4.13; and wildlife and livestock mortalities are evaluated as potential ecological-resource

impacts in SEIS Section 4.6. Detailed discussion of the other potential environmental impacts 

from Project-related transportation to and from the Ross Project area during construction, 

operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning is provided in the sections below.

4.3.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, consists of four phases: construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning of a uranium-recovery facility and wellfields. During the 

Proposed Action, transportation impacts for all phases of the Ross Project would result from the 

increased traffic on roads compared to current (2010) levels. Figures 2.1 and 3.4 present the 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-9 

local roads (see Figure 2.1) and highways (see Figure 3.4) which service the Project area and 

its surrounding area. The respective traffic increases are summarized in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 

Estimated Number of Workers and Traffic Volumes for Ross Project

Project Phase

Average No.

Daily Workers

Traffic

Passenger Vehicles

per Day

Trucks 

per Day

Construction 200 400 24

Operation 60 120 16

Aquifer Restoration 20 40 12

Decommissioning and 

Site Restoration 90 180 10

Source: Strata, 2011a.

Note: Vehicle counts are to and from the Ross Project (two one-way trips per vehicle per day) and each assume 

that each worker would be in a separate passenger vehicle.

4.3.1.1 Ross Project Construction

As described in GEIS Section 4.4.2, the increase in daily traffic on most roads that would be 

used for construction-supply transport and workforce commutes would not be significant and, 

therefore, traffic-related impacts would be SMALL (NRC, 2009b). Roads with the lowest 

average annual daily traffic volumes, such as local County Roads (CRs), would have higher 

(i.e., MODERATE) potential impacts, particularly when the ISR facilities are experiencing peak 

employment (NRC, 2009b). The limited duration of construction activities (i.e., 12 – 18 months), 

suggests that impacts would be of short duration in many areas where such a facility would be 

sited. 

The highest traffic volumes resulting from the proposed Ross Project would occur during the 

construction phase of the Proposed Action because of the relatively large workforce (i.e., 200 

persons) and the frequent material and equipment shipments. The increased traffic is expected 

to be 400 passenger cars and 24 trucks per day, which, compared to 2010 levels, represents a 

traffic increase of approximately 400 percent on the New Haven Road south of the Ross Project 

area, which would be the workers’ primary route to the Project area (Strata, 2011a). This 

volume is higher than that assumed in the GEIS (NRC, 2009b). This significant increase in 

traffic could result in more traffic accidents as well as wear and tear on the road surfaces. It is 

expected that additional road-maintenance activities would be needed. Due to the increased 

projected traffic volumes on the local and county roads between Interstate (I)-90 and the Ross 

Project area, the construction impacts would be MODERATE to LARGE with respect to the 

traffic levels and the road-surface wear and tear on local and county roads. 

The increase in traffic on I-90 itself would be approximately 10 percent when compared to 2010 

volumes. This increase to traffic on the Interstate-highway system would be small, and such 

impacts would mostly be related to increased traffic volume. However, the Interstate-highway 

system has been built to accommodate additional capacity and, therefore, the resulting impacts, 

if any, would be minor. Thus, the impacts to the Interstate-highway system would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-10

As noted above, traffic impacts to local roads are expected to be greatest during the Proposed 

Action’s construction, and the Applicant identifies the following mitigation measures it would 

expect to undertake (Strata, 2011a):

■ Improve signage, including speed-limit signs, on D and New Haven Roads. 

■ Implement a policy to enforce speed limits for Strata employees and contractors. The 

Applicant and Crook County have already executed a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) that specifies the activities that Strata would undertake to assist with speed-limit 

controls, among other requirements (Strata, 2011d).

■ Perform a safety analysis of the CRs where increased traffic would occur. Potential 

enhancements could include a decreased truck speed on D and New Haven Roads or the 

assignment of “daytime headlight sections” to increase safety.

■ Perform routine assessments of road conditions. The MOU between the Applicant and 

Crook County also includes a maintenance agreement to address road-maintenance needs.

■ Explore a coalition with other companies operating heavy trucks on the CRs (e.g., the 

haulers of bentonite from the nearby mine) to provide additional assistance to Crook County 

for safety and maintenance needs.

■ Work with Crook County to upgrade some portions of the roads by adding gravel to 

specifically identified sections.

■ Evaluate the feasibility of an employee carpooling program, or a park-and-ride system, in 

Gillette or Moorcroft. Alternatives could also include a van-pool system.

These mitigation measures would substantially reduce the transportation impacts associated 

with the Proposed Action’s construction; with mitigation, the impacts of transportation, especially 

on local roads and CRs, would be SMALL to MODERATE.

4.3.1.2 Ross Project Operation

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.2, 

during the operation phase at an ISR 

facility, the facility-related traffic 

volume would be unlikely to 

generate any significant 

environmental impacts greater those 

expected during the construction 

phase. Dust, noise, and possible 

incidental wildlife- or livestockmortality impacts on or near a 

facility’s access roads could 

continue to occur. The GEIS 

concluded that the potential impacts 

from transportation during facility 

operation could range from SMALL 

to MODERATE (NRC, 2009b). 

0 

What are “best management practices”?

Best management practices (BMPs) are techniques, methods, 

processes, activities, or incentives that are effective at 

delivering a particular outcome. BMPs can also be defined as 

efficient and effective ways of meeting a given objective 

based upon repeatable procedures that have proven 

themselves over time. Well-designed BMPs combine existing 

managerial and scientific knowledge with knowledge about 

the resource being protected. The Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (WDEQ) defines best practicable 

technology as a “technology-based process determined by 

WDEQ as justifiable in terms of existing performance and 

achievability (in relation to health and safety) which 

minimizes, to the extent safe and practicable, disturbances 

and adverse impacts of the operation on human or animal life, 

fish, wildlife, plant life and related environmental values.” 

(WDEQ, 2007, as cited in NRC, 2009b). 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-11

The GEIS also assessed the potential for accidents and their consequences when the accidents 

involve the transportation of hazardous chemicals or radioactive materials. The GEIS 

recognized the potential for high consequences from a severe accident involving transportation 

of hazardous chemicals in a populated area. The GEIS stated that the probability of such 

accidents is low because of the small number of shipments, comprehensive regulatory controls, 

and the uranium-recovery facility operator’s use of BMPs. For byproduct and/or source 

materials shipments (for example, yellowcake product, uranium-loaded IX resin, or byproductmaterial-contaminated wastes), compliance with transportation regulations would be expected 

to limit radiological risk during normal ISR facility operations. The GEIS concluded there would 

be a low radiological risk in the unlikely event of an accident. Moreoever, the use of 

emergency-response protocols, which have been dessiminated to local emergency-response 

personnel, would help to mitigate the consequences of severe accidents that involve the release 

of any radioactive materials (NRC, 2009b). 

During the operation phase, increased traffic over that in 2010 would be present due to 

employee traffic; shipments of process chemicals, uranium-bearing IX resin, yellowcake, and 

vanadium; and shipments of solid and hazardous wastes and byproduct material to and from 

the CPP and/or wellfields. These shipments are included in the truck count in Table 4.2. 

Potential impacts to other resources could again occur during uranium-recovery operation, as 

discussed earlier. Impacts to local roads would be less significant during operation than during 

construction due to the lower traffic associated with facility and wellfield operation, although the 

traffic on these roads would still be double that in 2010 (Strata, 2011a). In total, the increase in 

anticipated traffic during the Ross Project’s operation phase is significant when compared to 

current levels, although there are low and manageable risks associated with yellowcake, 

process-chemical, and waste transportation. Consequently, the transportation impacts during 

the operation phase would be less significant than during construction and would nonetheless 

be SMALL (Interstate-highway system) to MODERATE to LARGE (local roads and CRs). 

However, the magnitude of these impacts would be mitigated by the same measures used 

during the construction phase. Thus, with mitigation, transportation impacts would be SMALL 

(Interstate-highway system) to SMALL to MODERATE (local roads and CRs). 

GEIS Section 4.2.2.2 evaluated the transportation of yellowcake from ISR facilities, and it 

assumed shipment volumes would range from 34 – 145 yellowcake shipments per year. The 

Applicant estimates that there would be 75 shipments of yellowcake per year from the Ross 

Project based upon the maximum annual production rate (i.e. including yellowcake produced 

from toll milling), which is within the range of the GEIS analysis (Strata, 2011a). The GEIS 

indicated that 145 yellowcake shipments per year from a single ISR facility could result in 0.04 

and 0.003 cancer deaths per year, depending upon the amount of yellowcake released during a 

transportation accident (NRC, 2009b). To minimize the risk of an accident involving yellowcake 

transport associated with the Proposed Action, the material would be transported in accordance 

with U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Wyoming Department of Transportation 

(WYDOT), and NRC regulations, and it would be managed as a “low-specific activity” (LSA) 

material and shipped on exclusive-use vehicles. Only properly licensed and trained drivers 

would transport LSA materials. Should a transportation accident occur, the NRC concluded that 

the consequences of such accidents would be limited because the Applicant would develop 

emergency-response protocols for yellowcake and other transportation accidents and share 

those with local first responders. Also, shipping companies would ensure their personnel 

receive proper emergency-response training. Emergency-response protocols would include 

communication equipment and emergency-spill cleanup kits on each vehicle and at the shipping 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-12

and receiving facilities (Strata, 2011a). Based upon this analysis, the impacts due to a potential 

accident involving the transportation of yellowcake during the operation phase of the proposed 

Ross Project would be SMALL. 

The Applicant estimates that approximately four bulk-chemical, fuel, and other supply and 

material deliveries would be made per day throughout the operation phase of the Ross Project

(Strata, 2011a). This number of shipments is greater than the daily number of chemical-supply 

shipments considered in GEIS Section 4.4.2, which were estimated to be approximately one per 

day; however, these shipments would be made in accordance with the applicable USDOT 

hazardous-materials-shipping requirements and spill-response protocols would be similar to 

those for yellowcake-shipments accidents. 

In addition, the Applicant conducted an analysis, using the injury rate of 4.3 x 10-7 per mile, to 

determine the risk of an injury to a member of the general public that could result from a 

transportation accident involving the shipment of anhydrous ammonia. The Applicant found that 

these shipments could result in 0.002 injuries per year. The NRC staff reviewed the Applicant’s 

analysis and verified that reasonable input parameters were used. Chemical shipments would 

be conducted safely and the probability of an accident involving these shipments would be 

small. As described in GEIS Sections 4.4.2.2 and 4.2.2.2, the likelihood of an incident in a 

populated area would be small, given the precautions that would be taken with hazardouschemical shipments. Therefore, the potential environmental impacts of accidents involving 

chemical transportation during Ross Project operations would be SMALL. 

The CPP is designed to process more yellowcake than is expected to be recovered at the 

proposed Ross Project (Strata, 2011a). The Applicant has proposed to accept uranium-loaded 

IX resin from other ISR operations as well as, potentially, those from offsite water-treatment 

facilities as noted in SEIS Section 2.1.1. The Applicant would expect to receive four shipments 

of resin per day. GEIS Section 4.2.2.2 concluded that the potential radiological impacts of IXresin shipments would be lower than the risks from yellowcake shipments based upon the less 

concentrated nature of the resin; the uranium being chemically bound to the resin, which would 

limit dispersion in the event of a spill; and the small transport distance relative to yellowcake 

shipments. Although the number of shipments proposed by the Applicant is higher than the one 

truck per day assumed in the GEIS, the other three factors evaluated in the GEIS would ensure 

that the probability of an accident that involves uranium-bearing IX resin would be small. 

Compliance with the applicable NRC and USDOT regulations for shipping IX resin would also 

reduce the risk of accidents involving these shipments. Therefore, the environmental impacts of 

accidents involving shipments of IX resin during Ross Project operations would be SMALL. 

The vanadium extracted by the Applicant in the CPP’s vanadium circuit is considered a 

hazardous material by USDOT and would be shipped in sealed transport vehicles to an offsite 

processing facility in accordance with USDOT regulations (see SEIS Section 2.1.1) (Strata, 

2011a). It is anticipated that there would be 45 shipments of vanadium from the Ross Project 

each year. Due to the low number of shipments, the probability of an accident involving 

vanadium shipments would also be small. Because of the less hazardous nature of vanadium 

as compared with yellowcake, the environmental impacts of accidents involving shipments of 

vanadium would be SMALL. 

The operation of the Ross Project would also generate waste byproduct material. Such wastes

would be shipped in 210-L [55-gal] drums inside sealed roll-off containers in accordance with 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-13

applicable USDOT regulations. Only five such waste shipments are anticipated during a year; 

given the infrequent nature of these shipments, they do not represent a significant impact to 

local traffic conditions or a significant increased risk of accidents. Thus, the impacts of the 

shipment of byproduct or source material to transportation would be SMALL. 

Other solid wastes would be transported to a local municipal landfill in Moorcroft, Sundance, 

and/or Gillette, Wyoming. The Applicant estimates that one trip per week would be required to 

remove solid waste from the Ross Project. This number would represent a SMALL impact to 

the local roads, both in terms of traffic volume and local-road maintenance. Finally, the 

Applicant anticipates that there would be one shipment of hazardous wastes from the Ross 

Project each month. The hazardous waste would include oil-contaminated soil, oily rags, used 

batteries, expired laboratory reagents, fluorescent light bulbs, spent solvents, and degreasers. 

Given the low number of shipments, this represents a SMALL impact to the local traffic and the 

local roads. All of these infrequent waste shipments would also have SMALL impacts in the 

case of an accident, due to the small waste volumes generated at the Ross Project.

To mitigate transportation impacts, many of the mitigation measures instituted during the Ross 

Project’s construction would continue during the operation phase. Additional mitigation 

measures would be implemented for the shipment of materials, such as yellowcake, uraniumloaded IX resin, and vanadium as well as solid and hazardous wastes, and byproduct and 

source materials. Two mitigation measures that would address all such shipments would be 1) 

the Applicant’s coordination with local emergency-response personnel and 2) the requirement 

that only appropriately licensed transporters would be used. The Applicant would develop a 

protocol, or a SOP, to provide ongoing training to local emergency-response personnel, 

including EMTs, firefighters, and municipal and county law-enforcement personnel. For each 

type of material, specific information would be provided about the physical and chemical 

characteristics of the substances being shipped, the related hazards, the potential exposure 

pathways, and appropriate spill-response, containment, and cleanup procedures. This training 

would be ongoing and would include updates on a routine schedule or as new substances are 

transported to or from the Ross Project. All shipments would be made by appropriately licensed 

transporters in accordance with USDOT and WYDOT hazardous-material regulations and 

requirements. 

The release of a radioactive material as a result of a transportation-related incident would 

prompt the activities described in USDOT’s hazardous-materials regulations at 49 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 171, Subpart B, “Incident Reporting [and] Notification.” Among 

other activities, these regulations require immediate notice of certain incidents, preparation of 

detailed incident reports, submission of examination reports, and assistance with investigations 

and special studies. Should an accident occur that results in a release of any yellowcake or

other source or byproduct material to the environment, the Applicant would perform a postcleanup radiological survey of the affected area to ensure that there are no long-term hazards 

associated with the released radioactive material or with spill-response and cleanup activities.

4.3.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.2, the potential transportation impacts during aquifer 

restoration would be equal to or less than the potential impacts during the ISR facility operation 

phase (NRC, 2009b). At the Ross Project, the number of uranium-recovery workers, and 

therefore the number of personal vehicles, would decline significantly during aquifer restoration 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-14

from the construction and operation phases (from 200 to 60 to 20 workers). Thus, the potential 

transportation impacts discussed above for the Ross Project’s construction and operation 

phases would be reduced due to the anticipated smaller traffic volume during this phase of the 

Project.

Yellowcake, vanadium, and uranium-loaded IX-resin shipments could remain the same if the 

CPP continues to process uranium-bearing IX resin during Ross Project wellfields’ aquifer 

restoration. The shipments of process chemicals would similarly depend upon whether the CPP 

would continue to process uranium-loaded resin after the Ross Project wellfields are no longer 

engaged in uranium recovery. Should the CPP continue to process pregnant IX resin, there 

would not be a reduction in worker commuting as discussed above. 

The impacts to local roads and CRs during the aquifer-restoration phase would be SMALL to 

MODERATE due to the lesser workforce of 20 rather than the 60 workers during the operation 

phase. Mitigation measures implemented during aquifer restoration at the Ross Project would 

be identical to those implemented during its construction and operation phases, yet the impacts 

would continue to be SMALL to MODERATE for local roads and SMALL for the Interstatehighway system. 

4.3.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning

During ISR facility decommissioning, the GEIS concluded that transportation impacts as a result 

of worker commutes would steadily decrease, but initially there would be a large increase in 

decommissioning-phase workers. GEIS Section 4.4.2 also concluded that, based upon the 

concentrated nature of yellowcake when shipped, the longer distance of the yellowcake 

shipments when compared to waste shipments, and the number of shipments when compared 

to byproduct-material waste shipments, the potential radiological risks from transportation 

accidents involving byproduct waste shipments during decommissioning would be bounded by 

the yellowcake transportation risks during operations. Overall, according to GEIS Section 4.4.2, 

transportation impacts would be SMALL (NRC, 2009b). 

During the decommissioning phase of the Ross Project, the Applicant expects that the 

workforce would initially increase to approximately 90 workers (up from 20 workers during 

aquifer restoration). Traffic on the local roads would thus increase over that of the aquiferrestoration phase, but it would still be less than half of that expected during the Proposed 

Action’s construction phase. Fuel shipments would increase due to the operation of heavy 

equipment during decommissioning activities. Little or no yellowcake or vanadium would be 

shipped during the decommissioning phase; however, Project decommissioning would result in 

an increase in shipments of solid waste or waste source and byproduct materials. The 

Applicant estimates that the frequency of waste, byproduct-material, or source-material 

shipments would increase from the approximately 5 per year during the operation and aquiferrestoration phases, to between 100 – 200 shipments per year during the decommissioning 

phase (Strata, 2011a). These shipments would still be relatively infrequent compared to 

passenger vehicular traffic, and they would have only a small impact on traffic volume. Solidwaste shipments are expected to increase from approximately one per week during operation 

and aquifer restoration to about two per week during decommissioning. Hazardous-waste 

shipments are expected to remain unchanged at approximately one per month throughout all 

four Ross Project phases. 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-15

As anticipated in the GEIS, the potential radiological risks associated with transportation 

accidents involving waste-byproduct-material shipments during the decommissioning phase at 

the Proposed Action would be bounded by the risks associated with the transportation of

yellowcake during the operation phase. The GEIS assumed that the distance between the 

yellowcake-conversion facility and a ISR facility would be greater than the distance between the 

waste-disposal facility and the proposed facility. Consistent with the GEIS, the distance from 

the Ross Project area to the uranium-hexaflouride (UF6) conversion facility in Metropolis, Illinois, 

that would potentially accept the yellowcake is 2,030 km [1,260 mi], whereas waste byproduct

material would travel between 378 km [235 mi] to 1,600 km [1,000 mi] to a disposal facility. The 

GEIS also assumed that there would be up to 145 yellowcake shipments per year and a total of 

300 byproduct-material shipments during decommissioning (based upon 4,593 m3 [6,008 yd3

] of 

waste byproduct-material generated during decommissioning and each shipment containing 15 

m3 [20 yd3

] of byproduct material), which would result in more yellowcake shipments than 

byproduct material shipments overall. The Applicant estimates that there would be 75 

shipments of yellowcake per year during operations and 3,800 m3 [5,000 yd3

] of waste 

byproduct-material generated during decommissioning (250 total shipments of waste byproductmaterial during decommissioning), which would also result in more yellowcake shipments than 

waste byproduct-material shipments overall. 

Potential transportation impacts would be less during decommissioning than those occurring 

during construction; however, they would be still be MODERATE to LARGE on local roads and 

CRs due to the increased workforce required for decommissioning (approximately 90 workers). 

To the Interstate-highway system, the impacts during the decommissioning phase would be 

SMALL. Mitigation measures implemented during the Proposed Action’s decommissioning 

would be identical to those that would be implemented during all of the other phases of the Ross 

Project. Therefore, the impacts of transportation on local roads and CRs, would be SMALL to 

MODERATE. 

4.3.2 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Ross Project would not be licensed. However, traffic 

volumes and patterns would likely increase from those measured in 2010, as discussed in SEIS 

Section 3.3, because additional residences could be expected to be built near the Ross Project 

over time. The Applicant has projected that volumes would increase approximately 2 percent 

per year, even without the Ross Project’s construction and operation (Strata, 2011a). There 

would be no transportation of materials of any kind to or from the Ross Project to support 

uranium-recovery operations. There would be no transportation of either radioactive or solid 

wastes from the Proposed Action because the Ross Project would neither be licensed nor 

constructed and operated. The current transportation activities to support ongoing oil 

production and bentonite mining would be the same. In addition, the Applicant could continue 

with some preconstruction activities, such as abandonment of exploration drillholes and 

collection of environmental-monitoring data. These activities are similar to those currently 

occurring at the Ross Project area, and, although short-term increases in activity could occur, 

these impacts would be SMALL. 

4.3.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project

Under Alternative 3, the North Ross Project would generally look the same as the Proposed 

Action, except that the facility (i.e., the CPP, associated buildings, and auxiliary structures as 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-16

well as the surface impoundments) would be located to the north of where it would be located in 

the Proposed Action, as described in SEIS Section 2.1.3. This change in facility location would 

cause a change in the impacts to local roads as compared to current conditions, because 

additional roads would be used that would not be used during the Proposed Action at the south 

site—most notably, the Oshoto Connection and the D Road north of the D Road/New Haven 

Road intersection (see Figure 2.1 in SEIS Section 2.1). There would likely be less localized 

impact to the New Haven Road, as it is anticipated that the majority of the traffic from the 

Proposed Action would access the Ross Project area by travelling along D Road to the Oshoto 

Connection (Strata, 2011a). Although this change would minimize impacts to the New Haven 

Road, it would nevertheless cause a corresponding increase in impacts to the D Road and the 

Oshoto Connection as both roads are similarly constructed and maintained. Since the total 

traffic counts would remain the same during all phases of Alternative 3 as those for the 

Proposed Action, the transportation impacts would be the same as those described earlier for 

Alternative 1, SMALL (Interstate-highway system) to MODERATE to LARGE (local roads and 

CRs). As the same mitigation measures discussed for the Proposed Action would be employed 

for Alternative 3, the resulting transportation impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.

4.4 Geology and Soils

4.4.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, consists of four phases: construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning of a uranium-recovery facility and wellfields.

4.4.1.1 Ross Project Construction 

As described in GEIS Section 4.3.3 and 4.4.3, the principal impacts to geology and soil during 

construction would result from disturbance of soil and surficial bedrock by construction activities

(NRC, 2009b). These activities include the Applicant’s clearing ground or topsoil, eliminating 

the vegetation that is present; cutting, filling, and grading the ground surface, preparing it for the 

construction of the CPP, surface impoundments, access roads, utility corridors, and wellfields; 

excavating and backfilling trenches for pipelines and other subsurface design components; and 

excavating the mud pits, CBW, and flood-control diversion channel (NRC, 2009b; Strata, 

2011a). As the GEIS noted, the impacts on geology and soils from construction activities 

depend upon local topography, surface bedrock geology (i.e., the rock immediately below the 

soil), and soil characteristics. The GEIS concluded that, with the implementation of appropriate 

BMPs, the impacts on geology and soils would be SMALL, if less than 15 percent of an ISR 

project’s area would be affected. As described earlier in SEIS Section 4.2, approximately 114 

ha [282 ac] of land, or about 16 percent of the Ross Project area, would be disturbed during the 

lifecycle of the Project (Strata, 2011b). This area is slightly larger than that identified in the 

GEIS; thus, a site-specific analysis is provided here.

Geology

Construction activities are not expected to encounter bedrock, except for localized impacts to 

the surficial bedrock by construction of the CBW. The wall would be a 0.6-m- [2-ft] wide barrier 

of a soil-bentonite mixture extending from the surface to at least 0.6 m- [2 ft-] into bedrock. The 

impacts of the CBW’s construction would be SMALL, due to the relatively small and localized 

effects on the bedrock below it. 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-17

The impacts from the Applicant’s drilling and developing injection, recovery, and monitoring 

wells as well as installing the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class I deep-injection wells 

are discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.

Soils

The impacts on soils would occur largely during the construction phase of the Proposed Action, 

when most of the ground disturbance takes place. Potential soils impacts include soils loss (by 

wind and water erosion), soils compaction, increased salinity, soils-productivity loss, and soils 

contamination. Surface-disturbing activities would expose the soils and subsoils at the Ross 

Project area and would temporarily increase the potential for soil loss because of wind and 

water erosion. As described in SEIS Section 3.4.2, the soils in the Ross Project area have a 

moderate to severe potential to be affected by wind erosion. One soil type, Vona fine sandy 

loam—which makes up less than 3 percent of the entire Ross Project area—has a severe 

potential for wind erosion. Water-erosion hazards range from negligible to moderate for the soil 

types found within the Ross Project area. 

Soils at the Ross Project also have the potential to become compacted, particularly during 

construction activities where heavy equipment is being operated. Soil compaction could result 

in a decrease in water infiltration, thereby increasing runoff. To decrease the potential for 

compaction, existing roads would be used where possible; secondary access-road widths would 

be minimized, and a one-way-in/one-way-out policy would be implemented by the Applicant to 

access wellfields. Compacted soils would be further addressed in the DP or RAP that the 

Applicant would be required to submit to the NRC (Strata, 2011a). 

During preconstruction activities, the Applicant has been employing various methods of soil 

reclamation, according to landowner preference. These methods have included Strata’s 

“ripping” compacted soil with the teeth of a grader, loosening compacted soil with a disk, or 

simply replacing topsoil and reseeding. These techniques would continue to be refined and 

coordinated with WDEQ/LQD and the respective landowners during the Proposed Action. 

Saline soils are very susceptible to soil loss. Saline soils were not found on the Ross Project 

during the Applicant’s soil surveys. However, the use of magnesium chloride for dust control 

could increase the salinity of the local soils (Strata, 2011a). If magnesium chloride were to be 

used on access roads for fugitive-dust control or if a salt and sand mixture were to be used for 

traction on primary access roads during the winter, the Applicant would sample the soils 

beneath and adjacent to access roads for salinity during the Proposed Action’s 

decommissioning phase. Any salt-impacted soils would be removed at that time.

Loss of topsoil and disturbance of soils could affect the soils’ structure and microbial activity. In 

turn, these changes could reduce soil productivity. Based upon the total anticipated disturbance 

area of 114 ha [282 ac] and the average topsoil depth of 0.53 m [1.7 ft], the volume of topsoil 

stockpiled during the life of the Proposed Action is estimated to be up to approximately 600,000 

m3 [800,000 yd3

] (Strata, 2011b). This estimate could be conservatively high because most of 

the wellfields and access roads would be located outside of the 100-year floodplain at the Ross 

Project area, where topsoil would be thinner than average. The thickness of topsoil removed 

from unconstructed, two-track access roads, including tertiary access roads and temporary 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-18

access roads, would generally be less than the average topsoil depth. Much of the topsoil 

removed for pipeline and utility-corridor trenching would be replaced promptly and not 

stockpiled. 

To mitigate the potential loss of top soil as well as soil productivity, topsoils would be salvaged 

and stockpiled for wellfield-decommissioning and site-restoration activities. Sequential wellfield 

decommissioning is anticipated by the Applicant; once a wellfield is depleted, it would be 

decommissioned and the field’s wells properly abandoned. This decommissioning would occur 

as each wellfield is taken out of service; it would not be delayed until the end of the entire Ross 

Project’s lifecycle. 

The Applicant proposes to locate a relatively large topsoil stockpile near the CPP (see Figure 

2.5 in SEIS Section 2.1.1) (Strata, 2011a). Any topsoil that is stripped before the construction of 

roads would be stockpiled throughout the wellfields in piles, typically spaced approximately 600 

m [2,000 ft] apart along access roads to minimize the soil compaction, fugitive dust, combustion 

gases, and noise associated with long topsoil hauls. 

Related mitigation measures designed to minimize soil loss, and to diminish fugitive dust (see 

SEIS Section 4.7.1.1) would include the Applicant: 1) constructing topsoil stockpiles on the 

leeward side of hills, where possible; 2) constructing topsoil stockpiles away from ephemeralstream channels or any other flood-prone areas; 3) avoiding construction within areas 

susceptible to flooding; 4) minimizing the disturbance of surface-water drainages (i.e., roads and 

pipelines would cross drainages perpendicular to the flow direction [as described in SEIS 

Section 3.4.2]); 5) wetting exposed soils during construction to minimize soil loss from wind 

erosion; 6) employing sediment-control BMPs, such as silt fences, sediment logs, and strawbale check dams in all disturbed areas; 7) implementing additional sediment-control BMPs for 

topsoil stockpiles, including seeding and installing a perimeter ditch and water-collection sump 

to trap storm water and sediment; and 8) restoring and reseeding disturbed areas as quickly as 

possible, typically within a single construction season (Strata, 2011a; WDEQ/LQD, 2005). Many 

of these BMPs are consistent with those identified by the NRC in the GEIS in Section 7.4 and 

are commonly used at other ISR facilities (Strata, 2011a; NRC, 2009b).

To minimize soil-productivity impacts, the Applicant would use corresponding BMPs including 

several of the mitigation measures identified above to prevent soil loss. These BMPs include 

the Applicant 1) protecting topsoil stockpiles from wind and water erosion; 2) seeding topsoil 

stockpiles during inactive periods with an appropriate perennial seed mix; 3) redistributing 

topsoil and applying a permanent seed mixture approved by WDEQ/LQD during the Proposed 

Action’s decommissioning phase; and 4) using information gathered from reference areas over 

the long term to perform statistical, quantitative, and qualitative comparisons approved by 

WDEQ/LQD.

Although the subsurface would be exposed during the Applicant’s excavation of mud pits and 

pipeline trenches, the primary area of subsoil disturbance would be where the CPP and surface 

impoundments are to be constructed. The subsoils there would be disturbed by the cut, fill, and 

grading activities necessary to create a relatively level site and by the excavations for the 

surface impoundments, CBW, and flood-control diversion channel. The quantity of excess 

subsoils generated from construction of the CPP and surface-impoundment area is estimated to 

be approximately 60,000 m3 [80,000 yd3

]. This material could be used to provide a slightly 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-19

elevated and relatively level primary access road, or it could be stored in a subsoil stockpile 

separate from the topsoil stockpiles. 

During the Proposed Action’s construction, additional potential soil impacts could occur from the 

introduction of drilling fluids and muds to the soils near the recovery, injection, and monitoring 

wells. However, the volume of these drilling fluids would be small, and these fluids and muds 

would be contained within the mud pits excavated near each drillhole’s drilling pad. Other 

potential soil impacts could also occur from spills and leaks of fuel or lubricants from heavyconstruction equipment and passenger vehicles that would be operated during construction of 

the Ross Project. However, such spills and leaks would be contained and cleaned up 

immediately if they were to occur. Oil- or lubricant-contaminated soil would be disposed offsite 

in an appropriately permitted facility. 

During construction, up to five Class I deep-injection wells would be installed in aquifers 

approximately 2,669 m [8,755 ft] below ground surface (bgs). These wells would be used for 

the disposal of process solutions. The Applicant’s drilling of these wells and their completion 

and testing would be governed by the UIC Class I Permit from WDEQ (WDEQ/WQD, 2011b). 

Thus, the surface and subsurface area disturbed by these particular wells would be very limited. 

Therefore, the potential impacts of the Proposed Action’s construction to soils would be SMALL.

4.4.1.2 Ross Project Operation 

As described in GEIS Section 4.4.3, the potential impacts to geology and soils during the 

operation of an ISR facility could include: 1) soil loss due to surface-water runoff and erosion; 2) 

soil compaction as described above; 3) increased soil salinity due to the use of magnesium 

chloride for dust control; 4) soil contamination caused by spills and leaks of lixiviant, as the 

solution moves through pipelines between the wellfields and the CPP; 5) transportation 

accidents, which could involve liquids, as well as other accidental spills and leaks associated 

with waste management; 6) changes to the uranium-bearing formations as a result of uraniumrecovery activities; and 7) changes to the deep aquifers from the disposal of brine and other 

liquid byproduct material in the UIC Class I deep-injection wells. The GEIS concluded that the 

impacts on geology and soils from an ISR operation would be SMALL (NRC, 2009b). 

Geology

During uranium-recovery operation, the lixiviant dissolves the uranium-mineral coatings on the 

sandstones in the targeted ore zone; this geochemical change in the rock would result in 

mineralogical changes to the ore zone, but it would not affect the rock matrix nor rock structure. 

The thickness and depth of the ore zone at the Ross Project are similar to the ore zones 

evaluated in the GEIS (NRC, 2009b). The GEIS concluded that it is unlikely that geochemical 

alteration of the ore zone would result in any compression or subsidence that would be 

translated to the ground surface.

Based upon historical uranium-recovery operations in the NSDWUMR and WEUMR, 

reactivation of geologic faults would not be anticipated (NRC, 2009b; Strata, 2011b). As 

established in SEIS Section 3.4.4, earthquake activity in the area of the Ross Project is very 

low. Potential impacts associated with increased earthquake risk because of the operation of 

UIC Class I injection wells would be avoided by Applicant’s maintaining the injection pressure at 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-20

a level that does not exceed the fracture pressure of the receiving rock formation, as specified in 

the WDEQ/Water Quality Division (WQD) permit. See SEIS Section 2.1 for a related discussion 

of how in situ uranium recovery is different than hydrofracking and poses no risk of triggering 

earthquakes.

The potential impacts from the operation of the Proposed Action to Ross Project site geology 

would be SMALL.

Soils

During the operation of the Proposed Action, potential impacts from soil loss would be 

minimized by proper design and operation of surface-runoff features and implementation of 

BMPs, as described for those during construction. Soil compaction would be minimal during the 

Proposed Action’s operation, due to low density of roads across the Ross Project area. 

Mitigation measures to minimize soil compaction and to diminish increases in soils salinity 

would be the same as those identified for the construction phase of the Proposed Action. The 

probability of a transportation accident that releases yellowcake or IX resin has been 

determined by NRC to be small (NRC, 2009b); however, the magnitude of the impacts of this 

type of accident is described in SEIS Section 4.3.1.2. 

In the event of releases of process solutions from pipelines, module buildings, process vessels, 

or surface impoundments, the process-control system described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.2 would 

quickly alert an operator, who could then take action including a full shutdown of the leaking 

components as well as initiating immediate containment and cleanup. As noted in GEIS Section 

4.4.3.2, during 1996, the operator of the Crow Butte Uranium Project in Dawes County, 

Nebraska, logged 27 spill incidents of process solutions, with volumes ranging from 45 – 65,507

L [12 – 17,305 gal] (NRC, 2009b). This potential for soil contamination at the Ross Project 

would be minimized by the Applicant: 1) adhering to the NRC and WDEQ design criteria for 

uranium-recovery facilities; 2) designing successful spill-containment and leak-detection 

systems; 3) training employees on monitoring process parameters and recognizing potential 

upset conditions before spills or leaks occur; 4) training employees on inspection SOPs, spillcontrol BMPs, and a storm-water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP); 5) frequently inspecting 

waste-management systems and effluent-control systems; and 6) training all employees on spill 

detection, containment, and cleanup procedures (Strata, 2011a). Additional information on the 

excursion-monitoring and spill-detection systems incorporated into the design of the Ross 

Project is presented in SEIS Section 2.1.1. 

The design criteria for the Proposed Action include leak-detection capability in each wellfield 

module building, where an alarm inside the CPP would signal the on-duty operator that a spill 

has occurred (the CPP would be staffed 24 hours a day). In addition, routine, weekly 

inspections of wellfield module buildings and wellheads would be conducted by Strata 

personnel. Such inspections would ensure that all pipelines and equipment, wellheads, and 

valve manholes are visually inspected (Strata, 2011b). Other wellfield leak-detection monitoring 

and control measures would include the continuous measurement of flows and pressures for 

injection and recovery trunk lines and feeder lines as well as the presence of leak-detection 

sensors in valve manholes and in the protective box around each wellhead. In addition, all 

pipelines would have been hydrostatically tested during construction, and the Applicant would 

institute weekly inspections to document leaks and other abnormalities (Strata, 2011b; NRC, 

2014b).
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-21

To minimize the potential for subsurface pipeline leaks, the WDEQ/WQD requirements for 

potable-water stream crossings would be incorporated into the design and construction of all 

pipeline stream crossings. These requirements include the Applicant: 1) providing a minimum 

of 0.6 m [2 ft] of soil cover (at the Ross Project, 1.2 – 1.8 m [4 – 6 ft] would typically be used) 

over the respective pipelines to guard against damage from livestock and to protect them from 

freezing; 2) using pipes with flexible, watertight joints, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or highdensity polyethylene (HDPE); and 3) installing accessible isolation valves at both ends of water 

crossings so that the section could be isolated for testing or repair. 

Two levels of engineering controls would also minimize potential impacts to soils from the 

unintended release of process solutions within the CPP itself. The first level of protection is the 

primary containment accomplished by pipelines, vessels, and surface impoundments, all of 

which would be tested for leaks during construction. The second level of protection is the 

secondary containment that is provided by curbs, berms, and sumps for all chemical-storage 

tanks, process vessels, and all pipelines and equipment inside the CPP building (Strata, 2011a). 

The design and operation of the surface impoundments would also minimize the likelihood of 

liquid releases. The surface impoundments would include a double-liner and leak-detection 

system, and they would be operated so as to maintain sufficient reserve capacity to permit the 

Applicant to transfer the contents of a surface-impoundment cell to another in the event of a 

leak, in order to facilitate repair or replacement. To minimize the likelihood of releases, 

impoundment embankments and the leak detection system would be monitored and inspected 

daily by the Applicant (Strata, 2011a; NRC, 2014b).

Further, to minimize the potential impacts of soil contamination, such as short-term, elevated 

concentrations of radiological parameters and other associated chemical constituents above 

pre-licensing, site-characterization levels, the Applicant would be required to establish SOPs for 

immediate spill detection, response, containment, and cleanup protocols (NRC, 2009b; NRC, 

2014b). For example, immediate spill responses could include the Applicant’s shutting down 

the leaking pipeline, recovering as much of the spilled fluid as possible, and collecting samples 

of the impacted soils for comparison of constituent-concentration values (e.g., uranium, radium, 

and other indicators) to pre-licensing, site-characterization levels. Soils contaminated by spills 

or leaks would be removed in accordance with Criteria 6(6) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, 

which requires that soil concentrations not exceed those concentrations by more than 0.2 Bq/g 

[5 pCi/g] of radium-226, averaged over the first 15 cm [5.9 in] below the ground’s surface. 

Analytical tests would be required to demonstrate that no such residual contamination exists. 

Respective concentrations have been established by the Applicant through its pre-licensing, 

site-characterization monitoring program (see SEIS Section 3.12.1), and additional 

determination of values would be established by a “post-licensing, pre-operational” 

environmental-monitoring program prior to major Ross Project construction and operation. Soils 

contaminated by spills or leaks would be properly disposed of at an offsite properly licensed and 

permitted disposal facility (Strata, 2011a). 

The NRC’s monitoring requirements specify that licensees must maintain documentation of 

spills of source or byproduct material and report designated types and volumes spills to the 

NRC within 24 hours (NRC, 2009b; NRC, 2014b, License Condition No. 11.6). These spills 

include those that cause unplanned contamination that meets the criteria at 10 CFR Part 40.60 

as well as those spills that could cause public or occupational exposures that exceed the limits 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-22

established in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart M (see SEIS Section 4.13). All of these spill-response

protocols would be implemented if other liquid byproduct material, chemicals, or wastes were to 

be spilled, or if solid radiologically and/or chemically contaminated materials or wastes were to 

be dispersed.

Potential impacts to the soils at the Ross Project would be mitigated by the Applicant’s 

implementation of BMPs and other spill-related procedures, plans, and programs that will be

required in its Source and Byproduct Materials License. As noted above, all contaminated soils 

would be removed and disposed of according to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix 

A. These mitigation measures would substantially minimize the impacts to the soils and 

sediments of the Ross Project area; these impacts would be SMALL.

4.4.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration 

As described in GEIS Section 4.4.3.3, aquifer restoration would not result in the removal of the

rock matrix or the structure of the ore zone, and therefore no significant matrix compression or 

ground subsidence would be expected to occur. With respect to soils, the potential for 

accidental spills and leaks would be similar, but less than those described for the operation 

phase. Lixiviant would not be used during aquifer restoration so there would not be potential 

impacts to geology from dissolution of uranium and other constituents from the ore zone. As the 

quality of ground water from the exempted aquifer improves during restoration, the potential 

impacts of process-solution spills or leaks from pipes and pumps would decrease compared to 

potential impacts during operations. GEIS Section 4.4.3.3 determined that the potential impacts 

to geology and soils would be SMALL.

The potential impacts to Ross Project geology and soils associated with aquifer restoration at 

the Ross Project would be similar, but less, than those associated with its operation. The 

relative magnitude of impacts would be less because the concentrations of radionuclides, 

metals, and total dissolved solids (TDS) in the water moving through the pipes, pipelines, and 

injection and recovery wells would be lower during aquifer restoration than during uraniumrecovery operation. Also, there would less transport of uranium-bearing solutions and fewer 

shipments of yellowcake and vanadium; thus, less potential for spills and leaks than during 

operation. As previously described for the operation phase of the Ross Project, impacts to soils 

resulting from spills would be measured by the concentrations of radionuclides and other 

chemical constituents above pre-licensing, site-characterizations levels, but these elevated 

concentrations would be eliminated upon spill cleanup. Thus, the potential impacts of the 

Proposed Action’s aquifer restoration to geology and soils would be SMALL.

4.4.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning 

GEIS Section 4.4.3.3 described the activities associated with the decommissioning of an ISR 

facility, including decontamination of surfaces, dismantling of process components and 

associated structures, demolishing buildings and other structures, removal of buried pipelines, 

and plugging and abandonment of wells and wellfield components (NRC, 2009b). The GEIS 

determined that most of the impacts to geology and soils during the decommissioning phase 

would be short-term and SMALL. In fact, because the goal of decommissioning and site 

restoration is to restore, to the extent practical, the environment to preconstruction conditions 

through activities such as redistributing, seeding, and contouring soil that would have been 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-23

stockpiled during the earlier phases of the Ross Project, the overall long-term impacts to 

geology and soils would be SMALL (NRC, 2009b). 

Geology

The potential impacts to the geology of the ore zone at the Proposed Action would depend upon 

the density of plugged and abandoned drillholes and wells. At the end of the life of the Ross 

Project, the wellfields (whether recently operated or decommissioned some time ago) would 

contain approximately 3,000 drillholes and wells; these would include those drillholes from 

Strata’s ore-zone delineation efforts and geotechnical investigations, ground-water monitoring 

wells used for site characterization, the injection and recovery wells from uranium-recovery 

activities, and Nubeth Joint Venture (Nubeth) drillholes and wells. Although the wells would not 

be evenly distributed across the Project area, the number of wells and drillholes would represent 

an average density of approximately 4.3 wells/ha [1.7 wells/ac]. All of these drillholes and wells 

constructed by the Applicant and the Nubeth holes that are located would be properly 

abandoned with cement or a similar material. As discussed in Section 2.1.1.1 of this SEIS, 

Condition No. 10.12 of the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License would require the 

Applicant to attempt to locate and abandon all historic drill located within the ring of perimetermonitoring wells around each wellfield (NRC, 2014b). Each drillhole and well would be required 

to be filled with a cement slurry or bentonite grout up to 15 cm [6 in] in diameter, through the 

entire depth of the drillhole or well (WDEQ/LQD, 2005). The density of this concrete or 

bentonite is not great enough to alter the geology of the ore zone nor the surrounding 

stratigraphy. As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1, well-abandonment records would be 

maintained onsite at the Ross Project until termination of its Source and Byproduct Materials 

License. The impacts to ground water from improperly abandoned drillholes and wells are 

discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.

The surficial bedrock would be affected locally by the actions necessary to breach the CBW to 

re-establish aquifer flow. The potential impacts from these relatively small and local effects on 

bedrock beneath the CBW would be SMALL as would all impacts related to geology.

Soils

The potential impacts to Ross Project area soils during the decommissioning of the Proposed 

Action would result from activities associated with land reclamation and site restoration, 

including the excavation and cleanup of contaminated soils. These decommissioning impacts 

would be similar to those resulting from construction of the Proposed Action. The BMPs, SOPs, 

and other mitigation measures described earlier for the construction and operation phases 

would continue to be implemented. Thus, the potential impacts from decommissioning activities 

to the local soils would be SMALL.

4.4.2 Alternative 2: No Action 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Ross Project would not be licensed and the land would 

continue to be available for other uses. However, until that decision is made by the NRC, the 

impacts of soils compaction and soils loss by heavy equipment and vehicular traffic across the 

Ross Project area could occur during the Applicant’s continuing conduct of: 1) different types of 

surveys (e.g., continued ecological surveys); 2) boring of exploration and geotechnical drillholes; 

3) drilling and monitoring of all types of ground-water wells; 4) locating and abandoning Nubeth 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-24

drillholes and wells; and 5) installing and observing surface-water and meteorological monitoring 

stations. 

As of August 2011, the Applicant had drilled and then plugged approximately 612 holes it 

installed during site characterization, geotechnical investigation, and ore-zone delineation; an 

additional 51 were also drilled and are now used as pre-licensing, site-characterization groundwater monitoring wells. The Applicant has also located and properly abandoned 55 Nubeth 

wells. Under the No-Action Alternative, the 51 drillholes would need to be responsibly 

abandoned by the Applicant, plugging the full depth of the drillhole or well with concrete. 

However, the potential impacts of all of these preconstruction and current activities would be 

short-term, and the related traffic over the Ross Site area would be low density and minimal. 

Thus, neither the geology nor the soils would sustain significant impacts; the impacts to the 

geology and soils as a result of Alternative 2 would be SMALL.

4.4.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project

Under Alternative 3, the North Ross Project would generally be the same as the Proposed 

Action, except that the facility (i.e., the CPP, associated buildings, and auxiliary structures as 

well as the surface impoundments) would be located to the north of where it would be located in 

the Proposed Action, as described in SEIS Section 2.1.3. The geology and soils at the north 

site are similar, but there are a few important differences. The most important difference is that 

the north site slopes to the southeast at a grade of 5 – 15 percent, where the slope at the 

Proposed Action’s facility location, the south site, has a significant percentage of ground surface 

with less than 1 percent slope. Given that the cells in the surface impoundments have 

approximate dimensions of 76 m x 165 m [250 ft x 540 ft], significant additional grading would 

be necessary to construct the surface impoundments at the north site as compared to the south 

site’s location. Also, given that the use of above-grade embankments (to minimize the volume 

of release during a catastrophic failure) should be minimized from engineering and environmentprotection points of view, then the maximum depth of excavation to create each impoundment at 

the north site would be on the order of 4 – 12 m [13 – 40 ft], with an impoundment depth of 4.6 

m [15 ft] and slopes of 5 – 15 percent. It is estimated that the north site would require the 

grading of an additional 0.4 – 1.2 ha [1 – 3 ac] to accommodate the sloping site. 

The additional construction effort associated with these deeper cuts and larger disturbed areas 

would result in greater soils impacts than those resulting from Alternative 1, the Proposed 

Action. In addition, these deep cuts would likely encounter bedrock within 1.5 – 7.6 m [5 – 25 

ft], increasing the cost and complexity of the construction activities. Embankments could reduce 

the depths of the excavations, but they would increase the volume of a potential release of 

process solutions and other liquid byproduct wastes if a catastrophic release were to occur.

Another important difference between Alternative 3 and the Proposed Action is that the north 

site is not underlain by shallow ground water and, thus, a CBW would not be required. As a 

result, the soils loss and soils compaction associated with construction of the CBW at the south 

site would not occur under Alternative 3. 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-25

The potential impacts to geology and soils from construction of Alternative 3 would be SMALL 

and similar to the Proposed Action. In addition, the potential impacts to geology and soils from 

the operation and aquifer restoration of Alternative 3 would be the same as those of the 

Proposed Action and would be SMALL. 

Alternative 3 would also result in similar impacts to the geology and soils of the Ross Project 

area during the Proposed Action’s decommissioning, except for activities associated with the 

decommissioning of the surface impoundments. The larger surface impoundments would 

require larger areas of recontouring and revegetation during site restoration, which would result 

in a marginally greater potential for the soils loss and soils compaction. However, the impacts 

to the surficial geology and soils as a result of the Applicant’s cutting through the CBW to reestablish aquifer flow in the Proposed Action would be eliminated. In total, the potential impacts 

to geology and soils during the decommissioning of Alternative 3 would be SMALL.

4.5 Water Resources

The Proposed Action could impact water resources, both surface and ground waters, during all 

phases of the Project’s lifecycle. As discussed in Section 3.2.4, surface and ground waters in 

the Ross Project area are currently used for livestock and wildlife watering, crop irrigation, and 

enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The largest water right within 3 km [2 mi] of the Ross Project 

area is Permit No. P6046R for the Oshoto Reservoir with a permitted capacity of 21 ha-m/yr 

[173 ac-ft/yr]. The Applicant proposes to convert this water right for use at the Ross Project 

(Strata, 2011a). As discussed in Section 2.1.1.1 of this SEIS, the Applicant may have to provide 

alternative sources of water to supply the EOR operation. This section describes the potential 

impacts to water resources and the corresponding mitigation measures the Applicant proposes 

throughout the Proposed Action’s lifecycle as well as those of the two other Alternatives.

4.5.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Alternative 1 consists of four phases: construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning of an ISR uranium-recovery facility and wellfields.

The Ross Project has the potential to impact quantity and quality of surface and ground waters 

to varying degrees during each phase of the Project. The Applicant intends to use local water 

for the construction of the facility and wellfields as well as for its operation of the Ross Project 

including during the aquifer restoration, and decommissioning phases. Consumptive groundwater use would result from the Applicant’s injecting an estimated average of 1.25 percent less 

water than is withdrawn during uranium-recovery operation. Rates of surface- and groundwater use for domestic requirements, dust control, and agricultural irrigation are provided in 

Table 4.3. Use of ground water for production by the ISR process is discussed in subsequent 

paragraphs of this SEIS.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-26

Table 4.3

Estimated Non-Production Water Use

Type of Use Source

Typical Water Usage 

(L/s [gal/min])

Construction Operation Restoration Decommissioning

Domestic Ground Water 0.06 [0.9] 0.12 [1.9] 0.1 [1.6] 0.11 [1.8]

Dust Control Surface Water 0.45 [7.2] 0.23 [3.6] 0.23 [3.6] 0.45 [7.2]

Irrigation Ground Water 0.006 [0.1] 0.006 [0.1] 0.006 [0.1] 0.006 [0.1]

Construction Surface Water 1.003 [15.9] 0.24 [3.8] 0.0 0.24 [3.8]

TOTAL 1.52 [24.1] 0.877 [13.9] 0.33 [5.3] 0.817 [12.9]

Source: Modified From Strata, 2011a; Strata, 2012a.

The Applicant anticipates that ground water from the shallow-monitoring (SM) zone would be 

used for domestic purposes and agricultural irrigation, while surface water from either the 

Oshoto Reservoir or the Little Missouri River would be used for road and construction dust 

control. Although GEIS Section 4.4.4.1 did not address consumptive use of surface water, and 

it assumed that all required water uses would be provided by ground water, the analysis of 

impacts to ground water and surface water is nonetheless applicable due to the fact that 

process water from ground water is the largest component of Ross Project water use.

The water balances of the ground water used in the process for operation and aquiferrestoration phases of the Ross Project are illustrated in Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. As described 

in SEIS Section 2.1.1.5, permeate produced from the RO treatment would be reused, generally

by re-injection into the wellfield. During only the first two and one-half years of operation before

aquifer restoration begins and only during two months of ground-water sweep in the first 

wellfield to undergo restoration would excess permeate be generated and require disposal. The 

rate of ground-water consumption would be primarily the rate of brine production that is 

produced by RO treatment and disposal into the UIC Class I deep-injection well. As shown in 

Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 consumptive use of ground water during operation only would be 3.6

L/s [57 gal/min] of excess permeate and 3.9 L/s [62 gal/min] of brine. During concurrent 

operation and aquifer restoration, which would be the wellfields’ condition for most of the 

Project, consumptive use would be 14.3 L/s [227 gal/min] (see Figure 4.3). During aquifer 

restoration only over the last two years of the Project, consumptive use would be 12 L/s [190 

gal/min].
4-27

Stream Description

Flow Range 

(gpm)

Typical Flow 

Rate1 (gpm)

1 Recovery solution from recovery wells 5000 - 7500 7500

2 Barren lixiviant from ion exchange 5000 - 7500 7500

3 Barren lixiviant to injection wells 5000 - 7500 7280

4 Phase I Recovery RO feed 0 - 560 220

5 Phase I Recovery RO permeate 0 - 380 146

6 Phase I Recovery RO brine 0 - 190 74

7 Restoration flow from restoration recovery wells --- 0

8 Phase I Restoration RO feed --- 0

9 Phase I Restoration RO permeate --- 0

10 Phase I Restoration RO brine --- 0

11 Phase II RO feed 0 - 190 74

12 Phase II RO permeate 0 - 95 37

13 Phase II RO brine 0 - 95 37

14 Total permeate 0 - 475 183

15 Permeate to injection stream 0 - 475 126

16 Permeate to restoration injection stream --- 0

17 Permeate to lined retention ponds 0 - 80 57

18 Total flow to injection stream 4900 - 7460 7406

19 Recharge to wellfield

(0.5% to 2% production bleed) 25 - 150 94

20 Recharge to restoration wellfield --- 0

21 Spent eluate and other 11e.(2) liquid waste 10 - 40 25

22 Brine and other 11e.(2) liquid waste to disposal 25 - 140 62

23 Permeate to beneficial uses and disposal 0 - 80 57 1 Typical flow rate at 7,500 gpm recovery flow, 1.25% bleed

Source: Strata, 2012a.

Figure 4.2

Typical Water Balance during Operation Only
4-28

Stream Description Flow Range (gpm)

Typical Flow 

Rate1 (gpm)

1 Recovery solution from recovery wells 5000 - 7500 7500

2 Barren lixiviant from ion exchange 5000 - 7500 7500

3 Barren lixiviant to injection wells 5000 - 7500 7280

4 Phase I Recovery RO feed 0 - 560 220

5 Phase I Recovery RO permeate 0 - 380 146

6 Phase I Recovery RO brine 0 - 190 74

7 Restoration flow from restoration recovery wells 300 - 1100 1100

8 Phase I Restoration RO feed 300 - 1100 1100

9 Phase I Restoration RO permeate 210 - 770 770

10 Phase I Restoration RO brine 90 - 330 330

11 Phase II RO feed 90 - 520 404

12 Phase II RO permeate 45 - 260 202

13 Phase II RO brine 45 - 260 202

14 Total permeate 255 - 1410 1118

15 Permeate to injection stream 0 - 470 126

16 Permeate to restoration injection stream 0 - 1000 992

17 Permeate to lined retention ponds 0 - 320 0

18 Total flow to injection stream 4900 - 7460 7406

19 Recharge to wellfield (0.5% to 2% production bleed) 25 - 150 94

20 Recharge to restoration wellfield 80 - 300 108

21 Spent eluate and other 11e.(2) liquid waste 10 - 40 25

22 Brine and other 11e.(2) liquid waste to disposal 90 - 300 227

23 Permeate to beneficial uses and disposal 0 - 320 0 1 Typical flow rate at 7,500 gpm recovery flow, 1.25% bleed, 0.5 PVD groundwater sweep and 7.0 PVD RO

Source: Strata, 2012a.

Figure 4.3

Typical Water Balance during Concurrent Operation and Aquifer Restoration
4-29

Stream Description Flow Range 

(gpm)

Typical Flow 

Rate1 (gpm)

1 Recovery solution from recovery wells --- 0

2 Barren lixiviant from ion exchange --- 0

3 Barren lixiviant to injection wells --- 0

4 Phase I Recovery RO feed --- 0

5 Phase I Recovery RO permeate --- 0

6 Phase I Recovery RO brine --- 0

7 Restoration flow from restoration recovery wells 550 - 1100 1100

8 Phase I Restoration RO feed 550 - 1100 1100

9 Phase I Restoration RO permeate 385 - 770 770

10 Phase I Restoration RO brine 165 - 330 330

11 Phase II RO feed 165 - 330 330

12 Phase II RO permeate 80 - 165 165

13 Phase II RO brine 80 - 165 165

14 Total permeate 465 - 935 935

15 Permeate to injection stream --- 0

16 Permeate to restoration injection stream 465 - 935 935

17 Permeate to lined retention ponds 0 - 50 0

18 Total flow to injection stream --- 0

19 Recharge to wellfield (0.5% to 2% production bleed) --- 0

20 Recharge to restoration wellfield 80 - 170 165

21 Spent eluate and other 11e.(2) liquid waste 10 - 40 25

22 Brine and other 11e.(2) liquid waste to disposal 90 - 210 190

23 Permeate to beneficial uses and disposal 0 - 50 0 1 Typical flow rate at 1,100 gpm restoration flow, 0.5 PVD groundwater sweep and 7.0 PVD RO

Source: Strata, 2012a.

Figure 4.4

Typical Water Balance during Aquifer Restoration Only
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-30

In addition, the Applicant proposes BMPs consistent with those identified by the NRC as 

commonly employed at ISR facilities, which are summarized in GEIS Section 7.4 (Strata, 2011a; 

NRC, 2009b). These BMPs would include procedures for the Applicant to minimize surfacewater impacts by limiting soil disturbance and compaction, diverting and controlling runoff, 

avoiding or promptly detecting and correcting accidental spills and leaks, and completing 

reclamation in a timely manner. Mitigation measures to minimize ground-water-quality impacts 

in the overlying and underlying aquifers include the Applicant’s properly abandoning exploration 

and delineation drillholes, limiting over-penetration during drilling, employing onsite 

engineering/geologic supervision during well drilling and development, using proper well 

construction techniques, implementing an approved mechanical integrity testing (MIT) program, 

and the excursion monitoring program. Potential ground-water-quantity impacts in the ore zone 

would be mitigated by the Applicant’s minimizing consumptive use (e.g., monitoring nearby 

stock and domestic wells, designing balanced wellfields, and minimizing the production bleed). 

Impacts to ground-water quality in the ore-zone aquifer would be mitigated by ground-water

restoration, and excursion monitoring. 

4.5.1.1 Ross Project Construction

Surface Water 

As described in GEIS Sections 4.2.4.1.1 and 4.4.4.1.1, the potential impacts to surface waters 

that could result from the construction of the Proposed Action include land clearance and 

disturbance for buildings and auxiliary structures as well as the surface impoundments, 

wellfields, pipelines, access roads, and utilities; stream-channel disturbance for limited periods 

and minor wetland encroachment. In addition, spills and leaks of fuels and lubricants as well as 

the discharge of well-drilling fluids from installation, development, and testing of wells could 

potentially impact surface-water quality. The potential for these impacts would be mitigated 

through proper planning, thoughtful design, sound construction methods, permit requirements, 

and BMPs as described in GEIS Section 7.4 (NRC, 2009b). The GEIS considered that changes 

to stream flow (from land grading and other topographic changes) and to natural drainage 

patterns would be mitigated or restored after the ISR facility’s construction phase is complete.

Additionally, while impacts from incidental spills into surface water drainages could occur, they 

would be expected to be temporary. The limits on the quality of storm water that is discharged 

during the construction phase would be specified in permits from the WDEQ/WQD. The GEIS 

concluded that potential impacts to surface water during the construction phase of an ISR 

facility would be expected to be SMALL to MODERATE, depending upon site-specific 

conditions.

The Applicant intends to use approximately 1.5 L/s [23 gal/min] of surface water from either the 

Oshoto Reservoir or the Little Missouri River for dust control and construction-activity dust 

suppression (see Table 4.3). These uses equate to an annual use of 4.6 ha-m [37 ac-ft/yr], 

which is significantly less than the currently permitted annual appropriation for Oshoto Reservoir 

of 21 ha-m [173 ac-ft/yr]. As described in Section 2.1.1. of this SEIS, the Applicant may be 

required to replace the water Merit withdraws from the Fox Hills Formation for EOR. Some 

portion or all of this water, approximately 2.81 L/s [44.6 gal/min], could be from the Oshoto 

Reservoir. Although the volume of water taken from the reservoir could increase over the 

amount used for construction, the total volume would still be significantly less than the currently 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-31

permitted annual appropriation for Oshoto Reservoir. Thus, the potential impacts of the 

Proposed Action’s construction to surface-water quantity would be SMALL. 

Suspended-sediment concentrations in storm water at the Ross Project area could be increased 

due to vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction of the Proposed Action. The 

Applicant estimates that 45 ha [110 ac], or 7 percent of the Ross Project area, would be 

disturbed by the end of the construction phase (Strata, 2011a). The quality of storm water

discharged during the construction phase of the Ross Project would be controlled in accordance 

with the general construction WYPDES Storm Water Permit No. WYR104738 issued by 

WDEQ/WQD. Under this Permit, the Applicant would be required to implement a SWPPP to 

address storm-water runoff during construction activities. The SWPPP would describe the 

nature and sequence of construction activities, identify potential sources of pollution, and 

describe the BMPs that must be used, including erosion and sediment controls (e.g., silt fences, 

sediment logs, and/or straw-bale check dams) and operational controls (e.g., housekeeping, 

signage, and/or hydrocarbon storage requirements).

In addition, the construction of a single well (injection, projection, or monitoring) would generate 

a quantity of drilling fluid estimated at 22,700 L [6,000 gal] and about 11 m3 [15 yd3

] of drilling 

muds. 1,400 – 2,200 wells would be drilled and the wastes generated could potentially impact 

water quality. The wells would be drilled at different times throughout the Project. The drilling 

fluids and muds would be contained in a mud pit constructed near the well that is being installed 

to prevent discharge to surface water. These wastes would then be evaporated and dried over 

time followed by reclamation of the mud pit. 

Other potential surface-water impacts could occur from leaking fuel or lubricants from heavy 

construction equipment and passenger vehicles that would be operated during the construction 

phase of the Proposed Action. Any such leaks of equipment fluids would be mitigated by the 

Applicant locating construction activities away from surface-water features, when possible, and 

rapidly responding to leaks by properly sealing the equipment as needed and by containing and 

cleaning up the leakage.

Stream channels within the Ross Project would be potentially impacted when crossed by roads, 

pipelines, and utilities. The Applicant estimates that three stream-channel crossings would be 

constructed and one existing stream-channel crossing would need to be rehabilitated during the 

construction phase of the Proposed Action. In addition, there are several instances where 

tertiary roads would access wellfields and would cross ephemeral drainages. To mitigate 

impacts, these channel crossings would consist of unconstructed, two-track roads that would be 

constructed away from drainages where possible; ephemeral channel crossings would involve 

minimal land disturbance, and they would not be used during flow events. In the instances 

where it is necessary to cross a stream channel, the crossing would be made perpendicular to 

the channel and would include a culvert capable of passing the runoff resulting from a 10-year, 

24-hour precipitation event. Sediment load would be mitigated by sediment-control BMPs. 

Pipeline crossings would be constructed in the same corridor as road crossings where possible 

to minimize disturbance. The impacts to surface-water flow from construction activities across a 

stream channel would also be minimized by the Applicant routing flow around active 

construction activities, storing the water in temporary sediment surface impoundments, or 

passing the water through sediment-control measures prior to discharge (Strata, 2011a). Given 

the site-specific mitigation measures to be implemented by the Applicant, the potential impacts 

of the Proposed Action’s construction to surface-water quality would be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-32

The Applicant has applied for a permit with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) through 

USACE’s Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) permitting process that, if granted, 

would authorize dredge and fill activities in waters of the U.S. and require the Applicant to 

mitigate the disturbance of wetlands. While the impacts to surface water could have 

MODERATE impacts before mitigation (NRC, 2009b), the Section 404 permit would establish 

conditions that could mitigate such impacts. The Applicant anticipates that it would be required 

to operate in accordance with a Nationwide Permit (NWP) for specific construction activities.

The Ross Project area hosts approximately 26 ha [65 ac] of potential wetlands mostly situated 

along the Little Missouri River and adjacent to the Oshoto Reservoir (Strata, 2011a). 

Construction of the Proposed Action would have the potential to impact up to 0.8 ha [2 ac] of 

wetlands. Prior to disturbing any USACE-verified wetlands, the Applicant would apply for 

coverage under a USACE permit for specific construction activities such as pipeline installation 

and access-road stream-channel crossings. For example, the Permit application would require 

the Applicant to provide a site-specific mitigation plan for construction-related disturbance of 

jurisdictional wetlands (i.e., wetlands regulated by the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA).

Depending upon the nature of the anticipated wetlands disturbance, mitigation could include the 

Applicant re-establishing temporarily disturbed wetlands in place, enhancing other existing 

wetlands, or constructing additional wetland areas for circumstances where the disturbance 

would be long term. Mitigation measures would ensure that the Proposed Action does not result 

in a net loss of wetlands. Thus, while the impacts to wetlands could have MODERATE impacts 

before mitigation (NRC, 2009b), a USACE permit would establish conditions that could mitigate 

such impacts to wetlands. The potential impacts of the Proposed Action’s construction to 

wetlands consequently would be SMALL.

Ground Water

As stated in GEIS Section 4.2.4.2.1 and 4.4.4.2.1, potential impacts to ground water during an 

ISR facility’s construction are primarily from consumptive water use and contamination caused 

by: drilling fluids and muds during injection, recovery, and monitoring well drilling; and fuel and 

lubricant spills and leaks from construction equipment. It is further noted in the GEIS that 

ground-water use during an ISR facility’s construction phase would be limited, and that ground 

water would be protected by implementing BMPs such as spill-prevention and spill-cleanup 

protocols. A limited amount of drilling fluids and muds would be introduced into the environment 

during well installation. Because of the limited nature of construction activities and the 

implementation of BMPs to protect shallow ground water, the GEIS concluded that construction 

impacts on ground water would be SMALL (NRC, 2009b). 

Although construction of the CBW during the Proposed Action is not part of the typical ISR 

design considered in the GEIS, the analysis of impacts to ground water provided in the GEIS 

are applicable because the effects of the CBW on shallow ground water are localized. 

In the following sections, potential impacts and mitigation measures are considered for three 

aquifer units: 1) The unconfined shallow (near-surface) aquifers; 2) the confined aquifers 

hosting the ore-zone (OZ) as well as those above and below the ore zone (the shallowmonitoring [SM] and the deep-monitoring [DM]); and 3) the deeper aquifers below the DM 

aquifer.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-33

Shallow Aquifers

Potential impacts to the quantity of water in the shallow aquifers during construction of the 

Proposed Action would be caused by water taken from the Oshoto Reservoir and the water 

affected by the installation of the CBW surrounding the facility (i.e., the CPP and surface 

impoundments). In the vicinity of the Oshoto Reservoir, the Reservoir stage (i.e., the volume of 

water it contains) and the shallow-aquifers water levels are closely related (Strata, 2012b). 

Although the Applicant anticipates an annual withdrawal of 4.6 ha-m/yr [37 ac-ft/yr] of water 

during construction, that volume is less than the permitted annual appropriation for the Oshoto 

Reservoir, 21 ha-m/yr [173 ac-ft/yr] (Strata, 2012b). Any changes in ground-water levels due to 

water usage from Oshoto Reservoir would be small and restricted to the area around the 

Reservoir.

Construction of the CBW (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1) could impact the quantity of water in the 

shallow aquifer because the CBW would restrict flow in the shallow aquifer at the Ross Project 

facility. Preconstruction dewatering within the facility’s area would lower water levels locally in 

the shallow aquifer, but the normal ground-water flow regime would not be disrupted. The 

Applicant anticipates that the construction dewatering following installation of the CBW would be 

a one-time event and require little continuing maintenance. Ground-water use would be 

mitigated by the design of the CBW, which would prevent seepage of ground water beneath the 

CBW into the subsurface below the CPP that would require removal by pumping. Thus, the 

potential impacts from the construction of the Proposed Action to ground-water quantity in the 

shallow aquifers would be SMALL.

In addition, shallow-aquifer water levels could increase slightly on the hydraulically up-gradient 

side of the CBW and could decrease slightly on the hydraulically down-gradient side of the CBW 

in response to the lower permeability of the CBW relative to the shallow aquifer. The changes 

in ground-water levels would be restricted to the area adjacent to the CBW (Strata, 2011a).

Potential water-quality impacts to the shallow aquifer that could occur during construction 

include spills or leaks from construction equipment and the introduction of drilling fluids. The 

potential for the shallow ground water to be impacted by drilling fluids and muds is minimal 

because of the small volume of fluids used, and because the fluids would be contained within a 

mud pit in accordance with WDEQ/LQD requirements. Impacts to ground water during well 

drilling would be further limited by the nature of the bentonite or polymer-based drilling additives 

in the drilling fluids. These additives are designed to limit infiltration in an aquifer (i.e., to a few 

inches) and to isolate the drillhole from the surrounding geologic materials via a wall-cake or 

veneer of drilling-fluid filtrate, further diminishing the potential for impacts. Thus, the potential 

impacts of the Proposed Action’s construction to ground-water quality in the shallow aquifers 

would be SMALL.

Ore-Zone and Surrounding Aquifers

Ground water used for domestic uses and agricultural irrigation during the Proposed Action’s 

construction is estimated to be 0.06 L/s [1.0 gal/min] (see Table 4.3). A water-supply well 

drawing water from the SM aquifer would be used to supply these needs. Based upon yields 

from wells in the region and other wells completed in the SM aquifer, ground-water modeling 

indicates that the aquifer could support this level of withdrawal with little drawdown (Strata, 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-34

2011b). The potential impacts of the Proposed Action’s construction on the ground-water 

quantity available from the confined aquifers, therefore, would be SMALL.

Drilling for mineral delineation and well installation would potentially impact the SM aquifer, the 

OZ aquifer laterally adjacent to the ore zone, and the DM aquifer. Improperly abandoned 

drillholes, overly penetrating drillholes, or lack of well integrity could result in the mixing of 

industrial-use ground water from the OZ aquifer with the chloride-dominated ground water of the 

DM aquifer or the stock-water quality of the overlying SM aquifer. This mixing would be 

localized and any significant changes in water quality would be detected by monitoring wells.

To mitigate potential impacts to the confined aquifers from drilling, the Applicant proposes to 

continue to comply with WDEQ/LQD rules for well completion and drillhole abandonment 

(WDEQ/LQD, 2005). The Applicant would rely upon the geological model developed to 

determine total depths for drillholes, thus preventing over-penetration into underlying aquifers. 

Onsite geological and engineering supervision would continue throughout the construction 

phase. Wells installed for further hydrologic studies, during post-licensing and pre-operational

monitoring, and production infrastructure would pass MIT prior to use (see SEIS Section 

2.1.1.1). Consequently, the potential impacts from the Proposed Action’s construction on the 

ground-water quality within the confined aquifers would be SMALL.

Deep Aquifers

Construction of the Ross Project would not impact the aquifers below the DM aquifer. The 

Flathead and Deadwood Formations would be tapped by the construction of the Class I injection 

well(s) discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1, where that well(s) would be used for the disposal of 

brine and other byproduct liquid wastes during the Ross Project’s operation, aquifer restoration, 

and decommissioning phases. The potential impacts of construction of the Proposed Action on 

the quantity and quality of ground water present within the deep aquifers would be SMALL.

4.5.1.2 Ross Project Operation

This section describes potential impacts and mitigation measures to surface and ground waters 

associated with operation of the Proposed Action.

Surface Water

As described in GEIS Sections 4.2.4.1.2 and 4.4.4.1.2, surface waters could be impacted by 

accidental spills during ISR operations. Spills from the CPP or wellfields as well as spills during 

transportation could impact storm-water runoff or contaminate shallow aquifers that are 

hydraulically connected to surface waters. The GEIS determined that surface-water monitoring 

and rapid spill response would limit the impacts of potential surface spills to SMALL; however, 

impacts of spills to surface waters that are connected to shallow aquifers would be SMALL to 

MODERATE, depending upon the specifics of an incident. Activities posing potential impacts to 

surface waters from uranium-recovery operation would be regulated by Federal agencies. 

According to the GEIS, the Applicant’s use of BMPs, and implementation of required mitigation 

measures would moderate the impacts of the Proposed Action’s operation from MODERATE to 

SMALL, depending upon local conditions.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-35

The Applicant estimates that approximately 0.76 L/s [12 gal/min] of surface water from either the 

Oshoto Reservoir or the Little Missouri River would be used during the Proposed Action’s 

operation for continuing construction activities in the wellfields and for dust control (see Table 

4.3). The estimated annual use of 2.4 ha-m [19 ac-ft/yr] would be significantly less than the 

existing, permitted annual appropriation for Oshoto Reservoir of 21 ha-m [173 ac-ft/yr]. Ground 

water produced from developing, and testing wells that have not been affected by ISR activities 

would be discharged according to a temporary WYPDES Permit as described in SEIS Section 

2.1.1.5. This water would either infiltrate into the ground or add to the surface water in the Little 

Missouri River. The Permit does not allow degradation of habitat for aquatic life, plant life, and 

wildlife nor does it allow discharges to adversely affect public water supplies or supplies

intended for agricultural or industrial uses (WDEQ/WQD, 2011a). The mitigation measures 

proposed by the Applicant would ensure habitat and water-supply degradation do not occur.

Flow in the Little Missouri River could potentially be affected during operation. Water from the 

Little Missouri River infiltrates into the OZ aquifer where the river crosses the area of Fox Hills 

and Lance Formations exposure at the ground surface east of the Ross Project area (Strata, 

2011a). The Applicant’s ground-water model shows that infiltration would increase by 

approximately 0.095 L/s [1.5 gal/min], decreasing the average annual discharge of the Little 

Missouri River by less than 0.005 percent just downstream of the Wyoming-Montana border 

(Strata, 2011a). Thus, no mitigation measures would be warranted for this very small volume 

and the potential impacts of the Proposed Action’s operation on surface-water quantity would be 

SMALL. 

Storm-water runoff from impervious surfaces, including buildings, roads, and parking areas, 

could result in higher water flows, channel erosion, and increased sediment concentrations in 

surface waters. The Applicant predicts a peak flow of 1.4 m3

/s [50 ft3/s] during a 100-year, 24-

hour storm (Strata, 2011a). This peak flow represents an increase of less than 1 percent of the 

peak flow in the Little Missouri River of 170 m3

/s [6,000 ft3/s]. 

Water quality impacts from surface-water runoff would be mitigated by the Proposed Action’s 

storm-water-control system that would route all storm water to a sediment surface impoundment 

sized to hold runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour runoff event. A flood-control diversion channel 

around the CPP and surface impoundments (i.e., the facility itself) would prevent storm water

originating in the ephemeral stream channel upstream of the facility from encountering process 

solutions or chemicals. In addition, BMPs would be implemented by the Applicant to reduce 

erosion and the likelihood of increased sediment loads. Mitigation measures employed by the 

Applicant to reduce soil erosion would also mitigate storm-water runoff across the Ross Project. 

Protection of wellheads and module buildings from large runoff events would typically be

accomplished by placement on high ground out of the flood plain. When wells or other facility 

components must be placed within the 100-year-flood inundation area, appropriate engineering 

controls would be used to ensure safety and environmental protection. The injection, recovery, 

and monitoring wells would be protected from flooding by the installation of cement seals 

around the well casings and the use of watertight well caps.

Measures designed to mitigate the impacts of suspended sediment would be contained in a 

storm-water discharge Permit required by the WDEQ/WQD prior to uranium-recovery operation. 

The permit would include a requirement for a SWPPP that describes erosion and sediment 

controls as well as operational controls that would be used to ensure that storm-water

discharges from the Ross Project facility do not cause a violation of Wyoming’s surface-water 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-36

quality standards (WDEQ/WQD, 2007). Storm-water BMPs would be inspected semiannually or 

as required by the WYPDES Storm Water Permit. The SWPPP would be updated as needed, 

such as when potential problems are identified during inspections or when there are changes in 

uranium-recovery operation (e.g., transition from operation to aquifer restoration).

Release of process solutions from uranium-recovery wellheads, pipelines, module buildings, or 

process vessels; accidental discharge from surface impoundments; or release of yellowcake or 

IX resin during a transportation accident could result in surface-water contamination if the 

release(s) reach a surface-water body. Potential impacts from accidential spills and releases 

will be mitigated by SOPs for operational and emergency procedures for managing radioactive 

and non-radioactive materials (NRC, 2014b, License Condition 10.4). Impacts from releases 

that do reach surface water(s) would be short-term, elevated concentrations of radionuclides 

and associated chemical constituents at levels above pre-licensing, site-characterization. 

Cleanup of contaminated sediments associated with a spill would follow the same requirements 

as those for soil cleanup efforts (see SEIS Section 4.4.1.2). Any impacts to surface waters 

remaining after cleanup would decline over time as the contaminated fluids are dispersed in the 

surface-water body.

The potential for release of process solutions will be mitigated by daily measurement of injection 

manifold pressure and flow rates as described in Section 2.1.1.1 of this SEIS (NRC, 2014b, 

License Condition 10.14). Accidental discharge from surface impoundments would be mitigated 

by the size and design of the impoundments and by regular inspections (NRC, 2014b, License 

Condition 10.8). Because roads would cross surface-water drainages in only a few, isolated 

locations, it is unlikely that a transportation accident would result in a release to any surface 

water. Further mitigation of impacts would be accomplished by the Applicant’s personnel 

containing and cleaning up any release before the solution could migrate to a surface-water 

body. Therefore, given these mitigation measures, the potential impacts of the operation of the 

Proposed Action on surface-water quality would be SMALL.

 

The potential impacts of the Proposed Action’s operation to the Ross Project area’s wetlands 

would be the same as described for the Ross Project’s construction-phase impacts and the 

impacts would be SMALL.

Ground Water

The GEIS concluded in GEIS Sections 4.2.4.2.1 and 4.4.4.2.1 that the amounts of ground water 

from shallow aquifers used in routine activities during operations such as dust suppression, 

cement mixing, and well drilling are small and would have a SMALL and temporary impact.

At an ISR facility, a network of buried pipelines would be used during in situ uranium recovery 

for transporting lixiviant between module buildings and the CPP as well as connecting injection 

and recovery wells to manifolds inside the module buildings. The failure of pipeline fittings or 

valves, or well mechanical-integrity failures, in shallow aquifers could result in spills or leaks of 

lixiviant, which could impact water quality in the shallow aquifers. Potential environmental 

impacts due to spills and leaks from pipelines could be MODERATE to LARGE depending upon 

site-specific conditions, including whether 1) the ground water in the shallow aquifers is close to 

the ground surface; 2) the shallow aquifers are important sources for local domestic or 

agricultural water supplies; or 3) the shallow aquifers are hydraulically connected to other locally 

or regionally important aquifers; or 4) the shallow aquifers have either poor water quality or 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-37

yields that are not economically suitable for production (NRC, 2009b). The use of surface 

impoundments to manage process solutions generated during ISR activities could also impact 

shallow aquifers by failure of impoundment embankments or their liners. Thus, the GEIS 

concluded that impacts of the use of surface impoundments on ground water would be SMALL 

(NRC, 2009b). 

As discussed in GEIS Sections 4.2.4.2.2.2 and 4.4.4.2.2.2, potential environmental impacts to 

ground-water resources in the OZ and surrounding aquifers include consumptive water use and 

changes to water quality (NRC, 2009b). Consumptive use arises from the fact that ISR 

operations withdraw on average 1.25 percent more water than is injected into the wellfields, 

which is referred to as “production bleed.” Ground-water bleed ensures a net inflow of ground 

water into the wellfield to minimize the potential movement of lixiviant and its associated 

contaminants out of the wellfield. Bleed water is generally disposed of through a waste-water 

control system, and it is not re-injected into the ISR wellfields. The GEIS determined that the 

short-term impacts of consumptive use could be MODERATE, but temporary, if the OZ aquifer 

outside the exempted portion of ore zone is used locally. (Uranium-recovery requires 

exemption of the uranium-bearing aquifer as an underground source of drinking water (USDW) 

and is exempted through Wyoming’s UIC Program administered by the WDEQ.) Therefore, the 

long-term consumptive-use impacts would be expected to be SMALL in most cases, depending 

upon site-specific conditions. 

The GEIS noted that water quality in the OZ aquifer would be degraded during ISR operations 

(NRC, 2009b). A licensee would be required, by its WDEQ Permit to Mine and by its source 

and byproduct materials license, to conduct aquifer-restoration activities to restore the OZ 

aquifer to pre-operational conditions, if possible. If the aquifer cannot be returned to postlicensing, pre-operational conditions described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1, the NRC would require 

that the aquifer meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maximum contaminant 

levels (MCLs) provided in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Table 5C or Alternate Concentration 

Limits (ACLs), as approved by NRC (10 CFR Part 40; NRC, 2009b). For these reasons, the 

NRC determined in the GEIS that potential impacts to water quality of the exempted aquifer 

(i.e., ore zone, production zone or unit, or mineralized zone) as a result of ISR operations would 

be expected to be SMALL and temporary (NRC, 2009b). 

GEIS Section 4.2.4.2.2.2 discussed the potential for vertical and horizontal excursions of 

degraded ground water outside of the uranium-production zone (i.e., the ore zone). The impact 

of horizontal excursions could be MODERATE to LARGE, if a large volume of contaminated 

water leaves the ore zone and moves down-gradient and impacts an area outside the ore zone 

which is being used for consumption (NRC, 2009b). As discussed in GEIS Section 2.11.3, the 

historical record for several licensed ISR facilities indicates that excursions occur at ISR 

operations (NRC, 2009b). Most of the excursions are horizontal and were recovered within 

months after detection. Vertical excursions tend to be more difficult to recover than horizontal 

excursions, and in a few cases, remained on excursion status for as long as eight years. The 

vertical excursions were traced to thinning of the confining geologic unit below the ore zone and 

improperly abandoned drillholes from earlier exploration activities (NRC, 2009b). 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-38

To reduce the likelihood and consequences of potential excursions, the NRC requires licensees 

to identify preventive measures before starting ISR operations. In general, the potential impacts 

of vertical excursions to ground-water quality in surrounding aquifers would be SMALL if the 

vertical hydraulic-head gradients between the OZ aquifer and the adjacent aquifer are small; if 

the vertical hydraulic conductivities of the confining geologic units are low; and if the confining 

geologic units are sufficiently thick (NRC, 2009b). Environmental impacts, however, would be 

expected to be MODERATE to LARGE if the confining units are discontinuous, thin, or fractured 

(NRC, 2009b). The NRC requires assurance of the integrity of the confining units to minimize 

the potential impacts from vertical excursions into overlying and underlying aquifers. 

As indicated in GEIS Sections 4.2.4.2.2.3 and 4.4.4.2.2.3, the potential environmental impacts 

from disposal of liquid effluents into deep aquifers below ore-bearing aquifers would be SMALL, 

if water production from the deep aquifers is not economically feasible; if the ground-water 

quality from these aquifers is not suitable for domestic or agricultural uses (e.g., high salinity); 

and if they are confined above by sufficiently thick and continuous low-permeability layers 

(NRC, 2009b). Under different environmental laws such as the CWA, the Safe Drinking Water 

Act, and the Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA), the EPA has statutory authority to regulate activities 

that could affect the environment. Underground injection of liquids requires a permit from the 

EPA or from an authorized State UIC program. As noted in SEIS Section 2.1, the WDEQ has 

been authorized to administer the UIC program in Wyoming.

In the following sections, the potential impacts and mitigation measures related to the Proposed 

Action’s operation are considered for the three types of aquifers: 1) the unconfined shallow (i.e., 

near-surface) aquifers; 2) the confined aquifers hosting the ore zone as well as those above and 

below the ore zone (the SM and the DM aquifers); and 3) the deep aquifers below the DM 

aquifer. Conditions of the Source and Byproduct Materials License will mitigate potential 

impacts to surface water and ground water. The following Conditions of the Draft Source and 

Byproduct Materials License would require compliance with: Condition 10.5, mechanical 

integrity tests; Condition 10.6, ground-water restoration; Condition 10.7, a net inward hydraulic 

gradient; Condition 10.12, an attempt to locate and abandon all historic drillholes located within 

the perimeter-monitoring-well ring of a wellfield; Condition 10.13, a “hydrologic-test data 

package” for each wellfield; Condition 10.19, wellfields south of the Little Missouri River until the 

use of the Merit wells have ceased or diminished to an acceptable level; and Condition 10.20, a 

ground-water monitoring program for the surface impoundments. Conditions 11.1, 11.3, 11.4, 

and 11.5 of the Draft License would require excursion-monitoring and aquifer-restoration goals, 

and Condition 12.3 would require that protection of ground-water uses occur within 2 km [1.2 mi] 

outside of the all wellfields.

Shallow Aquifers

Potential impacts from operation to ground-water quantity in the shallow aquifers would be 

similar to those described for the Proposed Action’s construction phase and would be SMALL.

During ISR operation, the water quality throughout the Ross Project has the potential to be 

impacted by accidental spills or leaks from chemical-storage areas, process-solution vessels, or 

the surface impoundments as well as by spills and leaks of lixiviant from failure of a pipeline or a 

shallow break in the casing of an injection or recovery well. To reduce the risk of pipeline 

failure, the Applicant would hydrostatically test all pipelines prior to use and install leak-detection 

devices in manholes along the pipelines as described in Section 2.1.1.1. The Applicant’s 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-39

implementation of BMPs during Ross Project operation would reduce the likelihood and 

magnitude of spills or leaks and facilitate expeditious cleanup.

Further, the Applicant would monitor recovery and injection pipelines and immediately shutdown affected pumps if a spill or leak were detected (Strata, 2011b). The CPP would include a 

control room where a master control-system would allow remote monitoring and control of ISR, 

wellfield, and deep-well-disposal operations (Strata, 2011b). Operators would be located in the 

CPP’s control room 24 hours a day and would use a computer-based station to command the 

control system.

MIT would be conducted on all Class III injection wells, recovery wells, and monitoring wells 

(see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1). Construction of all wells and their respective MIT would comply with 

the pertinent WDEQ/LQD regulations (WDEQ/LQD, 2005).

The Applicant would also implement spill control, containment, and cleanup measures in the 

CPP and surface-impoundment areas (i.e., the facility). These measures would include 

secondary containment for process-solution vessels and chemical storage tanks, a geosynthetic 

liner beneath the CPP’s foundation, dual liners with a leak-detection system for the surface 

impoundments, and a sediment impoundment to capture storm-water runoff. In the event of a 

surface-impoundment leak, sufficient capacity would be reserved in the other impoundments’ 

cells to allow the contents of the leaking cell to be rapidly transferred, minimizing the volume of 

the release. In addition, the ground-water levels downgradient of the CBW would be maintained 

below the ground-water levels in the shallow aquifer outside the CBW. This would impose 

inward and upward hydraulic gradients and therefore minimize the potential for contaminated 

ground water to migrate into the regional system. The Applicant has committed that it would

install and monitor additional wells in the SA-unit aquifer, and this commitment would be

codified in the Source and Byproduct Materials License. Thus, the potential impacts of the 

Proposed Action’s operation to ground-water quality in the shallow aquifers would be SMALL.

Ore-Zone and Surrounding Aquifers 

Potential impacts from the consumptive use of ground water from the ore-zone and surrounding 

aquifers were evaluated by the Applicant using a regional numerical model (Strata, 2011b). The 

conditions simulated by the Applicant were for two ISR “mine units” operating simultaneously, 

as described in SEIS Section 2.1.1. Details of the ISR simulations and results of the modeling 

are provided in Addendum 2.7-H of the Applicant’s TR (Strata, 2011b).

The simulations assumed no changes in flow rates within the stock and domestic wells within 

the model area. Estimated flow rates for the oil-field water-supply wells were developed based 

upon average historical flow rates for the last two years of recorded flow (i.e., 2008 and 2009). 

Three of the oil-field water-supply wells (Wells 22X-19, 19XX18, and 789V) are located 

immediately adjacent to Modules 2-6 and 2-7. The Applicant simulated two uranium-recovery 

scenarios. Scenario 1 assumed that an alternative water supply could be found, which would 

allow the Merit wells to be taken out of operation two years prior to uranium recovery at the 

Ross Project; the wells would be kept out of operation until uranium-recovery operation ceases. 

Scenario 2 assumed that an alternative water-supply source could not be located and that, 

during uranium-recovery operation, the Merit oil-field water-supply wells continued to operate at 

their assumed 2008 – 2009 average flow rates. The Applicant will not be able to develop 

wellfields south of the Little Missouri River until the use of oil-field water-supply wells has 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-40

ceased or has diminished to an acceptable level (NRC, 2014b, License Condition 10.19). This 

acceptable level will be reviewed and verified by the NRC staff. Given this Draft License 

Condition, the ground-water-modeling results under Scenario 1 were the most applicable to the 

Proposed Action.

The most significant drawdown predicted by the ground-water model occurs in the Wesley No. 

TW02 well located in the SWSW Section 8, Township 53 North, Range 67 West. This well gets 

limited use, as it only supplies water to a structure that is currently used by the Applicant as its 

Field Office for the Ross Project and to provide water to livestock. At the end of the aquiferrestoration phase under Scenario 1, the model predicts 9.17 m [30.1 ft] of drawdown, or 42.4 

percent of the available head in that well. This magnitude of drawdown is the worst case based 

upon conservative assumptions in the model.

Potential impacts to the SM-aquifer water quantity, because of drawdown during uranium 

recovery and aquifer restoration in the ore zone, were also evaluated by the regional groundwater model (Strata, 2011b). Under the two recovery scenarios evaluated, the estimated 

maximum amounts of drawdown ranged from 1.5 – 5 m [5 – 15 ft] within the Ross Project area 

following the Proposed Action’s operation and aquifer-restoration phases.

Impacts from consumptive use of ground water from the ore zone would be minimized by 

cessation of water withdrawals by the Merit oil-field water-supply wells as would be required by 

the Source and Byproduct Materials License (NRC, 2014b, License Condition 10.19). The 

ground-water model simulated a single operational sequence of wellfield development, 

recovery, and aquifer restoration. Different operational approaches could be more effective in 

reducing impacts, and the Applicant proposes to investigate these as wellfield installation and 

testing progresses. 

In the event that uranium recovery at the Proposed Action prevents the full use of a well which 

provides water under a valid water right, the Applicant would commit to providing an alternative 

source of water of equal or better quality and quantity, subject to Wyoming water statute 

requirements.

In the regional numerical model, the model’s lower boundary was the base of the ore zone/top 

of the lower confining unit. As a result, potential impacts to the DM aquifer were not evaluated 

by the model. The DM aquifer supports only one well (Merit Well No. 22X-19), and it has only 

limited hydraulic conductivity and yield. Thus, as the model demonstrates, the potential impacts 

from the Proposed Action’s operation to ground-water quantity in the confined aquifers would be 

SMALL.

During the Proposed Action’s operation, the ground-water quality of the ore-zone aquifer within 

the wellfields would be impacted from uranium-recovery activities. The Applicant has received 

approval from EPA and WDEQ/LQD to exempt the ore-zone aquifer within the area of the 

wellfields from the requirements of a USDW, as described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1. The 

uranium and vanadium in the ore-zone aquifer would be oxidized and mobilized by the 

introduction of lixiviant into the ore-zone aquifer through injection wells. In addition to the 

uranium and vanadium, other constituents would also be mobilized, including anions, cations, 

and trace metals (Strata, 2011b). These impacts to the water quality of the ore-zone aquifer 

within the wellfields would be short term because aquifer restoration that would be required by 

the Source and Byproduct Materials License would return these constituent concentrations to 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-41

each wellfield’s respective NRC-approved post-licensing, pre-operational concentrations, 

numeric water-quality criteria, or specific ACLs as approved by the NRC (NRC, 2014b License 

Condition 10.6; 10 CFR 40).

The quality of the non-exempted ore-zone aquifer (i.e., that which is outside the perimetermonitoring-well ring in the wellfields) could be impacted by a horizontal excursion resulting from 

a local wellfield imbalance. A wellfield imbalance can occur when the rate of injected lixiviant 

exceeds the rate of extraction from the recovery wells, resulting in a potential migration of 

lixiviant laterally, away from the respective wellfield. There would also be the potential for 

water-quality impacts (i.e., vertical excursions) to the SM and DM aquifers from the lixiviantfortified ground water during injection and withdrawal from the OZ aquifer. Condition No. 11.5 of 

the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License would prescribe the excursion-monitoring 

program and the procedures for confirmation in the event that the monitoring signals an 

excursion as well as corrective actions that would be required to recover an excursion (NRC, 

2014b). 

Typical lixiviant circulating through the ore zone would contain concentrations of TDS up to 

12,000 mg/L that consist primarily of sodium, bicarbonate, chloride, and sulfate and 

concentrations of uranium, vanadium, and radium greater than 100 mg/L (NRC, 2009b; Strata, 

2011a; WDEQ/WQD, 2011b). As described in SEIS Section 3.5, the surrounding aquifers have 

lower TDS, averaging 1,145 mg/L, 1,574 mg/L, and 1,321 mg/L in the SM, OZ, and DM 

aquifers, respectively. These values are approximately 10 percent of the TDS contained in the

proposed lixiviant. As described in Section 2.1.1.2 of this SEIS, chloride, conductivity, and total 

alkalinity would be measured twice monthly in the monitoring wells to detect excursions. These 

constituents move through the aquifer faster than other water-quality parameters, and therefore 

levels above these would indicate excursions before radionuclides and other elements move 

outside the production (i.e., uranium-recovery) zone.

Temporary increases in concentrations of TDS outside the production zone would occur in the 

event of an excursion. Levels of radionuclides and elements such as arsenic, selenium, and 

vanadium that are mobilized with the uranium may increase in aquifers outside the production 

zone if excursions were to occur, but corrective actions in response to increased TDS would 

likely prevent increases of these elements. 

Measures proposed by the Applicant to mitigate the potential for horizontal excursions include a 

computer-based control system, which is staffed 24 hours a day at the CPP, to monitor injection 

pressures and recovery-well flow rates so that wellfield balance would be maintained. In 

addition, water level and water quality would be monitored in wells installed around the 

perimeter of each wellfield (Strata, 2011a). 

In the event of an operational upset that could allow horizontal excursions, the ground-water 

model (discussed above in this section of the SEIS), integrated with injection- and recovery-well 

data, would allow the Applicant’s staff to make a determination of potential migration paths as 

well as assisting the system operator’s decision making with respect to the proper mitigating 

actions. The Applicant noted that the heterogeneous lithology of the sandstones produces 

lateral and vertical variations in permeability, with uranium mineralization concentrated in the 

higher-permeability sediments (Strata, 2011a). Lateral migration of lixiviant would therefore be 

limited by the less-permeable and un-mineralized zones within the ore-zone sandstones.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-42

The potential for vertical excursions would be mitigated by the naturally confining units of finegrained mudstones, siltstones, and claystones above and below the ore-zone aquifer (see SEIS 

Section 3.5). In addition, the Applicant’s testing program would ensure the integrity of well

casings in injection and recovery wells as well as in monitoring wells installed in the SA and DM 

aquifers.

The Applicant tested the integrity of the lower confining unit separating the OZ aquifer from the 

DM aquifer with six pump tests; in two of the six tests, pumping of the OZ aquifer showed a 

possible response in the DM aquifer (Strata, 2011a). NRC staff has determined that these 

responses were correctly interpreted by the Applicant as communication between the OZ and 

DM through improperly plugged drillholes from previous exploration programs that have not yet 

been properly abandoned (NRC, 2014a). Other aquifer tests by the Applicant as well as those 

conducted by Nubeth in 1978, recorded no response in the aquifers vertically adjacent to the 

ore zone. The different water qualities observed in the OZ and DM aquifers also support the 

premise of hydraulic separation. Stratigraphic sections created by the Applicant from the 

geologic logs of the drillholes have provided further support for the continuity and integrity of the 

shale confining units (Strata, 2011b). The thickness of the shale unit between the OZ and the 

DM aquifers is generally greater than 6 m [20 ft], except for an area along the southern edge of 

the Ross Project area where the unit thins to about 1.5 m [5 ft]. The Applicant would continue 

geologic evaluation and hydrologic testing to characterize the integrity of the lower confining 

unit, through observations of piezometric levels in the SM and DM aquifers. The upper 

confining unit would also continue to be monitored by the Applicant.

To ensure the integrity of confining layers, Condition No. 10.13 of the Draft License would

require the Applicant to submit a hydrologic-test data package to the NRC staff for review and 

verification prior to conducting operations in a wellfield (NRC, 2014b). The hydrologic-test data 

package must adequately define ground-water-flow paths, demonstrate the lateral continuity of 

the OZ aquifer, provide an evaluation of the heterogeneities within the ore zone, and confirm the 

hydraulic isolation of the OZ aquifer (NRC, 2014b).

Breaches to the integrity of the confining unit from historical exploration and delineation

drillholes will be minimized by the Applicant’s locating and abandoning the drillholes within the 

wellfields (NRC, 2014b, License Condition 10.12). Hole plugging would be done with lowhydraulic-conductivity materials such as cement or heavily mixed bentonite grout according to 

methods approved by the WDEQ as described in SEIS Section 2.1 (Strata, 2011b). As of 

October 2010, the Applicant had located 759 of the estimated 1,682 holes from Nubeth 

exploration activities and had plugged 55 of them (Strata, 2011b). The number of historical

drillholes located and plugged would increase as wellfields are developed. The Applicant would

also implement a WDEQ-approved MIT program for all injection and recovery wells to ensure 

well-casing integrity (WDEQ/LQD, 2005).

As noted above, Condition No. 11.3 of the Draft License would require the Applicant to install 

monitoring wells around each wellfield at approved maximum spacing (NRC, 2014b). The 

perimeter-monitoring wells would allow the Applicant to monitor the OZ aquifer, while the 

monitoring wells in the overlying and underlying aquifers would allow monitoring of the SM and 

DM aquifers, respectively. The Applicant has committed to a maximum spacing of 120 m [400 

ft] between the uranium-recovery wellfields and perimeter-monitoring-well ring as well as 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-43

between monitoring wells in the perimeter ring itself (Strata, 2011b). Condition No. 11.5 of the 

Draft License would establish the requirements for the excursion-monitoring program (NRC, 

2014b). 

In addition to sampling the monitoring wells for water-quality parameters, the Applicant would

measure water levels during the semi-monthly sampling to detect anomalous hydrostaticpressure increases which may signal an operational upset. Condition No. 11.5 of the Draft 

License would require the Applicant to cease injecting lixiviant into the uranium production area 

surrounded by the perimeter-monitoring-well ring if a vertical excursion is detected during 

operation (NRC, 2014b). Operation would cease until the Applicant demonstrates that the 

vertical excursion cannot be attributed to leakage through any abandoned drillhole. Mitigation in 

the event of an excursion of lixiviant-containing ground water could require withdrawal and 

treatment of contaminated ground water from the adjoining aquifers.

The potential impacts of the operation of the Proposed Action to ground-water quality in the 

confined aquifers above and below the ore zone would, therefore, be SMALL. The short-term 

potential impacts of lixiviant excursions from uranium-recovery operation to the OZ aquifer 

outside the exempted area would be SMALL to MODERATE. Detection of excursions through 

the network of monitoring wells, followed by the Applicant’s pumping of ground water to 

“recover” the excursion would reduce long-term potential impacts to the OZ aquifer outside the 

exempted portion to SMALL.

Deep Aquifers

The Applicant plans to dispose of brine and other liquid byproduct wastes into up to five UIC 

Class I deep-disposal wells that discharge to the Flathead and Deadwood Formations, which 

are defined as the Formations that occur beneath the base of the Icebox Shale member of the 

Winnipeg Group and above the top of the Precambrian basement. There are no porous and 

permeable zones below the Deadwood and Flathead Formations that would make suitable 

injection zones. Because of the depth, approximately 2,500 m [8,200 ft], at which these 

Formations occur and the apparent lack of oil or other hydrocarbons, there has been little 

exploration of these intervals, and few data are available for the Ross Project area. To improve 

its understanding of the targeted Formations, the Applicant plans to drill one deep well for 

hydraulic testing as a preconstruction activity (Strata, 2011a). If the capacity in the targeted 

Formation for injected solutions is less than anticipated by the Applicant, more wells than five 

may be needed.

The UIC Class I Permit issued by the WDEQ identified the confining unit immediately above the 

discharge zone as consisting of approximately 16 m [52 ft] of Icebox Shale. An additional 

confining unit immediately above the Icebox Shale is the Red River Formation, which consists of 

96.9 – 140 m [318 – 460 ft] of cryptocrystalline to microcrystalline impermeable dolomite. The 

top of the injection zone occurs about 2,488 m [8,163 ft] below the ground surface, and the total 

thickness of the injection zone for the wells is estimated to be 180 m [592 ft]. In issuing the UIC 

Permit, the WDEQ/WQD determined that, at the depths and locations of the injection zones 

specified in the Permit, the use of ground water from the Flathead and Deadwood Formations is 

economically and technologically impractical (WDEQ/WQD, 2011b). 

The data that are available for the Formations targeted for deep-well injection suggest that the 

ground water contains greater than 10,000 mg/L TDS. The estimated water quality of the brine, 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-44

and liquid effluent that would be injected in the UIC Class I deep-injection wells, comprises the 

following constituent concentrations: 4,000 – 40,000 mg/L TDS; 5 – 25 mg/L uranium as U3O8; 

and 15 – 93 Bq/L [400 – 2,500 pCi/L] Ra-226 (WDEQ/WQD, 2011b). Its pH would be between 

6 and 9. WDEQ concluded that the liquid effluents could be suitably isolated in the deep 

aquifers, and they would not affect any overlying underground sources of drinking water. The 

deep-injection wells would be installed and tested in accordance with WDEQ/WQD Class I 

disposal-well standards and the UIC Class I Permit. The Permit requires the Applicant to 

control effluent pressures at the wellhead to ensure that the fracture pressure of the Formation 

is not exceeded. Regular monitoring of the water quality of the injected brine is required by the 

Permit, and pH would have to be within the range of 2 – 11 established by the Permit to meet 

the respective upper control limits (UCLs) to be injected (WDEQ/WQD, 2011b). In addition, 

daily measurements of injection rates and pressures are required by the Permit as well as 

records of the monthly volume of fluid injected. The daily monitoring required by the UIC Class I 

Permit would allow detection of loss of integrity of a well’s casing. In response to a loss of 

integrity, injection into that deep-disposal well would be suspended for well repair, thus 

preventing impacts to the aquifers above the Deadwood/Flathead Formations. The Permit also 

prohibits injection of hazardous waste as defined by the EPA and the WDEQ. Thus, the 

potential impacts of the Proposed Action’s operation to ground-water quantity and quality in the 

deep aquifers would be SMALL. The conditions of the UIC Permit would mitigate potential 

impacts, including those described above.

4.5.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration

As described in Section 2.1.1.3 of this SEIS, the Proposed Action’s aquifer-restoration 

methodology would use a combination and sequence of: 1) ground-water transfer; 2) groundwater sweep; 3) RO treatment with permeate injection; 4) ground-water recirculation; and 5) 

stabilization monitoring. The Applicant proposes to use ground-water sweep selectively (i.e., 

around the perimeter of the wellfield) rather than throughout the entire wellfield to minimize the 

consumptive use of ground water (Strata, 2011a). After uranium recovery in the first wellfield is 

completed, the Applicant would conduct aquifer restoration concurrently with operation of 

subsequent wellfields.

Surface Water

As described in GEIS Sections 4.2.4.1.3 and 4.4.4.1.3, the activities occurring during aquifer 

restoration that could impact surface waters include management of waste water, permeate 

reinjection, storm-water runoff, and accidental spills and leaks (NRC, 2009b). The GEIS 

concluded that the potential impacts to surface water due to the management of ground water 

extracted during aquifer restoration would be SMALL. An ISR operator’s compliance with permit 

conditions, use of BMPs, and execution of mitigation measures would reduce impacts from 

storm-water runoff as well as accidental spills and leaks such that they would be SMALL to 

MODERATE, depending upon site-specific conditions.

At the Ross Project, the Applicant intends to use approximately 0.26 L/s [3.6 gal/min] of water 

obtained from either the Oshoto Reservoir or the Little Missouri River for dust control during 

aquifer restoration (see Table 4.3). Because of the lower surface water usage during 

restoration compared to construction and operations, the potential impacts would thus be 

comparable to those during the Proposed Action’s construction and operation phases.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-45

Potential increases in sediment concentrations during the Proposed Action’s aquifer-restoration 

phase would also be comparable to its operation phase. Potential risk of surface-water 

contamination associated with releases of process solutions and/or waste liquids as well as 

spills of other materials during aquifer restoration would be comparable to the operation phase 

of the Proposed Action, although the concentration of uranium-bearing solutions would decline. 

Thus, the potential impacts of aquifer restoration to surface-water quantity and quality would be 

SMALL.

The potential impacts of aquifer restoration during the Proposed Action to the wetlands on the 

Ross Project area would be the same as discussed under the Ross Project’s construction.

Ground Water

As the GEIS states in Sections 4.3.4.2.3 and 4.4.4.2.3, the potential environmental impacts on 

ground-water resources during aquifer restoration are related to ground-water consumptive use 

and waste-management practices, including liquid-effluent discharges to the surface 

impoundments and deep disposal of brine resulting from the RO process. As noted in the 

GEIS, potential impacts are affected by the respective aquifer-restoration methodology(ies) 

chosen, the water quality at the end of operation, and the current and future uses of the orezone and surrounding aquifers in the vicinity of an ISR facility. Consequently, the GEIS 

concluded that the potential impacts of ground-water consumption during aquifer restoration 

could range from SMALL to MODERATE, depending upon site-specific conditions. In addition, 

aquifer restoration also directly affects ground-water quality in the vicinity of the wellfield being 

restored (NRC, 2009b). Rather than negatively impacting the ground-water quality during 

aquifer restoration, the water quality would improve as restoration continues. 

The purpose of aquifer restoration is to return the ground-water quality at a specified point of 

compliance, generally defined as the boundary of the exempted aquifer, to the ground-water 

protection standards specified at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The restoration of an exempted 

aquifer to meet the standards in Criterion 5B(5)(a) would ensure that a present or potential 

future USDW outside of the exempted aquifer would be protected (NRC, 2003b). Criterion 

5B(5) of Appendix A requires that the concentration of a given hazardous constituent at the 

point of compliance must not exceed: 1) the NRC-approved concentration of that constituent in 

ground water (5B(5)(a)); 2) the respective numeric value in the table included in Paragraph 5C 

of Criterion 5B(6), if the specific constituent is listed in the table and if the level of the constituent 

is below the value listed (5B(5)(b)); or 3) an ACL the NRC establishes for the constituent 

(5B(5)(c)). To achieve this requirement, Criterion 5B(6) states, conceptually, that 

concentrations pose no incremental hazard and the numeric limits in paragraph 5C pose 

acceptable hazards, but these two options might not be practical at a specific project, in which 

case the NRC can establish an ACL, if the project’s licensee demonstrates that an ACL does 

not present a significant hazard. Prior to 2009 (i.e., prior to the Regulatory Issue Summary

(NRC, 2009c)), the NRC used the “pre-operational class of use” established by a State as a 

secondary standard for ground-water protection for the evaluation of aquifer-restoration 

approval requests submitted by licensees. Subsequent to the 2009 Regulatory Issue Summary, 

the NRC has used the factors listed in Criterion 5B(6) for evaluating proposed ACLs.

Aquifer-restoration success would be assessed when the Applicant monitors the wells, most of 

which would be installed during the time between Project licensing and wellfield operation and 

used to determine the post-licensing, pre-operational concentrations required per Criterion 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-46

5B(5)(a) as well as the wellfield perimeter wells monitored throughout operation, to detect 

excursions (NRC, 2003b). The compliance period for which NRC would require this groundwater monitoring program is from the time the ground-water protection standards are 

established per Criterion 5B(5) of Appendix A, until its Source and Byproduct Materials License 

is terminated. Therefore ground water would be monitored throughout the operation and 

aquifer-restoration phases. The NRC could also require that monitoring would be continued 

through a post-reclamation period (NRC, 2003b). 

Recent approvals of aquifer restoration by the NRC provide examples of the improvement in 

water quality within the exempted aquifer as a result of aquifer-restoration activities. NRC has 

approved aquifer restoration in Crow Butte Wellfield 1 (NRC, 2003c), Smith Ranch-Highland AWellfield (NRC, 2004a), and Irigaray Mine Units 1-9 (NRC, 2006). Cogema Mining Company 

has also conducted restoration at its Christensen Ranch Mine Units 2 – 6 and improved water 

quality to the point that it has requested approval of restoration from the NRC. The NRC has 

requested additional information from Cogema Mining Company before approving the 

restoration (NRC, 2012a; NRC 2012b). 

At the time the NRC approved the restoration of Wellfield 1 at the Crow Butte facility, the 

wellfield averages for 30 of the 37 water-quality parameters were returned to either postlicensing, pre-operational levels concentrations or Wyoming’s Class I Domestic Use standards 

and the EPA’s Drinking Water MCLs. Concentrations of calcium, carbonate, potassium, 

magnesium, and molybdenum, for which there are no EPA MCLs or Wyoming Class I, II, or III 

standards, exceeded post-licensing, pre-operational concentrations by 6 – 60 percent. The 

NRC determined that the radium-226 and uranium concentrations at 31 percent and 18 percent

above post-licensing, pre-operational concentrations were protective of human health and the 

environment (Crow Butte Resources, 2001). The applicable condition in Crow Butte’s NRC 

license was changed to require stability monitoring beyond the six-month period, as necessary 

to ensure no increasing concentration trends were exhibited.

At the time NRC approved restoration of A-wellfield at the Smith Ranch-Highland facility, 31 of 

the 35 water-quality parameters were returned to post-licensing, pre-operational concentrations 

or Wyoming’s Class I Domestic Use standards (PRI, 2004). Wellfield average concentrations of 

iron and selenium were returned to Wyoming’s Class II Agriculture Use and Class III Livestock 

Use standards, respectively. The wellfield average concentration of manganese exceeded the 

Class II Agriculture Use standard, but Wyoming does not have a Class III Livestock Use 

standard for manganese. The wellfield’s average for radium-226 is within the range of radium226 measured in the post-licensing, pre-operational monitoring wells.

At the time the NRC approved restoration of Irigaray Mine Units 1 – 9, 27 of the 35 water-quality 

parameters were returned to post-licensing, pre-operational concentrations or Wyoming’s Class 

I Domestic Use standards (Cogema, 2006a; Cogema, 2006b). Concentrations of calcium, 

magnesium, sodium, bicarbonate, and alkalinity as well as the measure for conductivity, for 

which there are no EPA MCLs or Wyoming Class I, II, or III standards, exceeded post-licensing, 

pre-operational concentrations 48 – 680 percent. Both the post-licensing, pre-operational and 

the post-restoration average levels of ammonium, TDS, and radium-226 exceeded the Class I 

Domestic Use standard. The average post-restoration concentration of manganese exceeded 

the limit for the Wyoming Class II Agriculture Use by 10 percent. The NRC determined that the 

concentrations in excess of post-licensing, pre-operational levels would not exceed EPA MCLs 

for ground water outside the aquifer-exemption boundary.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-47

Shallow Aquifers

Potential impacts to the water quantity of the shallow aquifers at the Ross Project area during 

aquifer-restoration would be reduced, compared to the construction and operation phases of the 

Proposed Action. The impact to the aquifers’ water levels from consumptive use of water from 

the Oshoto Reservoir and the Little Missouri River would also be moderated, because of the 

lower-volume withdrawals from the surface-water bodies.

In addition, potential impacts to water quality would again be reduced when compared to the 

Proposed Action’s operation because no lixiviant would be used in the injection stream and the 

concentration of chemicals in the recovered ground water would be significantly less than during 

ISR operations. The Applicant’s implementation of BMPs during uranium-recovery operation 

would also reduce the likelihood and magnitude of spills and leaks, and thorough cleanup would 

be facilitated. The ground-water mitigation measures during aquifer restoration would be the 

same as those described for the operation of the Proposed Action. Thus, the potential impacts 

of aquifer restoration to ground-water quantity and quality of the shallow aquifers would be 

SMALL.

Ore-Zone and Surrounding Aquifers

The potential impacts to water quantity of the ore-zone aquifer (i.e., the exempt aquifer) and the 

surrounding aquifers during the aquifer-restoration phase of the Proposed Action would be 

greater than from its operation because of the greater consumptive use of ground water (Strata, 

2011a). Ground-water modeling results indicate that the drawdown in the SM aquifer during 

both Ross Project operation and aquifer restoration would be less than 5 m [15 ft]. The 

exempted ore-zone aquifer was predicted to experience significant drawdowns in three wells on 

the Ross Project area, with minor drawdowns in wells within 3 km [2 mi] of the Project. The 

conservative regional impact analysis conducted by the ground-water modeling predicts a small 

reduction in the available head in wells used for stock, domestic, and industrial use. Although 

these effects would be localized and short-lived, the Applicant would commit to provide an 

alternative source of water of equal or better quantity and quality, subject to Wyoming waterstatute requirements, in the event that aquifer-restoration operations prevent the full use of a 

well under a valid water right (Strata, 2011a; Strata, 2012a). Consequently, the potential 

impacts of the Proposed Action’s aquifer-restoration phase to ground-water quantity of the 

confined aquifers would be SMALL to MODERATE.

The potential impacts to water quality of the ore-zone aquifer outside the exempt aquifer as well 

as the aquifers above and below the exempt aquifer (i.e., SM and DM aquifers) during the 

aquifer-restoration phase of the Proposed Action would be less than from its operation because 

no lixiviant would be used during aquifer restoration. The potential for vertical and horizontal 

excursions during aquifer restoration would be similar to those described for the Proposed 

Action’s operation. However, the magnitude of impacts would be less because the injection and 

recovery flow rates would be lower during aquifer restoration than during active uraniumrecovery operation, the addition of lixiviant would have ceased, and the ore-zone water quality 

would improve throughout active aquifer-restoration activities. The concentrations of 

radiological parameters and other chemical constituents in the permeate that would be injected 

as “clean” water to restore the exempted ore-zone aquifer, would be lower than the prelicensing, site-characterization ore-zone water quality reported by the Applicant, except for 

radium-226 (Strata, 2011a). As presented in Table 3.6 of this SEIS, dissolved radium-226 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-48

measured in the ore-zone aquifer has ranged from 0.02 Bq/L [0.6 pCi/L] to 0.4444 Bq/L [12.01 

pCi/L], and the typical radium-226 concentration anticipated in the permeate is 1 Bq/L [30 pCi/L] 

(Strata, 2011a). 

As described earlier in this section, most of the ground-water-quality parameters in wellfields for 

which the NRC has approved restoration were either returned to post-licensing, pre-operational 

concentrations or Class I Domestic Use standards. For the few parameters that exceeded postlicensing, pre-operational concentrations or Class I Domestic Use standards, the concentrations 

in the ground-water did not change the class of use and did not represent a potential impact to 

the ground water outside the aquifer-exemption boundary. The potential impacts of aquifer 

restoration to ground-water quality of the exempted aquifer and the confined aquifers 

surrounding the exempted aquifer would be SMALL.

Deep Aquifers 

The Applicant estimates that less than 14.3 L/s [227 gal/min] of brine and other byproduct 

wastes would be disposed in the Class I injection wells during aquifer restoration concurrent 

with operation at the Proposed Action (see Table 4.10 for specific production rates of brine for 

disposal). Although the volume of waste injected would be greater during the aquifer-restoration 

phase than during the first 2.5 years of Ross Project’s operation before aquifer restoration of the 

first wellfield begins, the potential impacts would be similar because the injection pressures 

would not increase beyond the limit established by WDEQ’s UIC Class I Permit. These 

pressure limits would ensure that the capacity of the Class I receiving aquifer is not exceeded. 

The potential impacts of aquifer restoration to ground-water quantity and quality of the deep 

aquifers would, therefore, be SMALL.

4.5.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning

The decommissioning activities of the Proposed Action that might impact surface water and/or 

ground water include the Applicant dismantling the CPP, auxiliary structures, and the surface 

impoundments; removing buried pipelines; excavating and removing any contaminated soil; 

plugging and abandoning wells using accepted practices; breaching the CBW; and restoring 

and revegetating all disturbed areas. Figure 4.1 indicates the components of the Proposed 

Action that would be in place by the end of its decommissioning.

Surface Water

As described in GEIS Sections 4.2.4.1.4 and 4.4.4.1.4, during the decommissioning phase, 

temporary impacts to water quality would be anticipated due to sediment loading during the 

excavation and removal of pipelines, drainage crossings, and other infrastructure (NRC, 2009b). 

As the GEIS noted, an Applicant’s compliance with permit conditions, its use of BMPs, and its 

observance of required mitigation measures would reduce decommissioning impacts to SMALL 

to MODERATE, depending upon site-specific conditions. 

For the Proposed Action, the Applicant intends to use surface water from either the Oshoto 

Reservoir or the Little Missouri River for dust control and any demolition activities during the 

Project’s decommissioning. As shown in Table 4.3, the Applicant estimates that approximately 

0.69 L/s [11 gal/min] of surface water would be used during facility and wellfield 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-49

decommissioning. This withdrawal rate is between the quantities of anticipated water use 

during the Proposed Action’s construction and operation phases.

The primary impacts to surface water during the decommissioning of the Ross Project would be 

from activities associated with the removal of constructed Project components, reclamation and 

restoration of the land impacted during the Proposed Action, and the cleanup of any 

contaminated soils. These impacts would be similar to those that result from the construction of 

the Proposed Action. Removal of buried pipelines and the roads near stream channels during 

the decommissioning phase would result in temporary disturbances that could impact surfacewater quality. Potential surface-water contamination could occur from spilled or leaked fuel or 

lubricants from construction equipment and passenger vehicles that would be operated during 

decommissioning activities, although the equipment would generally be located away from 

surface-water bodies. These potential impacts to surface-water quality would be mitigated 

using the same measures as implemented during the Proposed Action’s construction (e.g., 

BMPs and spill-response protocols). The potential impacts to surface-water quantity and quality 

from the Ross Project’s decommissioning would be SMALL.

The potential impacts to wetlands from the Proposed Action’s decommissioning would be 

SMALL, as they would be the same as discussed under the Proposed Action’s construction.

Ground Water

As described in GEIS Sections 4.2.4.2.4 and 4.4.4.2.4, the impacts to ground water during the 

decommissioning of an ISR facility are primarily associated with consumptive use of ground 

water, potential spills of fuels and lubricants, and well abandonment (NRC, 2009b). Groundwater consumptive use during decommissioning activities would be less than during operation 

and aquifer-restoration activities. BMPs would reduce the likelihood of spills and leaks. After 

ISR operations are completed and a facility is decommissioned, improperly abandoned wells 

could impact aquifers above the OZ aquifer by providing hydrological connections between 

aquifers (NRC, 2009b). To ensure that this consequence does not happen at the Ross Project, 

all injection, recovery, and monitoring wells would be plugged and abandoned in accordance 

with WDEQ/LQD requirements. The GEIS determined that implementation of BMPs and 

compliance with permit requirements would ensure that the potential impacts to ground water 

would be SMALL during decommissioning; the Proposed Action’s decommissioning would 

include observance of these procedures and requirements.

Shallow Aquifers

During decommissioning, finger drains (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.4) would be created through the 

CBW and backfilled with permeable material (gravel). These gravel-filled breaches in the CBW 

would create a highly permeable flow path through the CBW that would allow the natural flow of 

the shallow aquifer ground water beneath the CPP and in the immediate vicinity outside the 

CBW to be restored. Water levels would be monitored by the Applicant to verify that the CBW 

reclamation and ground-water restoration is complete. The Applicant’s implementation of BMPs 

and SOPs for the plugging and abandonment of its own wells during decommissioning of the 

Proposed Action would reduce the likelihood of shallow-aquifer contamination. In addition, 

other BMPs employed by the Applicant would reduce the likelihood and magnitude of spills and 

leaks during equipment and vehicular operation and would facilitate any soil or other cleanup 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-50

required. Thus, the impacts to shallow aquifers during the Proposed Action’s decommissioning 

would be SMALL. 

Ore-Zone and Surrounding Aquifers

As part of the decommissioning of the Proposed Action and the concomitant land reclamation 

and restoration activities, all monitoring, injection, and production wells would be plugged and 

abandoned in accordance with Strata’s UIC Class I Permit. The wells would be filled with 

cement and/or bentonite slurry, and then cut off below plow depth to ensure that ground water 

does not flow through the abandoned wells and to ensure that the safety of people, livestock, 

wildlife, and any machinery used in the area are not harmed (Stout and Stover, 1997). Proper 

implementation of these procedures would isolate the wells from ground-water flow. Thus, the 

impacts to the ore-zone and vertically adjacent aquifers would be SMALL.

Deep Aquifers 

The Applicant estimates that less than 0.6 L/s [10 gal/min] of brine and other liquid byproduct 

wastes would be disposed in the Class I injection wells during the decommissioning of the 

Proposed Action. The potential impacts to ground-water quantity and quality during 

decommissioning would be SMALL and less than the other phases of the Ross Project.

4.5.2 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Ross Project would not be licensed and the land would 

continue to be available for other uses. Mud pits at each well site to manage drilling fluids and 

muds would have little potential of impacting surface waters and no potential of impacting 

ground water. The current roads within the Ross Project area would continue to be maintained 

in the same manner as they are currently, also leaving little potential for impacts to surface 

water due to increasing sediment loading in runoff.

Similarly, although no license would be issued and no Ross Project would be constructed or 

operated in the No-Action Alternative, preconstruction activities would cause potential impacts. 

The respective impacts to ground water depend upon the density of plugged and abandoned 

wells and drillholes. As of August 2011, the Applicant had drilled and plugged approximately 

612 holes it installed during site and geotechnical characterization; an additional 51 were drilled 

and are now used as site-characterization ground-water monitoring wells. The Applicant has 

also located and properly abandoned 55 Nubeth drillholes. Thus, the drillhole density is 

approximately 1 hole per 1 ha [2.5 ac]. Under the No-Action Alternative, the 51 monitoring wells 

would be plugged and abandoned in accordance with WDEQ/LQD requirements. The low 

density of these properly plugged and abandoned wells and drillholes would not affect the 

ground-water flow or quality.

Thus, the potential impacts from the No-Action Alternative to surface and ground waters, 

relative to the existing Ross Site area and including the preconstruction activities that have 

already occurred, would be SMALL
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-51

4.5.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project

Under Alternative 3, the North Ross Project would generally be the same as the Proposed 

Action, except that the facility (i.e., the CPP, associated buildings, and auxiliary structures as 

well as the surface impoundments) would be located to the north of where it would be located in 

the Proposed Action, as described in SEIS Section 2.1.3. Most of the potential impacts to 

surface and ground water and mitigation measures for Alternative 3 would be the same as for 

the Proposed Action. Only the differences in impacts between the Proposed Action and the 

North Ross Project are described below. Operation of the wellfields during the North Ross 

Project would be the same as during the Proposed Action and, therefore, the potential impacts 

and mitigation measures associated with the wellfields would be the same.

4.5.3.1 North Ross Project Construction

Impacts to surface and ground waters during construction are expected to be generally the 

same as the Proposed Action, although the steeper slopes at the north site would require more 

engineering and construction activity. As a result, there would be a slight increase in the 

potential for impacts to surface and ground waters in the shallow aquifer. However, the impacts 

to shallow ground water in the Proposed Action, which result from the construction of the CBW 

and, in particular, the alteration of the surficial ground-water flow regime, would not be a 

consequence of this Alternative. At the north site, shallow ground-water levels are estimated to 

be at a depth of greater than 15 m [50 ft], within the Lance Formation (as discussed in SEIS 

Section 3.4); however, during high-precipitation events or after significant snowmelt, perched 

ground water could be present above the regional water table. If the CBW is not needed and 

not constructed by the Applicant, then the need for dewatering the shallow aquifer would be 

eliminated and thereby would reduce the consumption of ground water by a small amount. 

Construction of the storm-water-control system and implementation of BMPs during construction 

of the Alternative 3 facility would be more involved, in order to protect the two ephemeral 

drainages from impacts of erosion and increased sediment loads. If the Alternative 3 design 

required the CPP and the surface impoundments to be separated by a drainage (as shown in 

Figure 2.11 in SEIS Section 2.1.3), the construction of the pipeline network would also require 

additional construction and engineering activity. However, the BMPs during construction would 

minimize potential impacts to surface and ground waters from construction of Alternative 3; 

thus, the impact would still be SMALL.

4.5.3.2 North Ross Project Operation

Alternative 3 would result in many of the same potential impacts to surface water during its 

operation as the Proposed Action’s. The proximity of the facility to two ephemeral drainages 

would increase the risk of surface-water impacts from spills and leaks, where the released 

material could make its way into surface water. The potential for impact to surface water would 

be mitigated by the distance of approximately 0.8 km [0.5 mi] to the Little Missouri River. 

Operation of the wellfields during the North Ross Project would be the same as during the 

Proposed Action and, therefore, the potential impacts and mitigation measures associated with 

the wellfields would be the same. Thus, the potential impacts to surface water of Alternative 3’s 

operation would be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-52

The greater thickness of the vadose (i.e., unsaturated) zone under the north site would also 

provide additional natural protection to the shallow ground water in the event of a release of 

process chemicals, recovery solutions, or liquid wastes within the CPP and surfaceimpoundment areas. If contaminants reached the ground water, remediation by pump-and-treat 

methods would be required. By comparison, the Proposed Action, ground-water levels within 

the CBW would be maintained lower than surrounding and underlying ground-water levels, and 

would thus prevent any migration of contaminants away from the CPP and surface 

impoundments. Because there would be no difference between the location and operation of 

the wellfields under Alternative 3 as compared with the Proposed Action, the potential SMALL to 

MODERATE short-term impacts from lixiviant excursions discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.1.2 

could also occur under Alternative 3. Therefore, the potential short-term impacts to ground 

water of the operation of Alternative 3 would be SMALL to MODERATE due to the potential for 

lixiviant excursions.

4.5.3.3 North Ross Project Aquifer Restoration

Because the wellfields would be in the same locations in Alternative 3, this Alternative does not 

include any modifications to the wellfields from what was described for the Proposed Action 

(because they follow the subsurface uranium mineralization), the wellfields would result in the 

same potential impacts to ground water during Alternative 3’s aquifer restoration phase as in the 

Proposed Action. These potential short-term impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE, due to 

potential drawdowns during aquifer restoration.

4.5.3.4 North Ross Project Decommissioning

Alternative 3 would result in generally the same potential impacts to surface and ground waters 

during its decommissioning as would the Proposed Action, with the following exceptions: The 

surface-impoundment area requiring recontouring and revegetation would be larger and more 

extensive; thus, the potential for surface-water impacts associated with these activities would be 

marginally greater. Unlike with the Proposed Action, it would not be necessary to cut gravelfilled channels through a CBW, thereby eliminating the potential for the associated surfacewater impacts. The potential impacts during Alternative 3’s decommissioning to the surface 

drainages through the north site would be the same as described above for Alternative 3’s 

operation. The potential impacts to surface and ground waters from decommissioning of 

Alternative 3 would be SMALL.

4.6 Ecology

The Proposed Action could impact the ecology of the Ross Project area, including both flora and 

fauna, during all phases of the Project’s lifecycle. These impacts would include removal of 

vegetation from the Ross Project area; reduction in wildlife habitat and forage productivity as 

well as an increased risk of soil erosion and weed invasion; the modification of existing 

vegetation communities; the loss of sensitive plants and habitats; and the potential spread of 

invasive species and noxious weed populations. Impacts to wildlife could include loss, 

alteration, 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, pollution from fuel spills, and habitat reduction. 

The potential environmental impacts to and related mitigation measures for the Ross Project 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-53

area’s ecology during the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of 

the Proposed Action and the two Alternatives are discussed in the following sections.

4.6.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, consists of four phases: construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning of the Ross Project’s uranium-recovery facility and wellfields.

4.6.1.1 Ross Project Construction

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.5, the potential impacts to terrestrial vegetation during the 

construction of ISR facilities could include removal of vegetation from ISR facilities’ sites (and 

the resulting reduction in wildlife habitat and forage productivity as well as the increased risk of 

soil erosion and weed invasion), the modification of existing vegetation communities, the loss of 

sensitive plants and habitats as a result of site clearing and grading, and the potential spread of 

invasive species and noxious weed populations (NRC, 2009b). 

The construction phase of the Proposed Action could potentially impact the local ecology during 

the Applicant’s clearing vegetation and leveling the site; constructing the CPP, auxiliary 

structures, and surface impoundments; developing the wellfields, including drilling wells, laying 

pipelines, constructing module buildings and other wellfield components; constructing access 

roads; clearing storage, parking, and laydown areas; and installing associated infrastructures 

such as utility and lighting systems. The impacts of these construction activities on the ecology 

of the Ross Project area are evaluated below for vegetation, wildlife, and protected species. 

Terrestrial Species

Vegetation

The construction of the Ross Project facility (i.e., the CPP and surface impoundments) as well 

as the installation of wellfields would take place within the nine vegetation communities the 

Applicant indicated in its license application as being present at the Project area—upland 

grassland, sagebrush shrubland, pastureland, hayland, reservoir/stock pond, wetland, disturbed 

land, cropland, and wooded draw—(see SEIS Section 3.2) (Strata, 2011a). Direct impacts of 

such construction would include the short-term loss of vegetation (structure modification, 

species composition, and areal extent of cover types). According to the Applicant, an estimated 

114 ha [282 ac] of land disturbance would occur; one-half of this disturbance would occur within 

the upland-grassland vegetation community, primarily because of wellfield-module and accessroad construction (Strata, 2011a). 

Only 7 percent of the Ross Project area is currently hayland; however, 20 – 30 percent of the 

impacts would be to this vegetation community because of construction of the CPP and surface 

impoundments. Indirect impacts include the short-term and long-term increased potential for 

non-native species invasion, establishment, and expansion; exposure of soils to accelerated 

erosion; shifts in species composition or changes in vegetation density; reduction of wildlife 

habitat; and reduction in livestock foraging opportunities. 

Sagebrush shrubland, the second largest vegetation type on the Ross Project area, can be 

difficult and time-consuming to re-establish. Consequently, preconstruction vegetation 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-54

communities and sub-communities (i.e., shrub-steppe) may be different than post-construction 

communities (i.e., grass-dominated) for several years, or possibly decades, which could alter 

the composition and abundance of both plant and wildlife species in the area. Site reclamation 

and/or regeneration of native shrub species could be further hindered by yearlong grazing 

pressure. Large ungulates (i.e., wild and domestic animals with hooves) are attracted to the 

more succulent, younger plants, and they often concentrate in newly seeded locations during 

the critical early-growth stage. Impacts to the sagebrush-shrubland vegetation type would be 

minimized by the Applicant’s reducing surface disturbance where possible, distributing a 

temporary seed mixture to prevent invasion of non-native species in disturbed areas, restoring 

sagebrush and other shrubs on reclaimed lands, and conducting all revegetation activities in 

accordance with an approved WDEQ/LQD reclamation plan (Strata, 2011b).

Construction activities, including the increased soil disturbance and increased traffic during 

construction, could stimulate the introduction and spread of undesirable and invasive, nonnative species at the Ross Project area. Several species of designated and prohibited noxious 

weeds listed in the Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act were identified on the Ross Project 

area. These species included field bindweed, perennial sow thistle, quackgrass, Canada thistle, 

hounds tongue, leafy spurge, common burdock, Scotch thistle, Russian olive, and skeletonleaf 

bursage (Strata, 2011a). These species could be locally abundant in small areas, especially 

around the Oshoto Reservoir and along the Little Missouri River and Deadman Creek, but they 

were not common over the entire Ross Project area. 

The impact from vegetation removal and surface disturbance would affect approximately 114 ha 

[282 ac] of land, or about 16 percent of the Proposed Action’s area. Construction would be 

phased over time, reducing the amount of surface area disturbed at any one time. Noxious 

weeds would be controlled with appropriate spraying techniques. As a result of the combination 

of these measures, in addition to the other mitigation measures discussed above, the impacts to 

terrestrial vegetation would be SMALL.

In addition, the potential impacts to vegetation during the Proposed Action’s construction would 

be mitigated by the Applicant’s ensuring that disturbed areas would be both temporarily and 

permanently revegetated in accordance with WDEQ/LQD regulations and its WDEQ Permit to 

Mine. The Applicant would seed disturbed areas to establish a vegetative cover to minimize 

wind and water erosion and the invasion of undesirable plant species. Impacts would be further 

mitigated by a phased approach to construction, and therefore surface disturbance would be 

phased. A temporary seed mixture would be used in wellfields and other areas where the 

vegetation would be disturbed again prior to final decommissioning and final revegetation. The 

temporary seed mixture typically would consist of one or more of the native wheatgrasses (e.g., 

western wheatgrass and thick-spike wheatgrass). Permanent seeding would be accomplished 

with a seed mixture approved by the WDEQ/LQD and the local landowners. Two permanent 

land-reclamation seed mixtures (i.e., upland and pastureland/hayland) would be used to reseed 

disturbed areas. Wellfield areas would be fenced as necessary to prevent livestock access, 

which would also enhance the establishment of temporary vegetation (Strata, 2011a). The 

Applicant would conduct weed control as needed to limit the spread of undesirable and invasive, 

non-native species on disturbed-land areas (Strata, 2011a).
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-55

Wildlife

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.5, in general, wildlife species would disperse from an area 

undergoing construction, although smaller, less-mobile species could perish during clearing and 

grading. Habitat fragmentation, temporary displacement, and direct or indirect mortalities are 

possible, and thus the GEIS concluded that construction impacts on wildlife could range from 

SMALL to MODERATE (NRC, 2009b). These types of impacts would be mitigated as 

discussed in this section. Moreover, impacts on raptor species from power-distribution lines 

could be mitigated by the Applicant’s following the Avian Power-Line Interaction Committee’s

(APLIC’s) guidance and avoiding disturbance of areas near active nests and prior to the fledging 

of young (APLIC, 2006).

Mammals

The Ross Project area provides yearlong range to pronghorn antelope, and winter/yearlong 

range for mule deer, but it is considered outside of the normal range for white-tailed deer and 

elk (see SEIS Section 3.6.1). White-tailed deer, however, were observed during the Applicant’s 

wildlife surveys as were pronghorn antelope. No crucial big-game habitats or migration 

corridors are recognized by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) at the Ross 

Project area or the surrounding 1.6-km [1-mi] perimeter. (A crucial range or habitat is defined 

as any particular seasonal range or habitat component that has been documented as the 

determining factor in a population’s ability to maintain and reproduce itself at a certain level.) 

Therefore, there would be no direct impact on big-game’s crucial habitat, critical or key winter or 

summer ranges, or migration corridors. Direct impacts on white-tailed deer and elk could 

include direct loss and modification of habitat, increased mortality from increased traffic 

collisions on local and regional roads, increased competition for and reduction of available 

forage, increased conflicts with vehicles because of changes in wildlife movement patterns, and 

increased disturbance due to the presence of humans. White-tailed deer and elk could be 

indirectly affected during construction by displacing portions of these populations from the Ross 

Project area into offsite suitable regional habitat. Because the Project area provides only 

nonessential habitat for white-tailed deer and elk, impacts to these species would be SMALL. 

The direct impacts on pronghorn antelope and mule deer would be the same as those described 

previously for white-tailed deer and elk. The construction phase of the Proposed Action has 

been estimated by the Applicant to be 12 months. Adequate habitat for pronghorn antelope and 

mule deer exists in the surrounding area, and these species could return to the areas affected 

by Ross Project construction when it is complete. The staged restoration of disturbed areas that 

the Applicant proposes would provide grass and forage within a few years of habitat 

disturbance. The movement of big game through the Ross Project would not be significantly 

impacted by the Proposed Action. The Applicant has committed to implementing mitigation 

measures, such as reduced speed limits to reduce the risk of vehicular collision, fences 

designed to permit big-game passage, and use of existing roads where possible to avoid

altering wildlife-movement patterns. Because pronghorn antelope and mule deer are highly 

mobile species, the potential impact to these species would be SMALL.

A variety of small- and medium-sized mammals are also potentially located on the Ross Project 

area (see SEIS Section 3.6.1) (Strata, 2011a). These include a variety of predators and 

furbearers, such as coyote, red fox, raccoon, bobcat, badger, beaver, and muskrat. Prey 

species observed during the Applicant’s field surveys included rodents (e.g., mice, rats, voles, 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-56

gophers, ground squirrels, and chipmunks), jackrabbits, and cottontails. These species are 

cyclically common and widespread throughout the region and are important food sources for 

raptors and other predators. 

Medium-sized mammals (e.g., coyotes, foxes) could be temporarily displaced to other habitats 

during construction activities. Direct losses of limited-mobility, small-mammal species (e.g., 

voles, ground squirrels, mice) could be higher than for other wildlife because of the likelihood 

they would retreat into burrows if disturbed, and thus potentially be killed by topsoil scraping or 

staging activities. However, given the limited, noncontiguous area that would be disturbed 

(approximately 114 ha [282 ac]), no major changes or reductions in small- or medium-sized 

mammal populations would be expected. Because only a few individuals would be affected, 

and most mammal species would likely travel to suitable habitat near the Ross Project area 

during its construction, the Proposed Action would have a SMALL impact on these mammals.

Birds

Potential impacts to upland game birds at the Ross Project area include nest destruction or nest 

desertions, reproductive failure as a result of proposed construction activities and increased 

presence of humans, or increased mortalities associated with traffic. Four upland game-bird 

species occur within or near the Ross Project area (i.e., wild turkey, sage-grouse, sharp-tailed 

grouse, and mourning doves) (Strata, 2011a). Suitable habitat (for nesting, brood-rearing, and 

foraging) for these four species exists in the Ross Project area; however, as previously 

discussed, there are no sage-grouse core areas or connectivity corridors within the Project area. 

Because of the type of disturbance (the relatively small areas of disturbance and the sequential 

nature of the disturbance), impacts to upland game birds as a result of the Proposed Action 

would be SMALL.

Potential impacts to raptors within the Ross Project area also include nest desertions or 

reproductive failure as a result of construction activities and increased presence of humans; 

temporary reductions in prey populations; and mortality associated with traffic. Six raptor 

species on the USFWS’s “Birds of Conservation Concern” (BCC) list (i.e., bald eagle, 

ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, prairie falcon, short-eared owl, and Swainson’s hawk,) have 

been observed within or near the Project area (Strata, 2011a). Swainson’s and ferruginous 

hawks are the only species known to nest in the area. One intact raptor nest (a Swainson’s 

hawk nest, No. SH1) was located at the Ross Project area during the Applicant’s field surveys. 

Seven intact nests and one nest no longer intact were located within 1.6 km [1 mi] of the Project 

area. The nest within the Ross Project area would not be directly disturbed during the Proposed 

Action’s construction, so nesting raptors would not be directly impacted. Foraging raptors are 

expected to be able to avoid any areas of disturbance. Because of the type of disturbance 

(again, the relatively small areas of disturbance and the sequential nature of the disturbance) 

and the fact that no raptor nests would be directly affected, impacts to raptors during the 

Proposed Action would be SMALL.

Potential impacts to nongame or migratory birds, including waterfowl, within the Ross Project 

area include nest destruction or desertions, or reproductive failure as a result of construction 

activities during the Proposed Action. In addition, disruption of water features, loss of wetlands, 

construction of surface impoundments for waste management, and installation of aboveground 

power lines near the Oshoto Reservoir and the Little Missouri River could all impact waterfowl in 

the area. Increased mortality associated with the increased traffic during the construction phase 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-57

would also occur. The field surveys completed by the Applicant identified 27 nongame or 

migratory avian species within the Ross Project area (Strata, 2011a). Because of the type and 

sequence of land disturbance, and other mitigation measures, the Proposed Action’s 

construction impacts to nongame or migratory birds would be SMALL.

Thus, all impacts to terrestrial wildlife would be SMALL.

Reptiles, Amphibians, and Aquatic Species

Potential impacts to reptiles, amphibians, and fish during construction of the Proposed Action 

would primarily be the result of the mortality of individuals and destruction of habitat. Sediment 

loads in surface waters and wetlands from surface-disturbing activities could also potentially 

impact aquatic habitat, although potential impacts would be greatly reduced through sedimentcontrol BMPs. Up to 0.8 ha [2 ac] of wetland habitat could be disturbed as a result of 

construction; however, all wetland disturbance would be mitigated in accordance with USACE 

requirements found in the USACE permit under the CWA. 

Because of the type of disturbance, which would be relatively small, and the sequential nature 

of the disturbance as well as the fact that aquatic habitats would be avoided if at all possible 

during construction, impacts to reptiles, amphibians, and fish during the Proposed Action would 

be SMALL.

Protected Species 

As discussed in SEIS Section 3.6.1.4, a protected species of bird, the Greater sage-grouse 

could occur on the Ross Project area, although the Project area is not located in a designated 

sage-grouse core area. The nearest occupied sage-grouse lek, the Oshoto Lek, a matingstrutting area for male sage-grouse, is located approximately 1.6 km [1 mi] southeast of the 

Ross Project area. A second occupied sage-grouse lek (the Cap’n Bob Lek) is located 

approximately 3.5 km [2.2 mi] outside of the Project’s boundaries. Wyoming recommends the 

application of seasonal stipulations (March 14 – June 30) at identified nesting and early broodrearing habitat within approximately 3 km [2 mi] of an occupied lek in noncore areas. Thus, only 

the Oshoto Lek has been observed by the Applicant within 3 km [2 mi] of the Ross Project area; 

however, this Lek is not located in proximity to any proposed construction or operation activities 

at the Project. If a Greater-sage-grouse lek were to be identified in or near the Ross Project 

area at any time during the Ross Project, including during construction, the Applicant would 

follow WGFD policy regarding construction-activity restrictions (see Section 3.6.1.4 regarding 

current regulations that address this species and additional site-specific information). The 

Applicant would continue to consult with the WGFD and the WDEQ/LQD to determine if a sagegrouse monitoring, protection, and habitat-enhancement plan would be necessary for the Ross 

Project, and a plan would be developed and implemented, if warranted. 

During the Applicant’s field surveys, the northern leopard frog was the only BLM-listed reptile, 

amphibian, or fish sensitive species actually observed in the Ross Project area; three amphibian 

and five reptile “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” (SGCN) were observed (Strata, 

2011a). Impacts to protected avian, amphibian, and reptile species would be no different than 

those for other similar species because the Applicant would observe appropriate activity 

restrictions, attempt to avoid aquatic habitats during road construction, and implement the 

mitigation measures below.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-58

The potential impacts to ecological resources associated with construction activities during the 

Proposed Action would be limited due to the relatively small area of surface disturbance and the 

Applicant’s phased approach. Nevertheless, mitigation measures to prevent or further reduce 

impacts to wildlife would include one or more of the following, as addressed by the various 

regulatory and permit-issuing agencies:

■ Design of fencing to permit big-game passage as recommended by the WGFD. 

■ Use of existing roads when possible and location of newly constructed roads to access 

more than one well location according to BLM requirements. 

■ Implementation of speed limits to minimize collisions with wildlife according to the MOU 

between the Applicant and Crook County regarding roads near the Ross Project (Strata, 

2011d). 

■ Adherence to temporal and spatial restrictions within specified distances of active sagegrouse leks as determined through consultation with the WGFD and the WDEQ/LQD. 

■ If direct impacts to raptors or migratory-bird BCC result from construction, a materials

management plan (MMP) for those species would be prepared and approved by the

USFWS, and would include one or more of the following provisions:

 Relocation of active and inactive raptor nests that would be impacted by well 

drilling and other construction activities in accordance with the approved raptor 

MMP. 

 Institution of buffer zones to protect raptor nests where necessary and restriction 

of uranium-recovery-related disturbances from encroaching within buffers around 

active raptor nests (from egg-laying until fledging) to prevent nest abandonment 

or injury to eggs or young. 

 Restoration of the ground cover necessary to attract and sustain a suitable 

raptor-prey base after drilling, construction, and future uranium-recovery 

activities. 

 Requirement for the use of raptor-safe construction for overhead power lines 

according to current guidelines and recommendations by the APLIC and/or the 

USFWS, including the use of markers to increase visibility and to limit strikes. 

■ Restoration of sagebrush and other shrubs on reclaimed land, in accordance with a 

reclamation plan approved by WDEQ/LQD, and the grading of reclaimed areas to create

swales and depressions for sagebrush obligates (sagebrush obligates are those species 

that need sagebrush to survive, e.g., sage-grouse) and their young per WDEQ/LQD 

requirements. 

■ Restoration of preconstruction, native habitats for species that nest and forage in those 

vegetation communities according to WDEQ/LQD and WGFD requirements. 

■ Restoration of diverse landforms, replacement of topsoil, and the construction of brush 

piles, snags, and/or rock piles to enhance habitat for wildlife per WDEQ/LQD 

requirements. 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-59

■ Restoration of habitat provided by jurisdictional wetlands as required by both the 

WDEQ/LQD and the USACE. 

Thus, with the measures listed above, the environmental impacts to terrestrial, aquatic, and 

protected species during Ross Project construction would be SMALL

4.6.1.2 Ross Project Operation

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.5, alteration of wildlife habitats could result from uraniumrecovery activities (e.g., fencing, traffic, and noise), and conflicts between species habitat and 

uranium-recovery activities could occur (NRC, 2009b). The GEIS further noted the occurrence 

of temporary contamination of soils from spills and leaks during ISR operation. However, rapid 

discovery and response to spills, leaks, and other releases (i.e., spill containment and cleanup 

of potentially impacted soil), and the eventual survey for radiation during decommissioning, 

would limit the magnitude of overall impacts to terrestrial ecology during the Proposed Action’s 

operation. Leak-detection systems and spill-response plans would reduce the potential impacts 

to aquatic species from spills around wellheads and leaks from pipelines by preventing 

contamination of soils, surface waters, or wetlands. Additional mitigation measures such as 

perimeter fencing, surface-impoundment netting or other avian deterrents, and periodic wildlife 

surveys, which would present an opportunity for the Applicant to identify any necessary changes 

in its mitigation measures, would also limit impacts during the Proposed Action’s operation.

Terrestrial Species 

Vegetation

During the operation phase of the Proposed Action, the wellfields and CPP would be frequently 

accessed by use of the existing roads. The installation and operation of the wellfields would 

involve the excavation of trenches for trunk lines and utilities; this surface disturbance would 

increase the susceptibility of the disturbed area to invasive and noxious weeds. However, 

surface disturbance would continue to be minimized during operation as new, additional 

wellfields are installed, and vehicular access would be restricted to specific roads. The potential 

for these impacts to occur during operations is less than that during construction, due to fewer 

hectares or acres of land being disturbed. There is a potential for impacts to vegetation from 

spills around wellheads and leaks from pipelines during the Ross Project’s operation. Based 

upon the small amount of land that would be disturbed during operation, and the lower number 

of vehicles accessing the Ross Project, the impacts would be SMALL during the operation 

phase of the Proposed Action.

Wildlife

Wildlife use of areas adjacent to and near the Proposed Action would likely initially decline 

because of human presence during the Project’s operation and steadily increase to near-normal 

levels once animals become habituated to the uranium-recovery activities. Because wildlife 

could be in fairly close proximity to the CPP, surface impoundments, wellfields, and roads, some 

impacts to wildlife would be expected from direct conflict with vehicular traffic and the presence 

of Strata’s onsite personnel. In addition, wildlife could be exposed to contaminated soil resulting 

from spills and leaks. All of these impacts would be SMALL, however, because only a few 

individual animals would be affected, the potential for spills, leaks, or other releases is low, and 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-60

the continued existence of any particular species at the Ross Project area would not be 

affected. Potential impacts to terrestrial wildlife during the Ross Project’s operation phase from 

waste process solutions and sediment in the facility’s lined surface impoundments would be 

reduced by the fencing that would be installed around the entire facility (i.e., around the CPP 

and the surface impoundments) (see Figure 3.1 in SEIS Section 3.2). Moreover, wildlife escape 

ramps would be installed in each surface impoundment. Therefore, during the operation of the 

Proposed Action, the potential impacts to wildlife would be SMALL.

Mammals

The potential impact to big game during the Proposed Action’s operation phase would either be 

similar to or less than that described earlier for the construction phase, because limited earthmoving activities would occur. Therefore, there would be only SMALL impacts to big game 

species during the operation phase of the Proposed Action. The potential impacts to other 

mammals during operation of the Ross Project would also be similar to or less than that 

described earlier for the construction phase. Because only a few individual mammals would be 

affected, and most mammal species would likely travel to suitable habitat outside of the 

operating facility and wellfields, the Proposed Action would have SMALL impacts on these 

mammals during its operation. 

Birds

The potential impacts to upland game birds, waterfowl, shorebirds, and raptors during the 

Proposed Action’s operation would either be the same or less than that described earlier for the 

construction phase because earth-moving activities would be more limited during its operation 

phase. 

For avian control at the surface impoundments, the Applicant is considering three options, 

including netting, “bird balls” (hollow or water-filled balls), or a radar-hazing system (Strata, 

2012a). Following an extensive literature review and contact with knowledgeable individuals 

regarding avian deterrents for impoundments, a radar-hazing system has been identified by the 

Applicant as the most likely solution for deterring avian species from Project surface 

impoundments. This system uses radar to detect incoming waterfowl and then uses hazing 

techniques (primarily noise) to scare the birds away. The avian-deterrent system would require 

setup and routine maintenance, including calibration of the radar to site-specific conditions to 

avoid false activations. The potential for other wildlife to access the surface impoundments 

would be minimized by the installation of fencing around the CPP and surface impoundments. 

Additionally, BMPs would be the same as those used by the Applicant during construction; 

therefore, the potential impacts of the Proposed Action’s operation would be SMALL for these 

birds.

Reptiles, Amphibians, and Aquatic Species 

The potential impact to reptiles and amphibians from the Proposed Action’s operation would be 

comparable to that described earlier for its construction. Because the potential habitat for 

reptiles and amphibians is limited within the Ross Project area, the potential impacts would be 

limited and SMALL. Because of the limited occurrence of surface water and, thus, of aquatic 

species at the Project area, the potential impact to aquatic species would be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-61

Protected Species

No impacts to Federally listed threatened and endangered species would occur during the 

operation phase because these species have not been identified at the Ross Project area. 

Potential impacts to the protected species during the Project’s operation would be the same or 

less than those discussed above for the construction of the Ross Project because there would 

be fewer humans present outdoors on the site itself and fewer vehicles being used. In general, 

outdoor activities would be limited. Thus, the impacts would be SMALL to all protected species. 

In addition, mitigation measures implemented during the Project’s construction would continue 

to be employed to ensure that potential impacts to protected species remain SMALL. 

As noted in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1, specific mitigation measures for all ecological resources 

would be required by several Federal and State agencies; these measures would be 

implemented during the Proposed Action’s operation. These include the Applicant reseeding 

disturbed-land areas with WDEQ- and Crook County-approved seed mixtures to prevent the 

establishment of competitive weeds and monitoring of invasive and noxious weeds. If these 

weeds become an issue, then the Applicant would employ other control alternatives, such as 

the application of herbicides, to minimize their impacts. In addition, impacts to vegetation and 

wildlife resulting from spills and leaks would be mitigated by the Applicant’s use of BMPs. 

BMPs would include several leak-detection systems and spill-response plans, where released 

solutions would be contained and affected soils would be removed, thereby reducing the 

impacts of such releases.

All impacts of the Proposed Action’s operation would be SMALL to the ecology of the Ross 

Project area.

4.6.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration 

In GEIS Section 4.4.5, the potential impacts to ecological resources during the aquiferrestoration phase of an ISR facility are described (NRC, 2009b). These impacts were noted to 

include habitat disruption. As noted above, however, in the case of the Ross Project, the 

already in-place infrastructure from the construction and operation phases (i.e., roads) would 

continue to be used, and little additional ground disturbance would occur. 

Contamination of soils and surface waters could result from spills and leaks, which could impact 

the ecology of the Ross Project. The leak-detection systems and spill-response protocols 

described earlier, and the eventual radiation survey of all potentially impacted soils and 

sediments, would limit the magnitude of overall impacts to terrestrial and aquatic ecology during 

the aquifer restoration at the Proposed Action. In addition, continued implementation of 

mitigation measures, such as perimeter fencing and the avian-deterrent system would ensure 

that impacts to vegetation and terrestrial species would be minimized during aquifer restoration 

at the Ross Project. Also, because the existing infrastructure would be in place, the potential 

impacts to the Project area’s ecology from aquifer-restoration activities would be similar or less 

than that experienced during the Proposed Action’s operation phase—wildlife would have 

already retreated or learned to tolerate the presence of humans or noise. Therefore, the 

potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife during aquifer restoration would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-62

There would be no expected impacts to protected species during aquifer restoration beyond 

those which occurred during the construction and operation phases of the Proposed Action, 

because the existing infrastructure would be in place and no further excavation of habitat would 

be necessary. Additionally, to date, no threatened or endangered species have been observed 

at the Ross Project area. Therefore, the overall impact to threatened, endangered, or protected 

species during aquifer restoration would be SMALL. 

4.6.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.1, temporary land disturbance during the decommissioning of 

ISR facilities would be a result of excavation and disturbance of soils; excavation and removal of 

buried pipelines; and the decontamination, dismantling, demolition, and removal of buildings 

and structures (NRC, 2009b). However, any recontouring of land and its revegetation would 

assist in the restoration of habitats previously altered during an ISR facility’s construction and 

operation. Wildlife would be temporarily displaced during the decommissioning phase, but 

species could return upon completion of this phase, when the restoration of vegetation and 

reclamation of habitat have been accomplished. Although facility decommissioning and site 

reclamation might result in temporary increases in sediment load in local streams, aquatic 

species would recover quickly as the additional sediment load decreased. For all of these 

reasons, the GEIS concluded the overall potential impact during the decommissioning of an ISR 

facility would be SMALL.

The Proposed Action’s decommissioning would be phased over approximately the last five 

years of the Ross Project. The Applicant estimates a 12-month duration for the 

decommissioning of the CPP, surface impoundments, pipelines, roads, and other infrastructure 

(if the CPP does not continue to operate for satellite and/or other offsite uranium-loaded IX-resin 

processing). Stockpiled topsoil would be used to regrade the land to the contours that existed 

during the Applicant’s pre-licensing, site-characterization efforts, as required, and be reseeded 

with native vegetation when the buildings and structures are removed as described earlier (see 

SEIS Section 2.1.1). No loss of vegetation communities beyond those disturbed during the 

construction phase would occur. Pipeline removal would impact vegetation that could have reestablished itself, although this, too, would be temporary as the disturbed areas are reseeded. 

Thus, the impacts of the Proposed Action’s decommissioning would not be expected to be 

greater than those experienced during its construction, and mitigation measures would continue 

to be employed. Consequently, the decommissioning impacts to vegetation would be SMALL. 

The decommissioning of the Proposed Action would create increased noise and traffic as 

buildings and structures are decontaminated, dismantled, demolished, and transported offsite to 

an appropriate waste-disposal facility. During this time, wildlife could either come in conflict with 

heavy equipment or be disrupted by the higher-than-normal noise. As a result of these impacts, 

wildlife would move elsewhere either on the Ross Project area or onto other lands. Temporarily 

displaced wildlife could return to the Ross Project area after the Proposed Action’s 

decommissioning and site restoration and reclamation are complete. Further, as required by 

NRC regulations, the Applicant would be required to submit a DP as well as its RAP for 

Commission review and approval (see Appendix 6.1-A to the TR); these documents will address 

ecological impacts such as these. Consequently, the decommissioning impacts of the Ross 

Project on area ecology would not be more than those experienced during the Proposed 

Action’s construction. Thus, the impacts to terrestrial wildlife, aquatic, and protected species 

during decommissioning would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-63

4.6.2 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Ross Project would not be licensed and the land would 

continue to be available for other uses. However, activities such as the plugging and proper 

abandonment of existing drillholes could continue to occur as could continued environmental 

monitoring, data collection, and field surveying. These activities, however, would be temporary 

in nature and the surface area affected would be very limited. 

The Ross Project area would continue to support vegetation communities and wildlife habitat 

typical of the region (as described in SEIS Section 3.2). Land use by wildlife, including the 

pasturelands and rangelands, would continue. Grazing of existing vegetation, particularly in 

grassland communities, would continue under the existing grazing leases. Existing wildlife on 

the Ross Project area would be affected only if continued cattle grazing were to destroy wildlife 

habitat or if species were to be displaced by cattle populations because of lack of forage and 

cover. However, in this Alternative, only a few individual species would be affected, and they 

would relocate to suitable nearby habitats. Therefore, vegetation and wildlife impacts would be 

SMALL under Alternative 2. 

4.6.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project

Under Alternative 3, the North Ross Project would generally be the same as the Proposed 

Action, except that the facility (i.e., the CPP, associated buildings, and auxiliary structures as 

well as the surface impoundments) would be located to the north of where it would be located in 

the Proposed Action, as described in SEIS Section 2.1.3. The Applicant’s construction of the 

CPP at this location would produce a very slight increase in the travel distance for vehicles 

accessing the Ross Project’s facility and wellfields. This could very slightly raise the potential 

for vehicular collisions with wildlife. However, the potential impacts during construction of 

Alternative 3 would be similar to those described for the Proposed Action. In addition, the 

surface impoundments would be located farther away from the Oshoto Reservoir, which would 

reduce the likelihood of waterfowl and other wildlife entering the surface impoundments. This 

would reduce the impacts to wildlife during the operation and aquifer-restoration phases of 

Alternative 3. All other impacts would be the same as for the Proposed Action, and the same 

mitigation measures would be implemented. The impacts of the North Ross Project would be of 

the same magnitude as during the Proposed Action, and they would be SMALL.

4.7 Air Quality

The Proposed Action could impact air quality during all phases of the Project’s lifecycle. As 

discussed in GEIS Section 3.4.6 and in SEIS Section 3.7.1, Wyoming is generally a very windy 

state and ranks first in the U.S. with an annual average wind speed of 5.8 m/s [13 mi/hr]. During 

winter, wind speeds in Wyoming can reach 13 – 18 m/s [30 – 40 mi/hr] with gusts to 22 – 27 m/s 

[50 – 60 mi/hr] (NRC, 2009b). During the 12 months of pre-licensing, site-characterization 

monitoring at the Ross Project area, the onsite meteorology station recorded average annual 

wind speeds of 19 km/hr [12 mi/hr], with a maximum wind speed of 74 km/hr [46 mi/hr]. 

Southerly winds were predominantly recorded at the Ross Project area. Despite the southerly 

winds, the highest wind speeds tend to occur from the north-northwest. These data suggest 

that combustion-engine and fugitive-dust emissions from the Ross Project would be moved by 

the predominant winds to the south. During high wind-speed events, dispersal of gaseous (e.g., 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-64

combustion-engine) and particulate (e.g., fugitive-dust) emissions would likely be moved to the 

south-southeast. 

In addition to the winds, the Ross Project area and the surrounding region receive relatively little 

rainfall, with average annual precipitation ranging from 25 – 38 cm [10 – 15 in]. The region 

receives an average annual snowfall of 130 – 150 cm [50 – 60 in]; approximately one-half of the 

precipitation is associated with spring snows and thunderstorms. At the Ross Project 

meteorological station, the total precipitation measured in 2010 was 24.8 cm [9.8 in] (Strata, 

2011a). 

Because the Ross Project area is very dry and very windy, fugitive dust is readily generated and 

is a significant air pollutant. These high winds could also more rapidly disperse air pollutants, 

lowering their concentrations. But the arid conditions in the Ross Project area are not as 

conducive to removal of suspended dust as areas receiving more rainfall. Therefore, in general, 

other mechanisms besides precipitation would need to be implemented within the Ross Project 

area to minimize fugitive dusts and other air emissions. 

Air pollutants can also be affected by the regional landscape of an area. The Ross Project’s 

topographical setting—an area consisting of rolling hills and intermittent drainages—provides 

some topographic breaks (see SEIS Section 2.1.1) (Strata, 2011a). In addition, the nearest 

mountain range is the Black Hills, whose westernmost edge is approximately 30 km [20 mi] from 

the eastern boundary of the Ross Project area. It has been suggested that this range may 

shield easterly winds and channel predominant winds into a north-south pattern (Strata, 2011a). 

Finally, atmospheric-stability classification and mixing height are environmental variables that 

also influence the ability of the atmosphere to disperse air pollutants. The “stability class” is a 

measure of atmospheric turbulence and “mixing height” characterizes the vertical extent of 

contaminant mixing in the atmosphere. Stability-class information was collected at the Ross 

Project meteorological station (Strata, 2011a) and indicated that the class distributions were 

predominantly neutral (approximately 62 percent of the time). 

This information indicates that potential impacts to air quality could occur during all phases of 

the Ross Project, and the impacts could be related to both the particulate emissions (or 

effluents) as well as gaseous emissions that would be released during the Ross Project. 

Consistent with the GEIS, the air-quality impacts analyzed in Section 4.7 only address

nonradiological emissions. Emissions of radioactive particulates or gases and dose information 

are addressed in the public and occupational health and safety impacts analysis in SEIS 

Section 4.13.

The phases of the Ross Project are anticipated to overlap, resulting in cumulative impacts from 

multiple phases occurring concurrently. Relevant sources and methods used to summarize 

emissions were updated from the preliminary emissions inventory found in Addendum 4.6-A to 

the ER (Strata, 2011a). In the Applicant’s Air Quality Permit application, categories of air 

emissions were summed over the construction, operations, aquifer restoration and 

decommissioning time periods to produce the summary found as Table 5-2 (Strata, 2011c), as 

follows in Table 4.4. 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-65

Table 4.4 

Regional Emissions Summary

Units and 

Type of 

Emissions

Year After License Issuance

(t/yr [T/yr])

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Tons PM10

167.3

[184.4]

183.8

[202.6]

183.8

[202.6]

183.8

[202.6]

32.6

[35.9]

35.6

[39.3]

35.6

[39.3]

90.7

[100.0]

90.7

100.0]

79.3

[87.4]

Tons PM2.5

25.1

[27.7]

27.6

[30.4]

27.6

[30.4]

27.6

30.4]

4.9

[5.4]

5.4

[5.9]

5.4

[5.9]

13.6

[15.0]

13.6

[15.0]

11.9

[13.1]

Tons NOx

166.3

[183.4]

202.3

[223.0]

202.3

[223.0]

222.8

[245.7]

58.1

[63.9]

116.3

[128.2]

116.3

[128.2]

80.4

[88.6]

80.4

[88.6]

59.8

[65.9]

Tons CO 36.7

[40.5]

44.6

[49.2]

44.6

[49.2]

49.1

[54.1]

13.2

[14.6]

25.8

[28.4]

25.8

[28.4]

17.9

[19.7]

17.9

[19.7]

13.4

[14.8]

Tons SO2

9.9

[10.9]

12.2

[13.4]

12.2

[13.4]

13.5

[14.9]

3.7

[4.1]

7.6

[8.4]

7.6

[8.4]

5.3

[5.8]

5.3

[5.8]

3.9

[4.3]

Tons TOC 12.2

[13.4]

15.1

[16.6]

15.1

[16.6]

16.6

[18.4]

4.6

[5.1]

9.3

[10.3]

9.3

[10.3]

6.4

[7.1]

6.4

[7.1]

4.8

[5.3]

Tons VOC 0.65

[0.71]

0.69

[0.76]

0.69

[0.76]

0.69

[0.76]

0.69

[0.76]

0.69

[0.76]

0.69

[0.76]

0.65

[0.71]

0.65

[0.71]

0.65

[0.71]

Tons HAP 3.27

[3.61]

3.84

[4.24]

3.84

[4.24]

4.1

[4.57]

1.68

[1.85]

2.20

[2.43]

2.20

[2.43]

1.58

[1.74]

1.58

[1.74]

1.27

[1.40]

Tons CO2

6467

[7130]

11106

[12245]

11106

12245]

11870

[13087]

5507

[6072]

7670

[8457]

7670

[8457]

3032

[3343]

3032

[3343]

2268

[2500]

Tons HCL 0.02

[0.02]

0.02

[0.02]

0.02

[0.02]

0.02

[0.02]

0.02

[0.02]

0.02

[0.02]

0.02

[0.02]

0.00

[0.00]

0.00

[0.00]

0.00

[0.00]

Tons H2O2 0.000

[0.000]

0.001

[0.001]

0.001

[0.001]

0.001

[0.001]

0.001

[0.001]

0.001

[0.001]

0.001

[0.001]

0.000

[0.000]

0.000

[0.000]

0.000

[0.000]

Curies

Rn-222

0.0

[0.0]

286.7

[316.2]

286.7

[316.2]

572.7

[631.4]

572.7

[631.4]

572.7

[631.4]

572.7

[631.4]

572.7

[631.4]

572.7

[631.4]

0.0

[0.0]

Source: Strata, 2011c.

t = tonnes, metric tons (equal to 1,000 kilograms, or approximately 2,205 lbs). 

T = short tons, U.S. tons (equal to 2,000 lbs). 

Metric tonne (t) = U.S. ton (T) ÷ 1.1023. 

4.7.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, consists of four phases: construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning of a uranium-recovery facility and wellfields. GEIS Section

4.2.6 determined that uranium-recovery facilities are not, in general, major air-emission sources 

(NRC, 2009b). Given the low levels of particulate and gaseous emissions predicted in GEIS 

Section 4.2.6, the GEIS determined that the overall potential air-quality impacts of an ISR facility 

are SMALL, if the following three conditions are true for a specific facility: 1) particulate and 

gaseous emissions are within regulatory limits and requirements; 2) air quality in the [region] is 

in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); and, 3) the facility 

would not be classified as a major source under the New Source Review or operating (Title V) 

air-quality permit programs which were described in the GEIS (NRC, 2009b). As noted in GEIS 

Section 4.4.6, the entire NSDWUMR is an attainment area for NAAQS (see SEIS Section 3.7.3). 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-66

These three conditions do describe the proposed Ross Project area. The Ross Project would 

be designed to ensure that its emissions are within regulatory limits and requirements; it would 

be located in the NSDWUMR which, as described in SEIS Section 3.7.3, is an attainment area 

for all NAAQS primary pollutants (i.e., is in compliance with NAAQS) (see Table 3.17 in SEIS 

Section 3.7.3); and, the Ross Project would not be classified as a major air-emissions source 

under New Source Review or Title V of the CAA. The Ross Project also would not impact the

nearest prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) Class I areas. These conditions would 

apply to all phases of the Ross Project.

4.7.1.1 Ross Project Construction

Generation of fugitive dust during land-disturbing activities conducted during ISR facility 

construction would be the same as discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.6.1, and would be short-term. 

Other air-quality impacts from fugitive dust would result from road dust being suspended by 

moving vehicles over nearby and Ross Project roads as well as from construction equipment 

while it is used to clear and grade portions of the Project area where construction would occur. 

During the Proposed Action’s construction phase, the Applicant estimated a disturbance area of 

114 ha [282 ac] during construction of Ross Project buildings and auxiliary structures, surface 

impoundments, access roads, and other infrastructure. Traffic associated with the Ross Project 

would use the primary access routes described in detail in SEIS Section 3.3. D Road is a twolane asphalt and gravel road to 5 km [3 mi] north of Bertha Road, where D Road changes to a 

reclaimed-asphalt pavement for another 11.7 km [7.3 mi], after which D Road changes to a 

gravel-only surface. New Haven Road is a two-lane, crushed-shale road approximately 7.6 – 

9.1 m [25 – 30 ft] wide, with a posted speed limit of 72 km/hr [45 mi/hr]. The Oshoto Connection 

road is also a crushed-shale roads. Speed limits on the crushed-shale roads are posted at 72 

km/hr [45 mi/hr]. Fugitive-dust generation would be greatest on the gravel- and shale-based 

roads. Fugitive-dust settling estimates and mitigation strategies are discussed later. 

Fugitive dust and other particulate emissions are regulated under the Wyoming Air Quality 

Standards and Regulations (WAQSR), Chapter 3, Section 2(f), “Fugitive Dust.” The WAQSR 

quantifies opacity and emission-specific constituent concentrations that apply exclusively to any 

point sources at the Ross Project (e.g., combustion engines) (WDEQ/AQD, 2011). In contrast 

to point sources, WDEQ/Air Quality Division (AQD) also regulates generalized fugitive-dust 

emissions by imposing BMPs rather than numerical limits. 

In a study of air-quality impacts of road construction, Roberts (2010) found that near-road 

pollutant concentrations decline substantially within 100 – 150 m [330 – 490 ft] of the road, and 

they can reach routine air conditions at approximately 300 – 500 m [980 – 1,600 ft] from the 

road. Similarly, a study by Countess et al. (2001), undertaken to improve the modeling of 

windblown and mechanically re-suspended fugitive-dust emissions, found that not all 

particulates that could be suspended are in fact transported long distances; this is due to 

deposition rates, vertical mixing, and transport times. Countess et al. found that PM10 (less than 

10 μm in diameter) particulates (i.e., dusts) deposit relatively quickly at a rate of 0.5 – 5 cm/s 

[0.2 – 2 in/s]; PM2.5 particulates deposit more slowly at 0.05 – 0.2 cm/s [0.02 – 0.1 in/s], with a 

continuum of values between these two extremes for cropland, prairie, and paved surfaces. In 

general, the fraction of the mechanically generated fugitive dust from roads and bare surfaces 

that is removed from the atmosphere by gravitational settling and by impacting nearby obstacles 

(such as vegetation) is much larger than that associated with fugitive windblown dust. This is 

because of the fact that the mechanically generated particulates tend to remain closer to the 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-67

ground for longer periods after suspension in the air than windblown dusts, such that there is a 

higher probability that these mechanically generated particulates, such as those generated by 

vehicles, are removed from the atmosphere close to their sources. 

Windblown fugitive-dust emissions can be lofted vertically to great heights above the ground by 

the sustained energy provided by the vertical component of the wind, especially for strong winds

and, consequently, can be transported over much longer distances from their sources than 

mechanically generated fugitive-dust emissions. A typical wind speed of 2.5 m/s [8 ft/s] results 

in the transport of particulates to 100 m [330 ft] in 40 seconds, 1,000 m [3,300 ft] in 400 seconds 

(or approximately 7 min), and 10,000 m [33,000 ft] in 4,000 seconds [or approximately 1.1 hr]. 

In general, PM10 particulates are deposited at a rate that is about an order of magnitude greater 

than PM2.5 because of the greater gravitational settling velocity (Countess et al., 2001). These 

data indicate that the majority of fugitive-dust impacts would not extend beyond the 80-km [50-

mi] radius around the Ross Project area, although winds with large vertical components can 

transport dust over longer distances when they occur. This physical phenomenon is a de facto

mitigation measure. 

The greatest combustion-engine gaseous emissions from diesel- and gas-powered equipment 

operation would occur primarily during the construction and decommissioning phases of the 

Ross Project because of the equipment used during those phases. To determine the potential 

air-quality impacts from the passenger vehicles of the commuting workforce as well as delivery 

and shipment trucks to and from the Ross Project area, the Applicant provided the anticipated 

number of passenger-vehicle trips to and from the Ross Project during each of the Ross 

Project’s phases (see Table 4.2) (Strata, 2011a; Strata, 2012a). The Applicant also estimated 

the number of each type of supply, material, product, and waste shipment during each phase. 

Finally, the Applicant estimated the annual operating time of these vehicles and other 

construction equipment (Strata, 2011a). 

All of this information is important when modeling air-quality impacts, as the Applicant did for 

each phase of the Proposed Action. In its air-quality modeling results, the Applicant provides 

(primarily diesel) combustion-engine emission and fugitive-dust estimates. These modeled 

emissions are provided in Table 4.5 for each phase of the Ross Project (Strata, 2011c; Strata, 

2011a). In the NRC’s evaluation, the assumptions used by the Applicant in its air-quality 

modeling efforts were conservative (e.g., each worker was assumed to commute to and from 

the Ross Project area alone). All modeled emission levels were estimated to be below the 

major-source threshold for NAAQS attainment areas.

In order to determine impacts to air quality from diesel combustion emissions, the GEIS 

reported emissions for an in situ uranium-recovery facility in Crownpoint, New Mexico, as 

described in the NRC’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for that facility (NRC, 2009b; 

NRC, 1997). Therefore, emissions from the Crownpoint facility were examined for their 

pertinence to the Ross Project. Estimated maximum uranium production of the Ross Project 

and Crownpoint are each 1.4 million kg/yr [3 million lb/yr]. The estimated particulate and 

gaseous emissions were presented in the Crownpoint EIS and in Table 2.7-2 of the GEIS. The 

results of the Crownpoint preliminary emissions inventory were similar to the Applicant’s for the 

Ross Project, with the exception of particulate matter (PM). PM emissions associated with the 

Crownpoint facility were approximately 9 t/yr [10 T/yr], while PM emissions for the Ross Project 

were estimated at 161 t/yr [177 T/yr]. In addition, estimated combustion emissions for the Ross 

Project were significantly higher than those presented in the Crownpoint EIS. The differences
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-68

the two can be attributed to the source of emissions factors (e.g., “AP-42” was used in the Ross 

Project, which are significantly more conservative than the assumptions used for the Crownpoint 

analysis) as well as the estimated operating hours associated with each piece of equipment. 

The depth to ore deposits is also greater at the Ross Project site than at Crownpoint, which 

would require that the drilling equipment would be operated for longer time periods to reach the 

ore at the Ross Project and, thus, emit more emissions.

The annual average particulate concentration at Crownpoint was estimated to be less than 2 

percent of the Federal PM2.5 ambient-air standard; less than 1 percent of the previous Federal 

and current Wyoming PM10 ambient-air standards; and less than 2 percent of the Class II PSD 

allowable increment. However, the estimate for annual average particulate concentration did 

not categorize the particulates as PM10 or PM2.5. The annual average SO2 concentration was

estimated in the Crownpoint analysis to be less than 1 percent of both the Federal and the 

Wyoming ambient-air standards and less than 1 percent of the Class II PSD allowable 

increment. Finally, the annual average NO2 concentration at Crownpoint was estimated to be 

slightly over 2 percent of the Federal and Wyoming ambient-air standards, but less than 9 

percent of the Class II PSD allowable increment. Therefore, although PM emissions at the 

Ross Project could exceed those at Crownpoint, the low percentages of the ambient-air-quality 

standards estimated for the Crownpoint facility’s emissions indicate that the Ross Project 

emissions would also be below NAAQS and PSD standards.

In addition, the meteorology used in the Crownpoint EIS to estimate average annual air 

concentrations of emitted pollutants is more stable than at the proposed Ross Project area, 

based upon review of wind-stability classes. At Crownpoint, winds that fall into stability classes 

E and F occur over twice as frequently as winds in stability classes E and F at the Ross Project 

area. Good dispersion conditions (stability classes A through D) occur approximately 80 

percent of the time at the Ross Project area versus approximately 55 percent of the time at the 

Crownpoint facility. Based upon the information reviewed, the dispersion conditions at the Ross 

Project area are more favorable than at the Crownpoint facility and would therefore assist in 

reducing the impacts due to PM emissions at the Proposed Action. 

The Applicant has proposed several onsite best available control technology (BACT) mitigation 

measures as well as many BMPs to control fugitive dust (e.g., fugitive dust would be minimized 

by the Applicant’s wetting soils down during earth-disturbing activities). The Applicant’s 

mitigation of fugitive dust from roads would also include setting appropriate speed limits for 

vehicular traffic, strategically placing water load-out facilities near access roads, using chemical 

dust suppressants (e.g., magnesium chloride), encouraging employee carpooling, and selecting 

road surfaces that would minimize fugitive dust. The placement of soil stockpiles on the 

leeward side of hills and the Applicant’s prompt revegetation of disturbed areas would also 

reduce the potential for fugitive dust. 

For example, the Applicant has committed to treating portions of D Road in accordance with its 

MOU with Crook County. In this MOU, the Applicant has agreed to implement dust-control 

mitigation measures (e.g., dust suppressants) over 0.4 km [0.25 mi] stretches of all CRs that 

front the residential properties along D Road as well as any CR designated by Crook County as 

an access route to the Ross Project. The MOU also obligates the Applicant to assist Crook 

County with CR assessment, maintenance, and improvement (Strata and Crook County, 

2011d).
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-69

Table 4.5

Non-Radioactive Emissions Summary

Construction-Equipment and Truck-Tailpipe Emissions

(t/yr [T/yr])

Phase TOC NOX CO PM10 SO2 CO2

Construction 12.04

[13.27]

164.90

[181.77]

35.83

[39.50]

10.78

[11.89]

9.82

[10.83]

6363.81

[7014.9]

Operation 2.80

[3.09]

35.18

[38.78]

7.53

[8.36]

2.49

[2.75]

2.32

[2.56]

1303.3

[1438.6]

Aquifer Restoration 1.63

[1.8]

20.6

[22.7]

4.5

[4.9]

1.46

[1.61]

1.36

[1.50]

764.4

[842.6]

Decommissioning

4.63

[5.1]

58.3

[64.3]

12.6

[13.9]

4.14

[4.56]

3.86

[4.25]

2163.6

[2385.0]

Transportation-Related Combustion Emissions

(t/yr [T/yr]) 

Phase TOC NOX CO PM10 SO2 CO2

Construction 3.6

[4.0]

7.0

[7.7]

4.2

[4.7]

0.7

[0.8]]

0.6

[0.7]

675

[744]

Operation 1.3

[1.4]

4.3

[4.7]

1.7

[1.9]

0.3

[0.4]

0.3

[0.4]

282

[311]

Aquifer Restoration 0.5

[0.6]

3.0

[3.3]

0.9

[1.0]

0.3

[0.3]

0.2

[0.2]

154

[170]

Decommissioning 1.6

[1.8]

2.6

[2.9]

1.8

[2.0]

0.3

[0.3]

0.3

[0.3]

285

[314]

Fugitive-Dust PM10 Emissions

(t/yr and T/yr)

Phase Activity

PM10

(t/yr)

PM10

(T/yr)

Construction Equipment CPP (facility) site preparation 10.60 11.69

Construction Equipment Wellfield and road preparation 15.86 17.48

Construction Vehicle use on unpaved roads 129.40 142.64

Construction Wind erosion from exposed areas 11.25 12.40
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-70

Table 4.5

Non-Radioactive Emissions Summary

(Continued) 

Fugitive-Dust PM10 Emissions

(t/yr and T/yr)

(Continued) 

Phase Activity

PM10

(t/yr)

PM10

(T/yr)

Operation Vehicle use on unpaved roads 13.23 14.29

Operation Wind erosion from exposed areas 1.03 1.14

Operation

Wind erosion from exposed areas in 

Year Five of uranium-recovery 

operation

5.69 6.27

Aquifer Restoration Vehicle us on unpaved roads 8.89 9.80

Aquifer Restoration Wind erosion from exposed areas 1.03 1.14

Decommissioning CPP (facility) area reclamation 2.01 2.21

Decommissioning Wellfield and road reclamation 4.64 5.12

Decommissioning Vehicle use on unpaved roads 70.52 77.73

Decommissioning Wind erosion from exposed areas 5.79 6.38

Storage-Tank Emissions 

(kg/yr and lb/yr)

Hydrochloric Acid 42.92 47.31

Hydrogen Peroxide 0.98 1.08

Diesel 10.80 11.90

Gasoline 1,176.99 1,297.41

Source: Strata, 2011a; Strata, 2011c. 

Note: t = Tonnes, or Metric tons.

T = Short tons, or U.S. tons.

In addition, mitigation of all types of impacts to air quality (i.e., the actual particulate- and 

gaseous-emission concentrations from the Ross Project area) would be required to be 

monitored and to comply with the conditions of the WDEQ-issued Construction Air Quality 

Permit No. CT-12198 (WDEQ/AQD, 2011). The gaseous-emission controls that the Applicant 

must employ during the Ross Project are outlined in its Air Quality Permit Application, which 

becomes part of the Air Quality Permit itself (Strata, 2011c). As specified, gaseous emissions 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-71

would be controlled by the BACT for critical air-emission sources, such as acid-fume scrubbers 

and acid-storage tanks (Strata, 2011c). Other BACTs are listed in the regulations implementing 

the CAA (40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter C). 

The Applicant also has indicated that it would use visual observation on at least an hourly basis 

to monitor air quality in the Ross Project area and on a twice-daily basis at locations along the 

primary access route leading to the Ross Project. Further, to ensure compliance, the 

WDEQ/AQD would conduct regular inspections as well as unannounced inspections of 

permitted facilities (Strata, 2012a). Finally, the Applicant would respond aggressively to any 

dust-related concerns expressed by its employees, contractors, or members of the public 

(Strata, 2012a). 

Because of the predominant winds (in terms of both speed and direction) in the region, the 

remote location of the Ross Project area, and the BACT controls and BMPs that the Applicant is 

required by its Air Quality Permit to implement, many of the air-quality impacts from the 

Proposed Action would be fully mitigated (WDEQ/AQD, 2011). Because construction at the 

Ross Project would be typical of ISR facilities considered in the GEIS, anticipated gaseousemission and fugitive-dust impacts would be limited in duration during the construction phase, 

and they would be mitigated. Therefore, the impacts of the Proposed Action on air quality 

during the construction phase would be short-term and SMALL. 

4.7.1.2 Ross Project Operation

Air-quality impacts during the Ross Project’s operation phase could include the same as those 

identified earlier for the construction phase of the Proposed Action (i.e., particulate fugitive-dust 

and gaseous combustion-engine emissions), and they would be generated by many of the same 

sources. Estimates for these sources are provided by Project phase in the Applicant’s Air 

Quality Permit Application and are summarized in Table 4.5 (Strata, 2011c). 

Impacts from fugitive-dust and combustion-engine emissions during the operation phase would 

be less than construction-phase impacts, however, because fewer vehicles would be in use on 

or near the Ross Project area. Worker commutes would be approximately 60 workers during 

the operation phase (less than the 200 during construction). Construction-equipment operation 

(where most portions of the Ross Project area would have been cleared and graded during 

construction, so little earth movement would occur during operation—only the drilling and 

installation of new wellfields would continue to generate fugitive dust and combustion-engine 

emissions) would diminish substantially, thus generating less particulate and gaseous 

emissions.

Several point sources could release emissions while the Ross Project is in its operation phase. 

These point sources of gaseous emissions would be located at the CPP. These would include 

process-pipeline, process-vessel, and storage-tank vents; emergency generators and space 

heaters; and other sources such as storage vessels and tanks containing acids and bases 

(Strata, 2011a). Gaseous emissions from the yellowcake dryer are not expected because of the 

design of the proposed Ross Project’s yellowcake circuit, which would include the BACT design 

of an indirect heat source as well as an integrated filter and condenser.

Gaseous emissions could also be released during the venting of excess vapor pressure from 

pipelines within the CPP, with small amounts of chemical vapor released. According to GEIS 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-72

Section 4.4.6, excess vapor pressure in pipelines could be vented at various relief valves 

throughout the system. These emissions would be rapidly dispersed into the atmosphere, 

resulting in SMALL impacts (NRC, 2009b). In addition, there could also be gaseous emissions 

during uranium-loaded-resin transfers or during resin elution (e.g., liquefied oxygen or carbon 

dioxide that come out of solution). The GEIS determined that a low volume of gaseous 

emissions would be released during resin transfer and elution at an ISR facility. 

The Applicant’s refilling of acid, sodium carbonate, or bicarbonate tanks would produce only 

small quantities of emissions; nonetheless, during the process of refilling the acid-storage tanks, 

the BACT standard of a closed-loop system, which routes displaced vapors back to the tank 

truck during transfer, would be used (Strata, 2011c). The tanks would be located away from 

other chemical-storage tanks and away from the process vessels at the chemical-storage area 

(Strata, 2011b). Any emissions would be scrubbed for acid vapors prior to release to the 

atmosphere. Sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate would be delivered dry by truck and 

be blown into a storage silo; the vent of this silo would be filtered with a dust-vent bag to capture 

particulate emissions (Strata, 2011b). The emissions from other storage vessels and tanks are 

summarized by the Applicant in its license application and additional information it has provided 

the NRC (Strata, 2011a; Strata, 2011b; Strata, 2012a) as well as in its Air Quality Permit 

Application (Strata, 2011c). 

An emergency generator would be required to supply power to critical process equipment in the 

event of a power failure. The Applicant’s Air Quality Permit restricts the generator’s operation to 

500 hours per year (WDEQ/AQD, 2011). Strata’s Air Quality Permit Application provides a 

summary of generator emissions. Emissions from the vacuum dryers and space heaters in the 

CPP (i.e., natural-gas-burning equipment) are also listed in the emissions inventory (Strata, 

2011c). Table 4.5 summarizes the Applicant’s estimates of particulate and gaseous emissions, 

including from the point sources described above, as they were modeled for the Air Quality 

Permit Application (Strata, 2011c). 

Other types of air-quality-impact mitigation measures include gaseous-emission control systems 

that minimize emissions, BMPs that have demonstrated success at controlling emissions, and 

BACT engineering controls that reduce airborne emissions as well as minimize the potential for 

accidental releases. For example, powdered-form chemicals that would be necessary for the 

Ross Project would be delivered in covered trucks and unloaded through sealed pathways into 

tanks vented through dust-vent bags or fabric filters. The Applicant’s earth-moving and 

excavation activities would be governed by BMPs to minimize fugitive dust being released from 

disturbed areas, such as its watering dry soils thoroughly during such activities. To ensure that 

all requirements of the Air Quality Permit are being met, WDEQ/AQD would conduct regular 

inspections and unannounced visits of the Proposed Action (Strata, 2012a). 

During the operation phase, the Applicant would be required to monitor Project effluents and 

selected environmental media to ensure that environmental impacts are minimized. Thus, the 

air-quality impacts of the Proposed Action during the operation phase would be SMALL.

4.7.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration

According to GEIS Section 4.4.6, potential nonradiological air-quality impacts during the aquiferrestoration phase of an ISR facility would include fugitive-dust and combustion-engine 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-73

emissions from many of the same sources identified above during the construction and 

operation phases. These impacts were found to be SMALL. 

During the aquifer-restoration phase of the Proposed Action, the plugging and abandonment of 

injection and recovery wells would begin after a wellfield has undergone restoration and has met 

its ground-water quality goals. The emissions associated with the related equipment would be 

limited in duration and result in small, short-term effects. Vehicular traffic during the aquiferrestoration phase would be limited to delivery of supplies and commuting personnel; however, 

the workforce at the Ross Project would decrease to 20 workers during aquifer restoration and, 

consequently, the vehicular emissions of commuting traffic would substantially decrease. A 

significant decrease in the frequency of offsite reagent shipments and yellowcake shipments 

would also occur as aquifer restoration proceeds. Thus, the emission-generating activities 

during the aquifer-restoration phase would be many fewer than during either the construction or 

operation phases. Therefore, air-quality impacts of aquifer restoration would be SMALL.

4.7.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning

According to GEIS Section 4.4.6, potential air-quality impacts during an ISR facility’s 

decommissioning phase include fugitive dust, vehicle emissions, and the combustion-engine 

emissions from many of the same sources identified for the earlier phases of the facility’s 

lifecycle (NRC, 2009b). In the short term, emissions, especially particulates, could increase 

because the decommissioning of an ISR facility would generate fugitive dust and the related 

construction equipment would also generate gaseous emissions. The Applicant’s dismantling 

and demolition of Ross Project process equipment, buildings, structures, and surface 

impoundments; its excavation and removal of any contaminated soils; its relocation of 

construction equipment to the different areas where decommissioning activities would take 

place; and its grading and recontouring of the site during reclamation and restoration would 

produce particulate matter that would impact air quality. Combustion-engine gaseous emissions 

would also be generated by not only construction vehicles, but also by worker vehicles traveling

to and from the Ross Project (an additional 70 workers would be employed at the Ross Project 

during its decommissioning phase) (Strata, 2011a). Truck traffic related to the shipment of 

demolition and other wastes would also increase during the decommissioning phase as the 

wastes were shipped to various disposal facilities. However, the truck traffic would be only 

approximately 40 percent of that during the construction phase. 

All of the respective mitigation measures identified for the other phases of the Proposed Action 

would continue to be implemented by the Applicant during decommissioning. Consequently, the 

overall decommissioning-phase impacts would be similar to or less than construction-phase 

impacts; therefore, decommissioning-phase air-quality impacts would be SMALL.

4.7.2 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Ross Project would not be licensed and the land would 

continue to be available for other uses. However, the Applicant could choose to continue with 

some preconstruction activities, such as its abandonment of exploration drillholes and its data 

collection and environmental monitoring of the area. These activities would be similar to or of 

smaller scale as those activities currently occurring at the Ross Project area. These activities 

would require some equipment and vehicular access to the Ross Project area, which would 

result in small particulate and gaseous emissions. Other potential sources of air-quality impacts 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-74

in the region (including oil-production activities) would continue as well, where emission 

releases from oil-recovery activities within the area could result from accidental pipe breaks or 

equipment and infrastructure-system failures. All of these potential emissions would be limited 

and short term. Thus, the air-quality impacts would be SMALL for the No-Action Alternative.

4.7.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project

Under Alternative 3, the North Ross Project would generally be the same as the Proposed 

Action, except that the facility (i.e., the CPP, associated buildings, and auxiliary structures as 

well as the surface impoundments) would be located to the north of where it would be located in 

the Proposed Action, as described in SEIS Section 2.1.3. At the north location, a CBW would 

not be required. Therefore, the incremental contribution to air-quality impacts that would result 

from the construction and partial removal of the CBW would not occur under Alternative 3. 

However, additional construction activities in Alternative 3, such as greater land disturbance due 

to surface-impoundment construction due to the north site’s topography, would be somewhat 

greater than those in the Proposed Action. The air-quality impacts associated with these 

activities are not significant relative to the air-quality impacts that would occur due to the 

activities that the two Alternatives have in common. Therefore, the air-quality impacts of 

Alternative 3 would be expected to be similar to the air-quality impacts of the Proposed Action. 

Thus, the air-quality impacts of Alternative 3 would be SMALL.

4.8 Noise 

The Proposed Action would generate noise during all phases of the Project’s lifecycle. As noted

in GEIS Section 3.3.1, most ISR facilities are proposed for undeveloped rural areas at least 16 

km [10 mi] from the nearest communities. The nearest community to the Ross Project area is 

Moorcroft, located 35 km [22 mi] due south. However, as described in SEIS Section 3.2, there 

are 11 residences within the surrounding 3-km [2-mi] radius of the proposed Ross Project. Four 

of these residences are located within 300 m [1,000 ft] of the Ross Project’s boundary. The 

GEIS indicates that 300 m [1,000 ft] is the distance outside of which noise from construction 

activities would return to “normal.” The nearest two residences of the four within 300 m [1,000 

ft] of the Project are 210 m [690 ft] and 255 m [835 ft] from the Project’s boundaries and 800 m 

[2,500 ft] and 1,700 m [5,600 ft] from the proposed location of the CPP and surface 

impoundments (i.e., the facility) (see SEIS Figure 3.1). There are no sensitive areas, such as 

schools, churches, synagogues, mosques, or community centers, located less than 300 m 

[1,000 ft] from the Ross Project’s boundaries (Strata, 2011a). There are no residences within 

the Project area itself. 

As described in SEIS Section 3.3, the primary access routes to or from the Ross Project area 

would be from I-90 north on either D or New Haven Roads (Strata, 2011a). As noted in SEIS 

Section 3.8, both of the two nearest residences to the Ross Project are located along New 

Haven Road. Truck traffic, in particular bentonite hauling from the Oshoto bentonite mine 8 km 

[5 mi] north of the Ross Project area and, less frequently, livestock hauling, are the main 

contributors to existing traffic noise on D and New Haven Roads. Two noise studies were 

conducted by the Applicant to establish the current noise levels in and around the Ross Project 

area (see SEIS Section 3.8). One study measured current noise with a sound-level meter at 

two of four nearby residences (i.e., the nearest offsite “receptors”). Noise levels at these 

residences averaged between 35.4 and 37.4 A-weighted decibels (dBA), depending upon 

simultaneous factors such as wind speed, traffic volume, vehicular speed, and the type of load 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-75

being transported (Strata, 2011a). The Applicant’s second noise study collected current noise 

level data at its Field Office in Oshoto, 15 m [50 ft] away from New Haven Road and adjacent to 

the Ross Project area (see Figure 3.1 in SEIS Section 3.2). The latter study demonstrated that 

the average, daily duration of noise levels above 55 dBA at the Field Office was 62 minutes per 

day (Strata, 2011a). This noise was attributed to traffic, because of the Office’s close proximity 

to New Haven Road. The EPA identifies noise at or greater than 55 dBA, with a margin of 

safety determined to protect hearing, as causing outdoor-activity interference and annoyance 

(EPA, 1978). 

4.8.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, consists of four phases: construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning of a uranium-recovery facility and wellfields. At the Ross 

Project, impacts from noise would be a result of vehicular traffic, such as those from commuter 

vehicles; deliveries of supplies, materials, and equipment; and shipments of yellowcake and 

wastes within and outside of the Ross Project area. In addition, equipment operation, such as 

trucks and other heavy pieces of construction equipment, as well as smaller equipment, such as 

pump jacks and compressors, and wellfield and CPP operation could be sources of noise. Both 

humans and wildlife are defined as potential noise receptors in the vicinity of the Ross Project 

area. 

4.8.1.1 Ross Project Construction

The GEIS (Section 4.4.7.1) stated that because of the use of heavy equipment (e.g., bulldozers, 

graders, drill rigs, compressors), potential noise impacts would be greatest when an ISR facility 

is being constructed (NRC, 2009b). The GEIS concluded that the noise impacts during 

construction would be SMALL to MODERATE, where facility construction and wellfield 

installation would be expected to have only SMALL and temporary noise impacts for residences 

or communities that are located more than about 300 m [1,000 ft] from noise-generating 

activities. The MODERATE rating would be limited to temporary noise impacts to the very 

nearest residences (NRC, 2009b). 

Table 4.6 indicates the noise levels that have been calculated for the different types of 

construction equipment planned for use at the Proposed Action, at three different distances: 

15 m [50 ft], which would represent nearby workers; 210 m [690 ft], which would represent the 

residence nearest the Project’s boundaries; and 762 m [2,500 ft], which would represent the 

residence nearest the Ross Project’s proposed CPP (Strata, 2011a). 

Heavy equipment operation within the Ross Project area would peak during the Applicant’s 

construction of the CPP, surface impoundments, wellfields, and associated infrastructure. The 

majority of construction equipment would only be operated during daylight hours, and these 

activities would be more than 300 m [1,000 ft] from the nearest residences; thus, associated 

noise would not exceed the 24-hour average sound-energy guideline of 70 dBA or the daytime 

average of 55 dBA, the level EPA identifies as protective against interference of receptor 

activities and receptor annoyance, with a margin of safety determined to protect hearing (EPA, 

1978). The noise impacts to nearby residents due to heavy equipment operation would thus be 

SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-76

Impacts to workers during the Ross Project’s construction would also be SMALL, because the 

Applicant would comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations 

governing occupational noise. Further, a hearing-conservation program would be conducted by

the Applicant, which would require assessment of noise exposures, provision of hearing 

protection when noise levels exceed the daily permissible exposure levels, performance of 

periodic audiograms, and stipulation of worker training regarding noise and hearing, all 

consistent with 29 CFR Part 1910.95.

Impulse or impact noises from certain equipment, such as impact wrenches and pneumatic 

attachments on rock breakers, could be particularly annoying to residents. These types of 

equipment could be operated during some construction activities of the Proposed Action. 

However, the primary locations of these noises would be at least 335 m [1,100 ft] from the 

nearest residence, significantly reducing their perception by residents. The average noise at 

residences resulting from equipment-related impact or impulse noises would not be expected to 

reach the 55 dBA nuisance level (Strata, 2012a). Thus, the impacts of impulse noise would be 

SMALL.

Indoor noise levels due to outside activities typically range from 15 – 25 dBA lower than outdoor 

levels, depending upon whether windows are open or closed. With windows open during 

daytime hours, indoor noise levels could have the potential to be greater than the average 55 

dBA outdoor level that the EPA defines as preventing receptor activities, interfering with their 

lives, and annoying them, largely because of truck traffic (EPA, 1978). However, since 

distances would be greater than 300 m [1,000 ft] from ongoing construction activities, potential 

indoor noise impacts would be SMALL. 

Approximately 85 percent of the overall construction workforce would commute during the 

daytime (Strata, 2012a), where such commutes could occur to and from the Ross Project in 

single-occupant cars. Additional traffic would occur due to the relocation of construction 

equipment to and from the Ross Project area. Noise resulting from vehicle and truck traffic 

could occasionally be annoying to residents within 300 m [1,000 ft] of noise sources at the 

Proposed Action, particularly during nighttime hours. However, the Applicant estimates that 90 

– 95 percent of all deliveries of supplies, materials, process chemicals, and equipment would 

occur during daytime hours. Because the roads to and from the Ross Project area currently 

have very low average daily and annual traffic counts, there would be a large relative increase 

in vehicular traffic and, thus, noise impacts to nearby residents would be MODERATE; the more 

distant local communities would experience only SMALL impacts. 

Elevated noise levels associated with construction activities could also affect wildlife behavior 

onsite. The habitat within the Ross Project is not critical for any big-game species or migration 

corridors (see SEIS Section 4.6.1.1). Impacts to wildlife from noise during construction would 

be temporary and of relatively short duration. There is adequate habitat adjacent to the Ross 

Project area, in the surrounding vicinity, so that wildlife would return to the Project area once the 

temporary noise-producing activities have ceased. Finally, the WGFD’s mitigation requirements 

would be implemented, as necessary, as outlined in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1. In general, however, 

wildlife would likely avoid the areas where noise-generating activities are ongoing. Thus, noise 

impacts to wildlife would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-77

Table 4.6 

Respective Noise Levels of Construction Equipment

Equipment Type

Noise Level* 

(@ 15 m [50 ft])

(dBA)

Noise Level**

(@ 210 m [690 ft])

(dBA)

Noise Level***

(@ 760 m [2,500 ft])

(dBA)

Heavy Truck 82-96 59-73 24-38

Bulldozer 92-109 69-86 34-51

Grader 79-93 56-70 21-35

Excavator 81-97 58-74 23-39

Crane 74-89 51-66 16-31

Concrete Mixer 75-88 52-65 17-30

Compressor 73-88 50-65 15-30

Backhoe 72-90 49-67 14-32

Front Loader 72-90 49-67 14-32

Generator 71-82 48-59 13-24

Jackhammer/Rock Drill 75-99 52-76 17-41

Pump 68-80 45-57 10-22

Drill Rig**** 52-74 29-51 18-40

Source: NRC, 2009b; Strata, 2011a.

Notes:

* = Taken from the GEIS. 

** = Minimum distance between the Ross Project’s boundary and nearest residence. 

*** = Minimum distance between the CPP and nearest residence. 

**** = Based upon Strata’s 2010 noise study. 

To minimize noise impacts to all receptors, the Applicant proposes additional mitigation 

measures. For example, the USDOT reports that, for heavy trucks, a speed of 80 km/hr [50 

mi/hr] results in a noise level of 80 dBA, while a noise level of approximately 63 dBA result when 

passenger vehicles travel at 88 km/hr [55 mi/hr] (USDOT, 1995). On rough roads, noise levels

would be higher. Therefore, the speed limits for onsite and local roads are a component of the 

Applicant’s planned mitigation of noise impacts. Traffic-related noise impacts would be 

minimized by the Applicant’s working with Crook County to implement and enforce lower speed 

limits on the roads as well as to develop its own speed-limit policy for employees and 

contractors. Regular maintenance of all road surfaces to avoid ruts, potholes, and uneven wear 

patterns would also minimize noise impacts from vehicular and truck traffic. 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-78

The presence of vegetation and topographic features between the noise-generating activity and 

the receptor would reduce noise levels even more (Countess et al., 2001). The large 

topographic features that exist in the Ross Project area (i.e., steep hills and ridges) between the 

noise-generating construction activities and the nearest receptors would act as barriers to noise 

propagation. Mitigation measures that would be implemented by the Applicant would include 

nighttime drilling restrictions within a specified distance of residences, daylight-hour use of 

construction equipment, “first move forward” driving policies to limit backup alarms from trucks, 

and speed-limit enforcement on access roads. The Applicant would also limit the use of 

equipment with loud engines, unrestricted exhaust systems, and compression brakes (Strata, 

2011a).

Thus, the noise impacts during the Proposed Action’s construction would be SMALL to 

MODERATE, where only the closest residents to the Ross Project would experience 

MODERATE, but short term, exposures to noise, particularly vehicular noise. 

4.8.1.2 Ross Project Operation

As noted in GEIS Section 4.4.7, the noise impacts of an ISR facility during the operation phase 

would be SMALL to MODERATE (NRC, 2009b). Truck traffic would be present during the 

Proposed Action’s operation phase and would be associated with yellowcake, vanadium, and 

waste shipments (16 trucks would be expected during operation versus 24 during construction). 

Commuter-traffic noise would decrease because of the smaller workforce required during 

uranium-recovery operations (60 workers would commute per day during operation versus 200 

during construction). Thus, vehicular noise impacts produced at the Ross Project during 

operation would be SMALL for most offsite receptors and MODERATE, but short term, for the 

nearest receptors (i.e., closest residences). 

During the operation phase, most of the Ross Project’s uranium-recovery activities would be 

conducted inside buildings (although some wellfield activities would take place outdoors) and 

fewer pieces of heavy machinery would be used. Therefore, the potential noise impacts from 

the use of equipment during the operation phase would be less than those discussed under the 

construction phase, and they would be SMALL. Noise emanating from the CPP from a variety 

of mechanical equipment (e.g., generators; pumps; air compressors; and heating, ventilation, 

and air conditioning systems) would not be expected to exceed the 55-dBA nuisance level 

because the doors to the CPP would be kept closed as much as possible. Because noise levels 

decrease significantly with distance and because the CPP would be located approximately 760 

m [2,500 ft] from the nearest residence, impacts due to noise emanating from the CPP itself 

would be SMALL for all offsite receptors. 

Similarly, health and safety impacts to the Applicant’s personnel at the Ross Project would be 

SMALL because most of the noise associated with construction would no longer take place. 

The specific mitigation measures related to noise impacts adopted by the Applicant during Ross 

Project construction would continue to be observed through its operation. Every plant worker 

would be periodically retrained to understand the hazards of excess noise and how to decrease 

noise impacts under the hearing conservation program the Applicant would develop. Thus, 

noise impacts to workers would be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-79

As during the construction phase, noise from the Ross Project’s operation would have SMALL 

impacts to wildlife, which would likely avoid areas where noise-generating activities are ongoing. 

4.8.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration 

As noted in GEIS Section 4.4.7.1, the overall noise impacts during aquifer restoration would be 

SMALL to MODERATE (NRC, 2009b). However, noise impacts during the aquifer-restoration 

phase at the Ross Project would be SMALL because: truck traffic would subside to only 

approximately 12 shipments per day, overall density of residences and receptors near the Ross 

Project area is sparse, and the noise-mitigation measures that the Applicant would undertake 

would minimize noise. All noise impacts would continue to be temporary and intermittent. In 

addition, the workforce employed during the aquifer-restoration phase would be smaller (i.e., 20 

workers) than that during the construction and operation phases of the Proposed Action and, 

thus, there would be fewer workers, less traffic, and fewer noise-producing activities. Finally, 

the Applicant’s continued compliance with OSHA noise standards would minimize noise impacts 

to workers. Wildlife would continue to avoid the areas where noise-generating activities are 

ongoing (e.g., the wellfields). All of these factors would ensure that the noise impacts during the 

aquifer-restoration phase of the Proposed Action would be SMALL.

4.8.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning 

The GEIS indicated that noise impacts emanating from an ISR facility undergoing 

decommissioning would be SMALL to MODERATE. At the Ross Project, noise levels during the 

decommissioning phase of the Proposed Action would be similar to or less than those identified 

for the construction phase for both onsite receptors (i.e., workers) and offsite receptors (i.e., 

nearest residents and those beyond). Most of the potential noise impacts to nearby residences 

would occur as a result of the increased vehicular noise due to commuter and truck traffic to and 

from the Ross Project area during decommissioning (i.e., 90 workers and additional waste 

shipments), and these impacts would be MODERATE for the nearest residences and SMALL 

for those farther away from the Project area. 

Many decommissioning activities would be focused at the ISR facility itself (i.e., the CPP, the 

surface impoundments, and auxiliary structures), where activities would include 

decontamination, dismantling, and demolition of these structures, which would be accomplished 

through the use of heavy equipment. However, because this area is approximately 760 m 

[2,500 ft] from the nearest residential receptor, noise impacts to the nearest residents would be 

SMALL. In the wellfields, equipment used during plugging and abandonment of recovery, 

injection, and monitoring wells, such as cement mixers, compressors, and pumps, would 

produce significant levels of short-term noise. Impacts to workers during the Proposed Action’s 

decommissioning would be SMALL, due to the same variables indicated earlier for its 

construction and operation as well as for aquifer restoration (i.e., OSHA noise-standard 

compliance). The same is true for wildlife noise receptors, which would avoid the locations 

where decommissioning activities are taking place.

Despite the standard mitigation measures taken during decommissioning—the same as those 

identified for the other phases of the Proposed Action—the distance from the closest residences 

to the Ross Project would result in MODERATE noise impacts to those receptors, but shortterm, and SMALL to receptors beyond the closest residences.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-80

4.8.2 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Ross Project would not be licensed and the land would 

continue to be available for other uses. However, the preconstruction activities the Applicant 

has undertaken, such as the plugging and abandonment of wells, could continue under the NoAction Alternative. Thus, the noise levels within the Ross Project area, where the current, 

measured noise levels are 36 – 40 dBA, could continue (Strata, 2011a). This noise would 

occasionally be elevated by the passing of heavy trucks and passenger vehicles, nearby 

agricultural activities, and nearby oil-production activities (Strata, 2011a). Thus, the noise 

impacts of Alternative 2 would be SMALL.

4.8.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project

Under Alternative 3, the North Ross Project would generally be the same as the Proposed 

Action, except that the facility (i.e., the CPP, associated buildings, and auxiliary structures as 

well as the surface impoundments) would be located to the north of where it would be located in 

the Proposed Action, as described in SEIS Section 2.1.3. However, because the north site of 

Alternative 3 is farther away from main roads than the south site of the Proposed Action, the 

north site’s nearest residential receptors are farther away than from the location of the south 

site. Therefore, the noise generated by construction equipment would be even less likely to 

exceed the 55-dBA nuisance level at the nearest residences. Within the fenced facility area 

itself, the noise levels during construction of Alternative 3 would be similar to those in the 

Proposed Action because the same types of construction activities would take place. 

The noise levels associated with vehicle and truck traffic volume under Alternative 3 would be 

essentially the same as described for the Proposed Action, because the uranium-recovery 

activities would be identical to those of the Proposed Action, including the vehicular traffic on 

local roads and CRs. Thus, residents nearest these roads would experience the same noise 

impacts as described under the Proposed Action. Workers and wildlife would experience the 

same impacts under this Alternative as in the Proposed Action. Mitigation measures for noise 

impacts under Alternative 3 would be same as well. Thus, although the impacts from noise 

associated with Ross Project construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning 

would be slightly lower than those described above for the Proposed Action because of the 

slightly greater distance to receptors, the noise impacts of the North Ross Project would be 

SMALL (most receptors) to MODERATE (nearest receptors, but these impacts would be short 

term). 

4.9 Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.8, potential environmental impacts to cultural resources, 

which are defined in the GEIS as historical, cultural, paleontological, and traditional cultural 

properties (TCPs), could occur during all phases of an ISR facility’s lifecycle (i.e., during 

construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning) (NRC, 2009b). SEIS Section 

1.7.3.8 decribes the NRC’s Ross Project Tribal consultation activities to date, and SEIS Section 

3.9 describes the cultural-resource identification efforts and current National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) eligibility determinations. Table 3.18 lists the current NRHP-eligibility 

determinations for the 42 historic and cultural properties that have been identified within the 

Ross Project area. The NRC staff and Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (WYSHPO) 

have made consensus determinations on two NRHP-eligible and eight non-eligible properties. 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-81

Of the remaining 32 properties, 18 are TCP sites. The NRC has recommended that 13 of the 

TCP sites are NRHP-eligible, 3 are not eligible, and 2 are unevaluated. The remaining 

archaeological sites are unevaluated. The final determinations of the NRHP eligibility of these 

32 sites, as well as the evaluation of potential adverse effects to historic properties and 

measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those effects, will be be completed in accordance with 

the Ross Project Programmatic Agreement (PA) (see Appendix E for the Draft PA, which has 

been issued to the PA paricipants for comment). 

4.9.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, consists of four phases: construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning of the Ross Project facility and wellfields. The impacts of the 

Ross Project would include the potential to disturb, disrupt, or otherwise adversely affect 

historical, cultural, and paleontological resources, including NRHP-eligible archaeological sites, 

in the area of potential effect (APE). Two eligible properties and two unevaluated sites are 

located within the Applicant’s currently proposed areas of land disturbance. A preliminary 

cultural-resource-impact assessment has indicated that direct and indirect (i.e., visual) effects 

could occur during Ross Project construction at 7 TCP sites (e.g., Site Nos. 48CK2070, 

48CK2214, 48CK2215, 48CK2216, 48CK2218, 48CK2219, and 48CK2222) and that indirect 

effects could occur at 1 site (Site No. 48CK2220). However, these direct and indirect effects 

cannot be fully determined because key elements of the final Ross Project design, such as well 

installation, pipeline and utility line burial, and road and building construction, have not been 

completed. As needed, adverse impacts would be mitigated by specific measures, which could 

include the Applicant’s avoiding, where practical, NRHP-eligible sites through adjustments in the 

Ross Project’s design; the NRC’s consulting with the WYSHPO and Ross Project Consulting 

Tribes in a timely fashion in accordance with the finalized Ross PA; and all of the consulting 

parties’ agreeing to established protocols if unrecorded resources are inadvertently unearthed 

during ground-disturbing activities. Once NRHP-eligible and potentially eligible sites, including 

TCPs and any newly discovered cultural material or human remains, have been identified and 

an evaluation of adverse effects has been completed, mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, 

or mitigate any adverse impacts would be developed by the consulting parties pursuant to the 

process defined in the finalized Ross Project PA. 

4.9.1.1 Ross Project Construction

Construction of the Proposed Action could disturb up to 114 ha [282 ac], or 16 percent, of the 

total Ross Project area. As noted in GElS Section 4.4.8, most of the potential for direct and 

indirect adverse impacts to NRHP-eligible properties, traditional culturally significant sites, and 

paleontological material would likely occur during ground-disturbing activities during 

construction or decommissioning (NRC, 2009b). Land-disturbing activities during construction 

with the potential to adversely affect the spatial integrity of archaeological sites and to damage 

artifacts as well as paleontological resources include, but are not limited to, the Applicant’s 

grading or excavating for roads and parking lots; installing pipes, wells, and wellfields; 

constructing buildings and structures; building domestic-sewage facilities; installing utility 

transmission lines and poles; and lighting the facility and surface impoundments. Buried 

archeological and cultural features as well as deposits of paleontological materials that are not 

visible on the surface during the initial cultural-resource inventories could be exposed during 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-82

earth-moving activities. Other potential impacts come from compaction of the soil by heavy 

equipment, causing damage to subsurface site integrity by crushing or scattering artifacts or 

features.

Certain paleontological specimens have been located at the Ross Project area; however, they 

are believed not to be in situ (i.e., the specimens had already been disturbed). Ground 

disturbance in excess of a few feet during construction could have a limited impact on the 

geologic units themselves, including the Lance Formation, which have the potential to contain a 

variety of fossils. In addition, increased access to surface-evident archaeological sites during 

construction could result in vandalism. TCPs could also be affected by temporary visual 

intrusions. 

The mitigation measures related to historical and cultural resources would include the standard 

industry practices that are described in GEIS Sections 4.4.8 and 7.4, Table 7.4-1. . 

Consultation by the NRC with the WYSHPO, the Ross Project Consulting Tribes, other 

consulting parties, and the Applicant will result in the clear delineation of the measures the 

Applicant would take to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historical, cultural, and 

paleontological resources. The NRC staff has concluded that the impacts to historical and 

cultural resources at the Ross Project area during the construction phase of the Ross Project 

could range from SMALL to LARGE. This assessment reflects the fact that the highest potential 

for adverse effects to historical and cultural resources would take place during the construction 

phase as well as the fact that efforts to evaluate historic and cultural properties and to determine 

adverse effects and mitigation measures are incomplete. Construction impacts beyond 

MODERATE would not be anticipated because every effort would be made to avoid, minimize, 

and mitigate adverse effects to historic properties in accordance with the Ross Project PA that is 

currently being prepared. However, a LARGE impact is not impossible, depending upon the 

significance and integrity of, and the extent of adverse effects on, previously identified historic 

properties or those potentially inadvertently discovered.

4.9.1.2 Ross Project Operation

Direct and indirect adverse impacts on archaeological sites, NRHP-eligible and potentially 

NRHP-eligible historic properties, TCPs, and paleontological resources would be minimal during 

the operation phase of the Ross Project. Mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, and resolve 

adverse impacts to historical, cultural, and paleontological resources would be implemented 

prior to Ross Project construction. The impacts of the Ross Project’s operation would be 

generally limited to previously disturbed areas (except continuing wellfield installation). Visual 

or audible impacts from uranium-recovery operation at the Ross Project to TCPs located within 

the Ross Project area and other cultural landscapes, which would be identified before 

construction, would be expected to continue during operation. Therefore, the impacts to 

historical, cultural, and paleontological resources during Ross Project operations would be 

SMALL. 

4.9.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration

Impacts to archaeological sites, NRHP-eligible and potentially NRHP-eligible historical 

properties, TCPs, and paleontological resources from aquifer restoration would be similar to or

less than those during uranium-recovery operation. These impacts would primarily result from 

the surface disturbance associated with operation, maintenance, and repair of existing wellfields 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-83

as part of the aquifer-restoration process as well as on-going visual or audible impacts. 

Therefore, the impacts to historical, cultural, and paleontological resources during aquifer 

restoration would be SMALL. 

4.9.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning

Ground-disturbing activities would temporarily increase during the Ross Project’s 

decommissioning. As during the construction phase, ground disturbance in excess of a few feet 

during facility decommissioning would have an impact on the geologic units themselves, 

including the Lance Formation, which has the potential to contain a variety of fossils. However, 

most of the decommissioning activities would focus on previously disturbed areas and, 

therefore, most of the historic, cultural, and paleontological resource materials would already be 

known as a result of the investigations that would be conducted prior to facility construction and 

wellfield construction. Unavoidable visual and audible impacts, however, could increase 

temporarily during the decommissioning of the Proposed Action. Therefore, the impacts to 

historical, cultural, and paleontological resources during decommissioning would be SMALL. 

4.9.2 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Ross Project would not be licensed and the land would 

continue to be available for other uses. Under the No-Action Alternative, no major disturbance 

of land and concomitant potential impacts to historic, cultural, and paleontological resources 

would occur, except for natural processes such as erosion, although some preconstruction 

activities could potentially disturb historical, cultural, or paleontological resources. Inadvertent 

discoveries would be less likely to occur under the No-Action Alternative as little ground 

disturbance would occur. Cultural-resource inventories have already occurred within the Ross 

Project area and, thus, most historical and cultural resource information has already been 

captured scientifically. However, because there would be no systematic protocol with which to 

discover, identify, characterize, and/or record such new knowledge, artifacts, or cultural 

resources, there would be fewer discoveries recorded and less knowledge gained about ancient 

cultures under the No-Action Alternative. The impacts to historical, cultural, and paleontological

resources under Alternative 2 would be SMALL. 

4.9.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project

Under Alternative 3, the North Ross Project would generally be the same as the Proposed 

Action, except that the facility (i.e., the CPP, associated buildings, and auxiliary structures as 

well as the surface impoundments) would be located to the north of where it would be located in 

the Proposed Action, as described in SEIS Section 2.1.3. Any impacts to historical, cultural, or 

paleontological resources from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning of the Ross Project under Alternative 3 would occur as described above for

the Proposed Action. Also, as noted above, cultural-resource inventories have already occurred 

within the Ross Project area and, thus, most historical and cultural resource information has 

already been captured scientifically. Yet, unlike Alternative 2, any new knowledge that would be

gained by inadvertently discovered historical and cultural resources during Alternative 3 (and 

Alternative 1 as well) would be reported and recorded, because the two Alternatives entail 

Federal and State involvement and the framework of the NHPA and the Ross Project PA would 

provide a framework. 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-84

Therefore, the impacts to historical, cultural, and paleontological resources as a result of

Alternative 3 also would be SMALL to LARGE during construction and SMALL during operation, 

aquifer restoration, and decommissioning. However, as with the Proposed Action, avoidance, 

minimization, or mitigation measures would be developed prior to construction that would 

eliminate or reduce the construction impacts.

4.10 Visual and Scenic Resources

The Proposed Action could impact visual and scenic resources during all phases of the Project’s 

lifecycle. The visual-resources impacts analysis below is an evaluation of the landscape 

changes that could occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Most of the visual and scenic 

impacts would be associated with construction activities, which would be short term, as well as 

with the new buildings and roads, which would exist until all phases of the Project were

completed. The Ross Project would introduce new elements of form, line, color, and texture into 

the landscape of the Ross Project area. Because of the small footprint of ground disturbance 

(only 114 ha [282 ac]) and low profile of the uranium-recovery facility and wellfields, no major

visual or scenic impacts would occur as discussed below. 

4.10.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Alternative 1 consists of four phases: construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning of an ISR uranium-recovery facility and wellfields. Potential visual and scenic 

impacts at the proposed Ross Project could result from earth moving and surface disturbance 

as well as the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the following: 1) wellfields 

(including drill rigs, wellhead covers, module buildings, and roads); 2) the CPP; 3) the surface 

impoundments; 4) the CBW; 5) secondary and tertiary access roads; 6) power and utility lines; 

and 7) fencing. The Ross Project area is currently categorized by the Applicant as a VRM Class 

III, according to the BLM scale noted in SEIS Section 3.10. Consequently, the level of change 

to the characteristic landscape in Class III areas can be moderate (BLM, 2010). 

4.10.1.1 Ross Project Construction

GEIS Section 4.4.9 noted that visual-resource impacts could result from heavy equipment use 

(drill-rig masts and cranes); fugitive-dust and gaseous emissions; and hillside and roadside cuts 

into the native topography during construction. In addition, construction activities within a rural

setting could give the area a more industrial appearance, thereby decreasing the local visual

appeal. However, at the Ross Project area, the existing landscape already includes visual 

alterations as a result of oil extraction, existing roads, and current utility corridors. Constructionphase activities would be short term, and following completion of construction efforts, many of 

the areas where temporary ground disturbance had occurred would be restored and reclaimed 

to the visual conditions prior to licensing. 

The largest visible features of the Proposed Action that would emerge during the construction 

phase would include the CPP and surface impoundments, wellhead covers and module 

buildings; electrical- and other utility-distribution lines, which are mounted on 6-m [20-ft] wooden 

poles; and more roads. The Applicant had proposed to use both existing and new roads to 

access each wellfield and the facility itself (i.e., the CPP and surface impoundments) (see SEIS 

Section 3.10). 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-85

Short-term visual contrasts with the characteristic landscape of the Proposed Action would also 

result from actual activities associated with construction of the Ross Project. Site clearing and 

grading; facility and surface-impoundment construction and wellfield installation; access road 

construction; vehicular and pedestrian traffic increases; and underground and overhead pipeline 

and utilities installation all would result in visual contrasts to the color of the Ross Project area. 

Irregularity of the natural landscape would occur during the construction phase. Construction 

activities would typically occur during daylight hours and would be consequently visible, with the 

exception of some drilling and equipment maintenance that could occur at night (Strata, 2011a). 

Wellfield construction would involve the use of drill rigs, water trucks, backhoes, supply trailers,

and passenger vehicles. This equipment would be temporarily concentrated at each well or 

wellfield. A typical truck-mounted drill rig can be approximately 9 – 12 m [30 – 40 ft] tall and

would be the most visible piece of equipment used during wellfield installation. Once a well

is completed and developed for use, the drill rig would be moved to a new location. Strata

anticipates that up to 12 drill rigs could be operated at one time during wellfield construction. 

As with the construction activities above, drilling would primarily occur during daylight hours;

however, it is possible drilling would continue into the night. For nighttime operation, the

drill rigs would be lighted, increasing the potential visual impacts.

Additional construction impacts would include visible fugitive dust that would be generated 

during ground clearing and grading for the module buildings and drilling pads; access roads and 

parking lots; storage and laydown pads; the CPP, auxiliary structures, and surface 

impoundments; injection, recovery, and monitoring wells; and pipelines. In addition, the drill 

rigs, trucks, and other vehicles employed during the construction phase at the Ross Project 

could potentially emit visible emissions (see SEIS Section 3.7.3). These impacts would be 

temporary and short-term. In the long term (i.e., greater than one year), as major construction 

activities are completed, fugitive dust and vehicle emissions would decrease (see SEIS 

Sections 4.7.1.1 and 4.7.1.2). 

The Applicant would mitigate visual and scenic impacts related to fugitive dust by wetting soils 

when clearing and grading activities are being conducted; by using chemical dust suppressants, 

as necessary, to control fugitive dust on roads within and adjacent to the Ross Project area; by

establishing diminished speed limits for vehicular traffic; by strategically placing water load-out 

facilities near all access roads; by encouraging personnel to carpool; and by selecting road 

surfaces that would minimize fugitive dust. In addition, following the Applicant’s completion of 

wellfield installation, disturbed areas would be restored, reclaimed, and reseeded within a single 

construction season, if at all possible (Strata, 2011a). These mitigation measures are discussed 

in more detail in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1. 

A viewshed analysis that has been performed by the Applicant demonstrated that the Ross 

Project would not be visible from the base of Devils Tower National Monument (Devils Tower, or 

Bear Lodge) or from its Visitor’s Center. Moreover, it would be unlikely that the Project area 

would be visible to climbers scaling the Monument due to the distance between the Project area 

and Devils Tower (see the photographs taken from the top of Devils Tower by the National Park 

Service in September 2011 [ADAMS Accession No. ML11320A307]). The Ross Project would 

not be visible from Keyhole State Park, Black Hills National Forest, or Thunder Basin National 

Grassland during any phase of the Project due to the long distances between these recreational 

areas and the Ross Project as well as to the screening effects of topography (Strata, 2011a). 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-86

During initial construction, fugitive dust, other emissions, and construction traffic could also 

impact the limited viewshed from the Devils Tower. As major construction activities are 

completed, however, fugitive dust and other emissions would decrease. In addition, impacts 

from visible-light pollution on human beings can be in the form of disability glare, circadianrhythm changes, and sleep disorders (Darksky, 2013). Changes in visual aesthetics, such as 

an increase in artificial light, could also adversely affect a Devils Tower climber’s experience if 

the climbers do not expect to see artificial lighting in the viewshed while recreating. Due to the 

distance between Devils Tower and the type of lighting proposed for the Ross Project, however, 

such changes (e.g., disability glare, circadian-rhythm changes ,and sleep disorders) would not 

occur. Visitors to Devils Tower who climb at night and who are sensitive to visual aesthetics 

could experience some SMALL adverse effects to their recreational experience.

The Applicant would mitigate visual impacts during its construction activities by phasing 

construction activities; limiting the extent of land disturbance at any one time; promptly 

reclaiming and reseeding disturbed areas; using existing roads wherever possible; following 

existing topography during access road construction to minimize cut and fill and thus reduce 

contrast; minimizing secondary and tertiary access road widths; and locating access roads, 

pipelines, and utilities in common corridors (Strata, 2011a). 

Prior to construction of the Ross Project, monitoring for potential light pollution would be 

conducted at eight sites. Based upon the results of this preconstruction evaluation, a lightpollution monitoring plan would be prepared by the Applicant. This plan would finalize the 

locations for both continuous and intermittent light sources; in addition, it would provide a 

schedule for periodic checks on sky brightness during the construction and operation of the 

Ross Project to ensure worker safety and to measure, and to mitigate if necessary, obtrusive 

light emanating from the Proposed Action (Strata, 2012a).

The Applicant proposes the following mitigation measures to limit light-pollution impacts at the 

Ross Project during construction. These mitigation measures would be implemented in all 

portions of the Ross Project area, including all buildings, the CPP, all wellfields, roads, and 

other ancillary structures (and they would be implemented during the operation and aquiferrestoration phases of the Project, as appropriate). The Applicant proposes that it would: 

■ Design lighting plans with an emphasis on the minimum lighting requirements for 

operation, safety, and security purposes. 

■ Use light sources of minimum intensity (as measured in lumens) necessary to 

accomplish the light's purpose. 

■ Specify lighting fixtures that direct light only where it is needed (i.e., shine down, not out 

or up) in conjunction with shielding that further directs the light towards the respective 

work area. 

■ Turn lights off when not needed at proposed intermittent light locations either manually, 

with timers, or occupancy sensors. 

■ Adjust the type of lights used so that the light waves emitted are those that are less likely 

to cause light-pollution problems such as those attendant with high-pressure sodium

lamps. 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-87

■ Fit building windows with shutters, where appropriate, to block light emissions, including 

the CPP and other buildings. 

■ Use natural and/or in situ screens to reduce perceptible light (i.e., locating buildings and 

other facility components to take advantage of the natural topography and any trees). 

■ Evaluate the results of the light-pollution monitoring to ensure that, as necessary, the 

mitigation measures suggested previously have been implemented successfully (Strata, 

2012a). 

Finally, the Applicant is committed to evaluating the extent of the light pollution to nearby 

residences following installation of the final lighting system. The Applicant is committed to 

acting on any concerns of local residents as long as worker safety would not compromised 

(Strata, 2012a).

Because the management objective of VRM Class III is to partially retain the existing character

of the landscape so that the level of change to the characteristic landscape can be moderate, 

the impacts from the Ross Project’s construction are in fact consistent with VRM Class III. Thus, 

in the short-term (i.e., less than one year), construction activities at the proposed Ross Project 

would result in MODERATE visual impacts to the nearest four residences, each of which has a 

view of the Ross Project area. For the remaining 7 of the 11 nearby residences as well as all 

other members of the public, however, the visual impacts would be SMALL. 

4.10.1.2 Ross Project Operation

SEIS Section 2.1.1 describes the Proposed Action’s uranium-recovery operation. Most of the 

wellfield and surface infrastructure would have a low profile, and most piping and cables would 

be buried. The irregular layout of wellfield surface structures, such as wellhead covers and 

module buildings, would further reduce visual contrast. Because uranium-recovery operations 

are generally located in sparsely-populated areas, typically in generally rolling topography, most 

visual impacts during facility and wellfield operation would not be visible from more than 

approximately 1 km [0.6 mi] away. As described in GEIS Section 4.4.9.2, the potential visual 

and scenic impacts of ISR facilities would be SMALL. 

At the Ross Project, wellhead covers and module buildings (wellhead covers would be typically 

low at approximately 1 m [3 ft] high), the CPP and auxiliary buildings, the surface 

impoundments, access roads, buried utilities, and unburied facility lighting and power lines 

would be similar to those discussed in the GEIS and, therefore, the potential impacts to the 

visual resources during Ross Project operation would also be SMALL. All of the pipelines 

associated with wellfield operation would be buried below the frost line to protect them from 

freezing; thus, they would not be visible during the Proposed Action’s operation. Other potential 

impacts that are a result of wellfield activities, such as monitoring-well sampling, modulebuilding inspections, and mechanical-integrity testing, could also occur; these impacts would 

also be SMALL. Because the location of the ore zone underlying the Ross Project is typically 

irregular, the network of pipes, wells, and power lines (6 m [20 ft] tall) would not be regular in 

pattern or appearance (i.e., not a grid); this lack of a pattern would reduce visual contrast and 

associated potential impacts. The overall visual impact of an operating wellfield at the Proposed 

Action would be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-88

Because the uranium-recovery processing and support facilities, such as the CPP, offices, and 

maintenance buildings, would be located in one area, they would be more noticeable to the 

casual observer due to their size and density. The CPP would be the largest structure. These 

components would be prominent in the foreground and middle-ground views, and they would be 

silhouetted in the view from public access points (i.e., the adjacent county roads). As described 

in SEIS Section 3.10, however, the Proposed Action would be located in gently rolling 

topography, where the visibility of aboveground infrastructure would vary and would be relative, 

depending upon the location and elevation of an observer as well as on nearby topography, 

total distance, and lighting characteristics. 

Lighting from the Ross Project would be visible from five of the residences to the east and from 

various locations directly to the west, north, and southeast. Figure 3.23 in SEIS Section 3.10.2 

shows where lighting emanating from the Proposed Action would be visible within the 3-km [2-

mi] vicinity surrounding the Project area. Mitigation measures for local light-pollution impacts 

would be the same as those described above (in bullet form) for the construction phase of the 

Ross Project especially those that would mitigate impacts to climbers at Devils Tower. 

In addition to the mitigation measures employed during the Proposed Action’s construction 

phase, the Applicant has identified a number of additional mitigation measures to reduce the 

visual impacts during its operation. The wellhead-cover color would be selected to blend with 

the environment. Pipelines and electrical lines between the wells and module buildings would 

be buried as new wellfields come online, and disturbed areas would be immediately reclaimed, 

reseeded, and restored. The electrical-distribution poles would be wooden so that the natural 

color would tend to blend with the landscape. Another mitigation measure for screening the 

CPP and surface impoundments would include the Applicant’s planting trees at a density that 

would limit views into the Project area from public roads and nearby residences. The tree 

species would be a conifer or another species native to the area. The approximate tree 

locations are depicted in Figure 2.5. Thus, the impacts to visual and scenic resources during 

the operation of the Proposed Action would be SMALL.

4.10.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration

GEIS Section 4.4.9 concluded that the visual impacts during aquifer restoration would be similar 

to those experienced during uranium-recovery operation, and therefore the impacts would be 

SMALL (NRC, 2009b). Much of the same equipment and infrastructure used during Ross 

Project operation would be employed during aquifer restoration at the Project, so that impacts to 

the visual landscape would be similar to or less than the impacts during the Proposed Action’s 

operation phase. In the wellfields, the greatest source of visual contrast would be from 

equipment used as injection and production wells are being plugged and abandoned during the 

natural sequence of the installation of a new wellfield(s) and restoration of the aquifer in a spent 

wellfield(s). Because there is no active drilling in any wellfield undergoing aquifer restoration, 

potential visual impacts during this phase would be expected to be less than those during facility 

construction and wellfield installation, and these impacts would be of short duration. 

The mitigation measures presented above for both the Proposed Action’s construction and 

operation phases would continue to be implemented during the aquifer-restoration phase, and 

these would continue to limit potential visual impacts. Vehicular traffic during the aquiferrestoration phase would be much more limited: worker commutes would diminish significantly 

(i.e., from a workforce of 200 persons during the construction phase to 60 persons during the 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-89

operation phase to 20 persons during the aquifer-restoration phase) and there would be fewer 

deliveries of supplies. There would also be a decreasing-to-zero frequency of yellowcake 

shipments as aquifer restoration proceeds. Therefore, fewer trips would occur than during the 

earlier phases, with concomitant lower levels of fugitive dust and combustion-engine emissions 

as a de facto mitigation measure. Because aquifer-restoration activities at the Ross Project 

would be very similar to those described in the GEIS (NRC, 2009b), and the impacts would be 

less than those detailed above for the construction and operation phases, the impacts of the 

Project during the aquifer-restoration phase would be SMALL. 

4.10.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.9.4, the impacts on visual and scenic resources during the 

decommissioning of an ISR facility would be SMALL (NRC, 2009b). The Proposed Action 

would not cause any significant impacts to the landscape that would persist after facility 

decommissioning and site reclamation are completed. Most visual impacts during 

decommissioning would be temporary and diminish as structures, equipment, and other facility 

components are removed; the disturbed land surface is reclaimed and restored; and the 

vegetation is re-established. NRC licensees are required to conduct final decommissioning and 

site restoration under an NRC-approved DP and RAP, with the goal of returning the landscape

to the visual conditions of the area prior to any NRC-licensed activities. While some roadside 

cuts and hill-slope modifications could persist beyond facility and wellfield decommissioning and 

site reclamation (depending upon a landowner’s wishes), the recontouring, revegetating, and 

reclaiming of the Ross Project area would consist of the same activities described in the GEIS 

and, hence, the visual and scenic impacts from the Proposed Action’s decommissioning would 

be SMALL. 

When the Ross Project’s decommissioning efforts have been accepted by the NRC, all buildings 

and equipment would have been decontaminated, dismantled, decommissioned, and either 

disposed of or relocated to another facility. Site reclamation efforts would be designed to return 

the visual landscape of the Ross Project to its previous contours. Recontouring of disturbed 

areas on the Ross Project (including access roads) and the reseeding of those areas with native 

vegetation or an approved seed mixture would both be accomplished during site reclamation. 

All of these activities would minimize any permanent impacts on visual and scenic resources.

The Applicant would mitigate the fugitive-dust impacts that could result from decommissioning 

activities by its use of water spray during dismantling and demolition activities and on 

unimproved roads to reduce dust emissions (Strata, 2011a). All facility-decommissioning and 

site-restoration activities would be done in accordance with NRC and WDEQ/LQD guidelines. 

Once these activities are complete, the visual landscape would have been returned to its 

condition prior to licensing. 

4.10.2 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Ross Project would not be licensed and the land would 

continue to be available for other uses. Therefore, there would be no change to the existing 

visual and scenic resources at the Ross Project area. In general, the existing site conditions 

and current land uses would persist, including oil-production activities. All existing roads, 

fences, utilities, landscape formations, and vegetation would remain. No additional structures or 

land uses associated with the Ross Project would be introduced to affect the existing 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-90

viewscapes, and the existing scenic quality would be unchanged. The visual resource 

classification would remain BLM Class III, as described in SEIS Section 3.10. Thus, visual and 

scenic impacts would be SMALL.

4.10.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project

Under Alternative 3, the North Ross Project would generally be the same as the Proposed 

Action, except that the facility (i.e., the CPP, associated buildings, and auxiliary structures as 

well as the surface impoundments) would be located to the north of where it would be located in 

the Proposed Action, as described in SEIS Section 2.1.3. The Alternative 3 facility would 

remain within the Ross Project area, albeit in a location that is more shielded by topographical 

features than where it would be located in the Proposed Action. Thus, some of the Ross Project 

views from neighboring properties would be diminished, and the nearby residences would be 

more shielded from light pollution than they would be under the Proposed Action. As a result, 

the visual- and scenic-resource impacts would, at the least, not differ from those of the 

Proposed Action and, most likely, they would be somewhat reduced from those of the Proposed 

Action. Therefore, the visual-resource impacts would be MODERATE for Ross Project 

neighbors (and short term) and SMALL for all others and over the long term. 

4.11 Socioeconomics

The Proposed Action could impact local socioeconomics during all phases of the Project’s 

lifecycle. During socioeconomic-impact analyses, several areas are examined; these include 

employment, demographics, income, housing, finance, education, and social and health 

services. 

4.11.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, consists of four phases: construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning of a uranium-recovery facility and wellfields.

4.11.1.1 Ross Project Construction

The Ross Project would employ approximately 200 people during construction (Strata, 2012a). 

The peak construction workforce of 200 workers is within the range of the construction 

workforce estimates provided in the GEIS (i.e., also 200 workers) (NRC, 2009b). The GEIS 

assumed that the majority of the construction personnel positions would be filled by skilled 

workers from outside the NSDWUMR and that this influx of workers would be expected to result 

in SMALL to MODERATE socioeconomic impacts, with the greatest impacts for communities 

with small populations (NRC, 2009b). However, due to the short duration of construction, the 

GEIS also noted that these workers would have only a limited effect on public services and 

community infrastructure. Further, construction workers would be less likely to relocate their 

families to another region, and if the majority of the construction workforce would be filled from 

within the region of the facility, socioeconomic impacts would be SMALL (NRC, 2009b). 

The size of the Ross Project’s construction workforce is of similar size to that presented in the 

GEIS and the Applicant is committed to hiring locally—it projects that 90 percent of the 

construction workforce would be local hires (Strata, 2012a)—the employment, demographic, 

income, housing, education, and health and social services impacts during the construction 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-91

phase of the Ross Project would be SMALL. The employment increases would represent only 

1.2 percent of all jobs in the region of socioeconomic influence (ROI) (i.e., Crook and Campbell 

Counties), and the population increases, and consequent increases in public and private 

services, would represent only a 0.1 percent increase over those present prior to Project 

licensing. MODERATE impacts could occur in the finance sector as a result of the additional 

property-tax revenues generated by the Project (see Table 4.7).

Source: Strata, 2012a.

The following sections provide impact estimates for each of the specific resource areas within 

socioeconomics during the construction phase of the Ross Project.

Employment

The 200 construction workers that would be employed at the proposed Ross Project could 

generate an additional 140 indirect jobs in the ROI for a peak employment impact of 340 

workers as a result of the Project’s construction phase (NRC, 2009b). With an employment 

base in the ROI of 30,815 workers (see SEIS Section 3.11.4), impacts on the region’s 

employment would be SMALL, representing approximately 1.2 percent of all jobs in the two 

Counties.

Demographics

It is estimated that less than 10 percent of the construction workforce would come from outside 

the immediate Ross Project vicinity, or approximately 20 workers (Strata, 2012a). As workers 

could potentially travel from anywhere in the U.S., based upon the average household size of 

2.58 for the U.S. (USCB, 2012a), this would translate into 52 additional residents in the ROI. It 

is likely that most new construction workers for the Ross Project would not relocate their 

families, however for the purposes of this SEIS, it is assumed that they would move their 

Table 4.7 

Estimated Major Tax Revenues

Tax Revenues

Revenue Source

Average

Per Year

Over 

10 Years

Severance Taxes $855,000 $8,550,000

State Royalties $243,000 $2,430,000

Gross Production Taxes $1,337,000 $13,370,000

Property Taxes $350,000 $3,500,000

TOTAL $2,785,000 $27,850,000
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-92

families. This number is less than 0.1 percent of the combined population base of 53,216 

persons in Crook and Campbell Counties as of 2010 (see SEIS Section 3.11.1). This would be 

a SMALL demographic impact.

Income

It is expected that workers would be paid the regional rates typical of Crook and Campbell 

Counties, where a higher percentage of jobs are in the relatively higher-paying energy industry. 

Based upon a weighted-average annual earnings per job of $61,400 (see SEIS Section 3.11.2), 

the 200 workers would generate approximately $12.3 million in annual earnings. With an 

estimated $2.6 billion in total personal income in both Crook and Campbell Counties, the 

impacts of the construction of the Ross Project on local income would represent less than 1 

percent of total income in the two Counties and would be a SMALL impact. 

Housing

According to GEIS Section 4.4.10, the impacts to housing from ISR-facility construction would 

be expected to be SMALL (and short term), even if the workforce were to be primarily filled from 

outside the region (NRC, 2009b). It is likely, however, that the majority of workers would use 

temporary housing such as apartments, hotels, or trailer camps (NRC, 2009b). At the 

maximum, if the additional 20 new workers to the Ross Project vicinity represent a demand for 

20 housing units in the ROI (see above), this additional demand for housing would represent 

less than 0.1 percent of the total housing stock of 22,550 units in the region (see SEIS Section 

3.11.3), and this would be a SMALL impact.

Finance

As noted in GEIS Section 4.4.10, the construction of an ISR facility could have a MODERATE 

impact on finances within a ROI (NRC, 2009b). Local-government finances would be affected 

by ISR-facility construction by the additional taxes collected and the purchase of goods and 

services in support of construction activities. Although Wyoming does not have an income tax, 

it does have a state sales tax, a lodging tax, and a use tax. Construction workers would 

contribute to these as they purchase goods and services within the Ross Project ROI, while they 

work on the construction of the Proposal Action. Based upon a valuation of $50 million for the 

Ross Project facility and wellfields, as well as the related and real property, multiplied by an 11.5 

percent assessment ratio and the Crook County mill levy of 0.062545, local property taxes that 

would accrue to Crook County would be estimated to be approximately $350,000 per year, 

reflecting approximately 13 percent of Crook County property-tax collections (Strata, 2012a). 

These benefits would be offset, however, by the cost of additional public services required by 

the new residents in the vicinity. This additional demand would be associated with just the 

estimated 52 additional residents in the ROI, representing less than 0.1 percent of the 

population in the two Counties; the additional cost for public services also would represent less 

than a 0.1 percent increase in local-government expenditures. Because the size and scale of 

the Ross Project is similar to that described in the GEIS, and given the foregoing information, 

the impacts to local finance would be MODERATE. 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-93

Education

As discussed above, it is likely that most new construction workers for the Ross Project would 

not move their families. However, at a maximum, if all 20 workers were to bring their families, 

and based upon a school-age population representing 20.4 percent of the population nationwide 

(USCB, 2012a), the 52 additional residents in the Ross Project vicinity would generate 11 

additional elementary and secondary students in the ROI schools. This would represent less 

than 0.1 percent of the total enrollment in area schools and would represent a SMALL impact on 

education.

Health and Social Services

Increased demand for health and social services is a function of the additional population in the 

ROI. As discussed above, the population increase in the ROI due to construction activities 

would represent less than a 0.1 percent increase in the local population because most workers 

would already reside within a commuting radius of the Project. Thus, only a 0.1 percent 

increase in the demand for health and social services would occur, and this increased demand 

for such services would represent a SMALL impact. 

In addition, as noted in the GEIS, accidents resulting from construction of the Proposed Action 

would not be expected to be different than those from other types of similar industrial facilities 

(NRC, 2009b). In the case of an industrial accident, the Applicant would commit to maintaining 

emergency-response personnel on staff and would train local emergency responders in 

preparing and responding to potential environmental, safety, and health emergencies resulting 

from Ross Project construction (Strata, 2011a), thereby minimizing any potential decrease in or 

impact to the availability of local emergency health services.

4.11.1.2 Ross Project Operation

The Ross Project would employ approximately 60 people during its operation (Strata, 2012a). 

This number is within the range of the operation-workforce estimates provided in the GEIS (50 – 

80 workers) (NRC, 2009b). According to the GEIS, if the majority of the operation workforce is 

filled by personnel from outside the area, potential population and public services impacts would 

range from SMALL to MODERATE, depending upon the proximity of the ISR facility to 

population centers (NRC, 2009b). However, because an outside workforce would be more 

likely to settle in more populated areas, with increased access to housing, schools, services, 

and other amenities, these impacts could be reduced (NRC, 2009b). If the majority of the 

workforce during ISR-facility operation is of local origin, the potential impacts to population and 

public services would be expected to be SMALL (NRC, 2009b). 

Because the size of the Ross Project’s proposed workforce during the operation of the Ross 

Project would be within the range evaluated in the GEIS, and because the Applicant would 

commit to hiring locally—80 percent of the operation workforce would be expected to be local 

hires (Strata, 2012a)—the employment, demographic, income, housing, education, and health 

and social services impacts during the Ross Project’s operation phase would be SMALL. 

Employment and population increases, and consequent increases in public and private 

services, would represent less than 1 percent over pre-licensing, site-characterization levels. 

MODERATE impacts, however, would be projected for finance as a result of the additional tax 

revenues that would accrue to Crook County (see Table 4.7).
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-94

4.11.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration

The GEIS assumed that the workforce during aquifer-restoration activities at an ISR facility 

would be the same as the operation phase (i.e., 50 – 80 workers) and, thus, the impacts would 

be similar and would be SMALL (NRC, 2009b). The Applicant indicates that at the Ross Project 

there would be a workforce of 20 – 30 workers during the aquifer-restoration phase , without 

concurrent operations (Strata, 2012a), a smaller workforce than that projected in the GEIS. 

The need for regulatory, management, and health and safety personnel would continue 

throughout aquifer restoration, but this need would be met by personnel transitioning from 

operation-phase work to aquifer restoration, and no new personnel would necessarily be 

required (Strata, 2012a). Thus, the impacts of the Proposed Action’s aquifer-restoration phase 

would likely be at most the same, or, would more likely be less than those noted for the Ross 

Project’s operation phase. Because the aquifer-restoration workforce at the Project would be 

less than that estimated in the GEIS, and with an employment base in Crook and Campbell 

Counties of 3 workers (see Section 3.2.10.4), the socioeconomic impacts of the Ross Project on 

area employment would be SMALL, representing less than 1 percent of all jobs in the two 

Counties. Severance tax revenues accruing to local jurisdictions would decrease as uranium 

production ceases during this phase of the Ross Project. 

4.11.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning

In GEIS Section 4.4.10, the workforce examined for an ISR facility’s decommissioning was 

estimated to be similar to that of the construction phase (i.e., up to 200 persons) and, thus, the 

impacts would be similar and would be SMALL to MODERATE, with MODERATE impacts for 

areas with small populations (NRC, 2009b). The Applicant indicates, however, that about only 

90 workers would be required during decommissioning of the Ross Project (Strata, 2011a). 

Only 12 of these workers would be non-local hires (Strata, 2012a). These personnel generally 

represent the regulatory, management, and health and safety personnel that would have been 

present at the Ross Project during the earlier Project phases. Because the size of the 

workforce for the Ross Project’s decommissioning phase is less than that estimated in the 

GEIS, and only 12 workers would be expected to be non-local hires, the overall socioeconomic 

impacts of the Proposed Action’s decommissioning phase would be SMALL. Tax revenues 

accruing to local jurisdictions would decrease to zero as uranium production is concluded during 

decommissioning of the Ross Project. 

4.11.2 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Ross Project would not be licensed and the land would 

continue to be available for other uses. There would be no new jobs created; no changes in 

income levels in the ROI; no changes in population; no increased demand for education, health, 

or social services; and no changes in local finances. Other forms of energy development in the 

ROI would continue to impact regional socioeconomic resources. The economic benefits and 

socioeconomic impacts described for the Proposed Action would not accrue to Crook and 

Campbell Counties, nor to Wyoming. Thus, the socioeconomic impacts of the No-Action 

Alternative would be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-95

4.11.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project

Under Alternative 3, the North Ross Project would generally be the same as the Proposed 

Action, except that the facility (i.e., the CPP, associated buildings, and auxiliary structures as 

well as the surface impoundments) would be located to the north of where it would be located 

in the Proposed Action, as 

described in SEIS Section 2.1.3. 

The construction of the CPP 

and surface impoundments at 

the north site would not change 

workforce levels, and therefore 

the impacts would be the same 

as those described under the 

Proposed Action. Because 

changes in employment are the 

principal driver of 

socioeconomic impacts, the 

socioeconomic impacts of 

Alternative 3 would be the same 

as for the Proposed Action, 

SMALL to MODERATE during 

Alternative 3’s construction and 

operation, and SMALL during 

aquifer restoration and its 

decommissioning.

4.12 Environmental Justice

On February 11, 1994, 

President Clinton signed 

Executive Order (EO) 12898, 

entitled Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, which 

directs each Federal agency to 

“... make achieving 

environmental justice part of its 

mission by identifying and 

addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its 

programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations 

and low income populations” 

(EOP, 1994). 

What is the terminology used during an environmentaljustice analysis ?

■ Low-Income Populations

These populations are identified by annual statistical poverty thresholds 

from the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). In identifying low-income 

populations, agencies may consider a community as either a group of 

individuals living in geographic proximity to one another or a set of 

individuals (such a migrant workers or Native Americans), where either 

type of group experiences common conditions of environmental exposures 

or impacts.

■ Minority Individuals

Minority individuals are those 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 are 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 must be identified when the minority population of an 

affected area exceeds 50 percent or 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.

■ 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 

determined during NEPA analysis) and appreciably exceeds the risk or 

exposure rate for the general population or for another appropriate 

comparison group.

■ 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 employed by NEPA). In 

the assessment of cultural and aesthetic environmental impacts, impacts 

that uniquely affect geographically dislocated or dispersed minority or lowincome populations or American Indian tribes are considered.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-96

On December 10, 1997, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued its Environmental 

Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. The CEQ developed this 

guidance to “... further assist Federal agencies with their [NEPA] procedures.” As an 

independent agency, the CEQ’s guidance is not binding on the NRC. However, the NRC 

considered the CEQ’s guidance on environmental justice in developing its own environmentaljustice analytical methodology (NRC, 2003a). The CEQ provided the definitions listed in the text 

box above in its Guidance for consistent use during environmental-justice analyses (CEQ, 

1997). 

The NRC has required an environmental-justice analysis be included in its EISs (NRC, 2004b; 

NRC, 2003a, Appendix C). NRC environmental-justice guidance discusses the procedures to 

evaluate potential disproportionately high and adverse impacts associated with physical, 

environmental, socioeconomic, health, and cultural resources to minority and low-income 

populations (NRC, 2004b). 

4.12.1 Minority and Low-Income Population Analysis for the Ross Project

Demographic and socioeconomic data for the Ross Project area and surrounding communities 

was assembled to identify minority or low-income populations within a 6-km [4-mi] radius of the 

area and is shown in Tables 4.8 and 4.9. 

Table 4.8 

Ross Project Area Poverty and Income Characteristics

Area of Comparisona Percent Living Below Povertyb 

Median Household 

Incomec 

Wyoming 9.8 $53,802

Crook County 7.8 $49,890

Census Tract 9502 7.2 $52,106

Census Tract 9503 9.0 $46,848

Source: USCB, 2012b.

Notes: 

a = Income data is not available at the Census-Block-Group level for 2010.

b = Source: USCB, 2012b (S1701).

c = Source: USCB, 2012b (B19013)

Table 4.9 compares race and ethnicity characteristics by census block group to Crook County 

and Wyoming. The percentage of the population in Wyoming and Crook County that is 

nonwhite is 9.3 percent and 2.9 percent, respectively (100 percent minus percent white alone 

equals percent nonwhite). The percentage of nonwhite population that lives in the block groups 

within a 6-km [4-mi] radius of the Ross Project area ranges from 0.4 – 2.9 percent. In addition, 

the percentage of the population in Wyoming and Crook County who are Hispanic or Latino is
4-97

Table 4.9 

Ross Project Area Race and Ethnicity Characteristics

Area of 

Comparison Total

White 

Alone

% 

White 

Alone

Black

or 

African 

American 

Alone

% 

Black

or 

African 

American

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native 

Alone

% 

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native 

Alone

Asian 

Alone

% 

Asian 

Alone

Wyoming 563,626 511,279 90.7 4,748 0.8 13,336 2.4 4,426 8.2 

Crook County 7,083 6,884 97.1 14 0.2 48 0.7 11 0.2 

Block Group 1 

Census Tract 9502 1,211 1,176 97.1 0 0 7 0.6 1 0.1 

Block Group 2 

Census Tract 9502 1,880 1,843 98 2 0.1 11 0.6 2 0.1 

Block Group 3 

Census Tract 9502 1,390 1,333 95.9 6 0.4 9 0.6 2 0.1 

Block Group 1 

Census Tract 9503 1,280 1,171 96.9 4 0.3 8 0.7 5 0.4 

Block Group 2 

Census Tract 9503 1,394 1,361 97.6 2 0.1 13 0.9 1 0.1 

Source: USCB, 2012b (P1 and QT-P4).
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-98

8.9 percent and 2.0 percent, respectively. The percentage of Hispanic or Latino populations 

that lives in the block groups within a 6-km [4-mi] radius of the Ross Project area ranges from 

1.3 – 4.7 percent. When these numbers are compared to the State and Crook County 

proportions, they do not exceed the 20-percent level that is commonly considered of 

environmental-justice significance.

Table 4.8 compares poverty and income characteristics by census tract to Crook County and 

Wyoming. The percentage of the population living below poverty for Wyoming and Crook 

County as well as Census Tracts 9502 and 9503 are 9.8 percent, 7.8 percent, 7.2 percent, and 

9.0 percent, respectively. When these numbers are compared to the State and Crook County 

proportions, they also do not exceed the 20-percent level that is considered of environmentaljustice significance. 

Because no minority or low-income populations, as defined by EO 12898, have been identified 

in the Ross Project area, no further environmental-justice analysis (Steps 3 – 5) was conducted.

4.12.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, there are no minority or low-income populations identified that are 

greater than 20 percent within a 6-km [4-mi] radius of the Proposed Action. Therefore, there are 

no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations under 

the Proposed Action.

4.12.3 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Ross Project would not be licensed and the land would 

continue to be available for other uses. The conditions affecting minority and low-income 

populations in the vicinity of the Ross Project area would remain unchanged. Therefore, there 

would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income 

populations under the No-Action Alternative.

4.12.4 Alternative 3: North Ross Project

Under Alternative 3, the North Ross Project would generally be the same as the Proposed 

Action, except that the facility (i.e., the CPP, associated buildings, and auxiliary structures as 

well as the surface impoundments) would be located to the north of where it would be located in 

the Proposed Action, as described in SEIS Section 2.1.3. As there are no minority or lowincome populations identified that are greater than 20 percent within a 6-km [4-mi] radius of the 

Ross Project area under this Alternative, there are no disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts to minority and low-income populations. 

4.13 Public and Occupational Health and Safety

All phases of the proposed Ross Project could result in potential radiological and 

nonradiological impacts to public and occupational health and safety. Public nonradiological 

impacts are unlikely, except under accident conditions. Radiological impacts to the public could 

occur during both routine Ross Project activities as well as during accidents. Impacts to 

occupational health and safety could result from both routine exposures to hazardous chemicals 

and direct radiation (i.e., gamma) emitted from radionuclides present during Ross Project 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-99

activities as well as from exposures by way of ingestion or inhalation of radioactive gases or 

fugitive dust or following an accident. The respective standards related to radiological 

exposures are found in 10 CFR Part 20, where the public dose standard is 1 mSv/yr [100 

mrem/yr] and the 40 CFR Part 190 annual standard is 0.25 mSv [25 mrem]. The corresponding 

occupational dose limit is 50 mSv [5 rem] for total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) exposure. 

4.13.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, consists of four phases: construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning of a uranium-recovery facility and wellfields. During all 

phases, both radiological and nonradiological impacts could occur.

4.13.1.1 Ross Project Construction

Radiological

Proposed construction activities at the Ross Project are very similar to those described in GEIS 

Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.11, where the greatest risk to a worker is the inhalation of gaseous 

radionuclides (e.g., Rn-222) during well drilling and wellfield installation as well as inhalation of 

fugitive dust containing uranium or its progeny (e.g., Ra-226) during construction activities. The 

GEIS indicated that an internal exposure to radiation via ingestion would be unlikely without 

substantial intake of soil containing radionuclides. Also, radiological impacts to both the public 

and site workers from inhalation of fugitive dust 

during construction of an ISR facility would be 

SMALL because the radionuclide concentrations 

would be low (NRC, 2009b). The GEIS concluded 

that the radiological impacts to both the general 

public as well as construction workers during ISR 

facility construction would be SMALL. 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1 and consistent 

with the GEIS, construction activities associated with 

the Ross Project would include preparation of the site 

and the construction of buildings, surface 

impoundments, access roads, wellfields, and other 

structures and systems. The important radiationexposure pathway during the construction phase 

would be through direct exposure to radiation, 

inhalation of gaseous radionuclides during well 

construction, or ingestion of radioactive materials 

during construction activities that disturb surface soil 

and/or fugitive dust from vehicular traffic during 

construction. For direct (i.e., gamma or γ) radiation, 

the public’s potential exposure would be equivalent to 

approximately 5.3 – 25.3 microRoentgens (μR) per 

hour (μR/hr), which is much lower than the radiation 

exposure from naturally occurring radionuclides that 

How is radiation measured?

When someone is exposed to direct 

(gamma or γ) radiation, “radiation 

exposure” results. Such radiation 

exposure is measured in Roentgens (R) or 

microRoentgens (μR) per a unit of time. 

“Radiation dose,” where dose considers, 

unlike radiation exposure, the human 

body’s consequences of the radiation (i.e., 

these units are used in radiation-protection 

efforts to measure the amount of damage 

to human tissue from a dose of ionizing 

radiation). Radiation dose is measured in 

units of either Sievert or rem and is often 

referred to in either milliSv/mSv or 

millirem/mrem where 1,000 mSv = 1 Sv 

and 1,000 mrem = 1 rem. The conversion 

for Sieverts to rem is 1 Sv=100 rem. 

Total effective dose equivalent, or TEDE, 

refers to the sum of the deep-dose 

equivalent (for “external” to the human 

body exposures that penetrate the body) 

and the committed effective dose 

equivalent (CEDE) (for radiation 

exposures that are internal to a human 

body, such as when radionuclides are 

inhaled or ingested). 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-100

the public receives each day. The concentrations of the naturally occurring radionuclides (e.g., 

Ra-226, Rn-222, and uranium radioisotopes) are low; for example, the total concentration of 

uranium in the native surface soils at the Ross Project area is only 0 – 2.80 mg/kg [2.80 ppm] 

(on the order of x Bq/g [1 – 2 pCi/g]). Thus, the sparse population near the Ross Project area 

and its vicinity (see SEIS Section 3.2), the lack of public access to the Ross Project area, the 

low concentrations of radionuclides in the Project’s soils, and the atmospheric dispersion of 

radionuclides in fugitive dust (see SEIS Section 4.7.1) would be sufficient to minimize impacts 

from any such routine exposures to the public. 

The low concentrations of radionuclides in the Project soils and the relatively rapid atmospheric 

dispersion of radionuclides in gases and in fugitive dust would minimize routine radiationexposure impacts to workers as well. During the Applicant’s proposed use of mud-rotary drilling 

techniques during wellfield installation, some drilling fluids and muds (i.e., cuttings), originating 

from the ore zone into which the wells would be drilled, would be brought to the surface. This 

type of well-drilling technique involves the use of a drilling fluid that is introduced through the 

drill’s stem, out the drill bit (i.e., end), and then back up to the surface through the drillhole and 

the drill stem. These fluids and muds would be collected in pre-excavated pits near the well 

being installed (see Section 2.1.1.5). After drying out, the pits would be covered with native 

topsoil and then revegetated (Strata, 2011a). But because these fluids have been passed 

through the uranium-ore-bearing zone, they have the potential to contain higher concentrations 

of naturally occurring radionuclides than do surficial soils. As the discussion of the existing 

radiological pre-licensing, site-characterization conditions in SEIS Section 3.12.1 establishes, 

however, the relative concentration of radionuclides would still be very low. Thus, the 

radiological impacts to the occupational health and safety of workers, including the well-drillers, 

would also be SMALL during the construction phase of the Ross Project. 

Nonradiological

Construction equipment would likely be diesel powered and would emit diesel exhaust, which 

includes small particulates (<PM10), during Project construction activities. The impacts and 

potential human exposures from these emissions would be small because the releases are 

usually short in duration, and the gases and particulates are readily dispersed into the 

atmosphere. SEIS Section 4.7.1 describes in greater detail the impacts to air quality from 

potential diesel emissions, including comparisons with health-based standards. Therefore, the 

impacts as a result of these emissions would be SMALL, consistent with the GEIS conclusions 

in Section 4.4.11.1 (NRC, 2009b). 

Thus, the potential impacts to public and occupational health and safety during construction of 

the Proposed Action are SMALL.

4.13.1.2 Ross Project Operation

Radiological

Normal Conditions

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.11.2.1, some amount of byproduct material would be 

released to the environment during normal ISR operations. The potential impact from these 

releases has been evaluated by the MILDOS-AREA computer code (MILDOS), which Argonne 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-101

National Laboratory developed for calculating offsite radiation doses to individuals and 

populations. MILDOS uses a multi-pathway analysis for determining external dose (from 

gamma radiation); inhalation dose; and ingestion dose when potentially contaminated soil, 

plants, meat, milk, aquatic foods, and water are consumed. The primary radionuclide of interest 

at an ISR facility is Rn-222. MILDOS uses a model that typically assumes no dilution and, thus, 

provides conservative estimates of downwind air concentrations and doses to human receptors

(persons who have a “radiation exposure” in Roentgens [R] or microRoentgens which will 

produce a “radiation dose”). 

GEIS Section 4.4.11.2.1 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 (to the public or “human receptors”) locations 

range between 0.004 mSv [0.4 mrem] per year at the Crow Butte Project’s facility (in Nebraska) 

discussed earlier in SEIS Section 4.4.1.2 and 0.32 mSv [32 mrem] per year for the Irigaray

Project’s facility (in Wyoming). In each case, the estimated dose was well below the 10 CFR 

Part 20 annual public radiation-dose limit of 1 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr] (NRC, 2009b). 

With respect to estimated maximum doses to members of the public, GEIS Section 4.4.11.1.2 

noted that radon gas is emitted from ISR wellfields and processing facilities during operations 

and is the only radiological airborne effluent during normal operation at facilities using vacuumdryer technology (NRC, 2009b); the Applicant has proposed to dry yellowcake using a rotaryvacuum dryer (Strata, 2011a). During normal operation, emissions other than Rn-222 are not 

expected with a uranium-recovery facility. 

The Applicant evaluated the potential consequences of radiological emissions at the Proposed 

Action (Strata, 2011a). Sources of Rn-222 emanation that the Applicant identified and modeled 

consisted of point sources (i.e., those operations that have their exhaust confined in a stack, 

duct, or pipe prior to atmospheric release, such as process-tank vents described in SEIS 

Section 4.7.1.2) and area sources (i.e., wellfields). 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 radon-release 

estimates, meteorological and population data, and other parameters. The estimated 

radiological impacts from routine Project activities during operation were compared to applicable 

public radiation-dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 (i.e., 1 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr]) as well as to the 

pre-licensing, site-characterization radiological conditions it meansured. 

The NRC review of the Applicant’s radiological-impacts modeling 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 (i.e., a “source term” is the total amount of 

radioactivity and radionuclides available to be released). The NRC staff concluded that the 

source terms used by the Applicant represented uranium-recovery operation at full CPP 

capacity and that the estimated releases during wellfield operation from the CPP and from the 

UIC deep-disposal wells were appropriate. 

The Applicant calculated the TEDE across a projected area set on a grid system, centered 

about the CPP and extending beyond the Project boundaries, for a total of 287 locations, 14 

members of the public including children that could be living at the four nearest residences and 

the Oshoto Field Office, 5 ranchers, 2 oil-field workers, and 2 vendors or couriers working both 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-102

within and outside of the Project area. Results of the Applicant’s modeling indicated that the 

maximum TEDE of 0.016 mSv/yr [1.6 mrem/yr] was located near the Ross Project’s eastern 

boundary in the vicinity of the CPP area. The Applicant’s calculations also demonstrated that 

inhalation accounted for 98 percent of the TEDE at this location (i.e., not exposure to direct 

radiation nor ingestion of radionuclides) (Strata, 2011a). Thus, the 10 CFR Part 20 public 

radiation-dose limit would likely not be exceeded at any Ross Project boundary. The annual 

dose to the population within 80 km [50 mi] of the Ross Project was estimated at 10,500 personrem; this estimation is based upon a naturally occurring and man-made radiation dose of 2.57 

mSv/yr [257 mrem/yr] for Wyoming. For comparison, the TEDE from the Ross Project to the 

that population based upon the Applicant’s modeling is estimated to be 0.361 person-rem. This 

TEDE represents 1.6 percent of 10 CFR Part 20’s radiation-dose limit of 1 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr] 

for a member of the public. 

Because Rn-222 is the only radionuclide emitted during normal operations, the public radiationdose requirements in 40 CFR Part 190 and the 0.1 mSv/yr [10 mrem/yr] constraint rule in 10 

CFR Part 20.1101 do not apply. The Applicant calculated that radon emissions from the 

wellfields accounted for 75 percent of the total radiological emissions. In its calculations, the 

Applicant assumed that 100 percent of the radon was contained within the ground water or 

process solutions that would be released to the atmosphere. The estimated radon release from 

the facility is listed in Table 7.3-4 of Strata’s ER (Strata, 2011a). As shown, the radiation dose 

to the public is below the 10 CFR Part 20 public radiation-dose limit; thus, radiation-dose 

impacts to the public from normal operations would be SMALL. 

GEIS Section 4.4.11.2.1 also provided a summary of radiation doses to occupationally exposed 

workers at ISR facilities. As stated in the GEIS, the radiation doses at an ISR facility are not 

dependent upon a facility’s location and are well within the 10 CFR Part 20 annual occupational 

radiation-dose standard of 0.05 Sv/yr [5 rem/yr]. The largest average annual dose to a worker 

at a uranium-recovery facility over a 10-year period [1994 – 2006] was 0.007 Sv/yr [0.7 rem/yr]. 

More recently, the maximum TEDEs reported for 2005 and 2006 were 0.00675 and 0.00713 Sv 

[0.675 and 0.713 rem]. Similarly, the average and maximum worker exposures to radon (i.e., 

radon-222 or Rn-222) and radon-progeny ranged from 2.5 – 16 percent of the occupational 

exposure limit of 4 working-level months (a “working level” is a unit of radon exposure). The 

NRC concluded in the GEIS that the radiological impacts to workers during normal operations at 

ISR facilities would be SMALL (NRC, 2009b). 

In addition, the Applicant is required to implement an NRC-approved radiation protection 

program (RPP) to protect occupational workers and ensure that radiological doses are as low as 

reasonably achievable (ALARA). The Applicant’s proposed RPP included commitments for 

implementing management controls, engineering controls, radiation-safety training, radon 

sampling and monitoring, and audit programs (Strata, 2011a). Potential radiation doses to 

occupationally exposed workers and members of the public during normal operations would be 

SMALL. 

Occupational doses at the proposed Ross Project (i.e., radiation doses to workers or 

“occupational receptors”), given that the Ross Project’s design and its operations would be

consistent with those analyzed in the GEIS, would be the same or less than those evaluated in 

the GEIS. Occupational radiological impacts would be SMALL. To mitigate radiological 

exposures to Project workers, the Applicant would: 1) install ventilation systems designed to 

limit worker exposures to radon; 2) install gamma-exposure-rate monitors, air-particulate 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-103

monitors, and radon-progeny monitors, all to verify that estimated radiation levels are met; and 

3) conduct work-area radiation surveys to prevent and to limit the spread of radioactive 

contamination (Strata, 2011a). The Applicant’s airborne radiation-monitoring program is further 

described in SEIS Section 6.2.1. 

Accident Conditions

The GEIS identified, described, and assessed the consequences of bounding abnormal and 

accident conditions that could occur at an ISR facility. The GEIS’s information was based upon

previous radiological-hazard assessments that considered the various stages of an ISR facility

(Mackin et al., 2001). The calculated radiation doses from the releases of byproduct or source 

material to the environment are small fractions of the limits set forth at 10 CFR Part 20—limits 

that have been established by the NRC for the protection of public health and safety. The GEIS 

considered three separate accidents, which represent events resulting in higher-than-usual 

levels of radioactivity being released (i.e., above those levels discussed above): a thickener 

failure and spill; pregnant lixiviant and uranium-loaded resin spills (i.e., radon release), and a 

yellowcake-dryer accident release. The GEIS concluded that potential impacts to workers could 

be MODERATE based upon the estimated consequences of an unmitigated dryer release, but 

doses to the general public would be SMALL.

An overview of the three accident scenarios, as evaluated in the GEIS with site-specific 

information about the Ross Project, is presented in the following sections. 

Thickener Failure and Spill

Thickeners are used to concentrate yellowcake slurry before it is transferred to a dryer or 

packaged for offsite shipment. Radionuclides (or, radioactive materials) could be inadvertently 

released to the atmosphere during a thickener failure or spill. This accident scenario, as 

evaluated in the GEIS, assumed a tank or pipe leak, releasing 20 percent of the thickener both 

inside and outside of a central-processing facility. The analyses described in the GEIS included

a variety of wind speeds, stability classes, release durations, and human-receptor distances. A 

minimum receptor distance of 500 m [approximately 1,600 ft] was selected as a variable in the 

scenario because it was found to be the shortest distance between a processing facility and an 

urban development at currently operating uranium-recovery facilities. The model indicated that 

offsite, unrestricted (i.e., unmitigated) doses from such a spill could result in a dose of 0.25 mSv 

[25 mrem], or 25 percent of the annual public radiation-dose limit of 1 mSv [100 mrem] per year. 

External doses were negligible based upon sufficient distance between facility and receptor 

(NRC, 2009b). The nearest two residences to the Ross Project’s CPP are located at a distance 

of 860 m [2,500 ft] and 1,700 m [5,600 ft], each of which are farther than the shortest distance 

analyzed in the GEIS. Therefore, the potential public dose from a thickener spill at the Ross 

Project would be less than the radiation dose estimated in the GEIS, and could be even less 

given the secondary-containment structures (e.g., concrete berms) included in the Applicant’s 

facility design.

As discussed in the GEIS, doses to unprotected, occupational receptors inside the CPP have

the potential to exceed the annual dose limit of 0.05 Sv [5 rem] if timely corrective measures are

not taken to control and remediate the spill. Typical personnel-protection measures, such as air 

monitoring, respiratory protection, and material control, which would be a part of the Applicant’s 

RPP, would reduce worker exposures and resulting doses to a small fraction of those evaluated 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-104

(NRC, 2009b). The Applicant has proposed a RPP and spill-response protocols that include 

commitments similar to those described in the GEIS, such as requiring the use of personal 

protective equipment (PPE) (Strata, 2011a). Therefore, the potential dose to workers at the 

Ross Project from a thickener spill is expected to be consistent with the dose estimate provided 

in the GEIS but this dose would be reduced significantly, as described in the GEIS, by the 

Applicant’s implementation of radiation protection and spill-response programs.

Pregnant Lixiviant and Uranium-Loaded Resin Releases

Process equipment (e.g., IX columns) at the Ross Project would be located on curbed concrete 

pads to prevent any fluids from spills or leaks from exiting the CPP and contaminating the 

outside environment. In the event of a process-tank failure, released fluids would be captured in 

concrete berms in the CPP, which would be designed to contain a volume of 110 percent of the 

largest tank in that building (Strata, 2011b). Personnel would follow precise spill-response 

protocols, which are discussed in the Applicant’s ER, including the requirement for the use of 

PPE (Strata, 2011a). Collected fluids would the be pumped from a sump in the bermed area to 

other process vessels, a lined surface impoundment, or a deep-disposal well. The 

contaminated area would then be washed down, and the wash water disposed of by deep-well 

injection as well. Therefore, except for wellfield leaks or spills, the NRC staff does not consider 

the accidental release of liquids in the facility portion of the Ross Project as a pathway to 

radiation exposure to be realistic. The primary source of radiation exposure for liquid releases 

within the Ross Project facility would be the resulting airborne radon gas released from a liquid 

or resin-tank spill.

In the case of a wellfield leak at the Ross Project, pregnant lixiviant could be released from the 

pipes containing the fluid onto the soil below. The Applicant would be able to identify such a 

leak by monitoring the pipelines to detect changes in pressure or flow. If a significant change in 

pressure or flow is detected, an alarm would sound at the CPP, which would prompt the 

Applicant’s personnel to investigate the cause and identify any leaks. If the pressure or flow 

change is outside of acceptable operating parameters, the pumping system would automatically 

shut-down. Additionally, wellfield operators would visually inspect all pipelines and equipment 

within the module buildings, wellheads, and valve vaults at least weekly (Strata, 2011a). 

Potentially contaminated soil would be sampled and contaminated soil would be removed and 

disposed of in accordance with NRC and State requirements. In the event of a spill that meets 

NRC criteria for reporting, the Applicant would notify the NRC within 24 hours and submit a 

report within 30 days that describes the conditions leading to the spill, the corrective actions 

taken, and the results achieved.

The GEIS did model a radon-release accident scenario in which a pipe or valve of the IX

system, containing pregnant lixiviant, were to develop a leak, almost instantaneously all of the 

the radon at a high-radioactivity level (2.96 x 107 Bq/m3 [8 x 105 pCi/L]) were to be released. 

The radiation dose to a worker located inside a processing facility who is performing light 

activities without respiratory protection, was estimated to be 10 mSv [1,300 mrem] as a result of

a 30-minute exposure. This dose is below the 10 CFR Part 20 occupational-dose limits of 0.05 

Sv [5 rem] (NRC, 2009b). The Ross Project would include a pipeline system for pregnant 

lixiviant consistent with the system evaluated in the GEIS and, thus, the potential radiation dose 

estimated in the GEIS is consistent with the dose expected during this type of accident scenario 

at the Ross Project. Ventilation systems and alarms at the Ross Project that would alert 

workers to immediately evacuate the CPP, which would further reduce the potential exposure to 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-105

radiation and the resulting dose to workers. Atmospheric transport of radionuclides offsite 

would further reduce airborne levels of radioactivity by several orders of magnitude and would 

reduce the respective radiation dose to a member of the public to less than the 1-mSv [100-

mrem] public radiation-dose limit of 10 CFR Part 20. 

Yellowcake Dryer Accident Release

In GEIS Section 4.4.11.2.2, the consequences of an explosion involving a yellowcake dryer with 

multiple hearths at an ISR facility were evaluated. The analysis assumed that approximately

4,300 kg [9,500 lb] of yellowcake uranium would be released within the facility housing the dryer 

and that, due to the mass and physical characteristics of yellowcake, most of it would rapidly fall 

out of airborne suspension. Therefore, only 1 kg [2.2 lb] of the yellowcake was assumed to be 

subsequently released as an air effluent to the outside atmosphere as a 100-percent respirable 

powder. The GEIS’s calculated maximum dose to workers in this scenario was 0.088 Sv [8.8 

rem], which exceeds the annual occupational radiation-dose limit of 0.05 Sv [5 rem] established 

in 10 CFR Part 20. The atmospheric dispersion of the fraction of yellowcake that was assumed 

to be released as an air effluent would significantly reduce the exposure to members of the 

public to approximately 6.5 x 10-4 Sv [65 mrem], which is less than the 10 CFR Part 20 public 

radiation-dose limit of 1 mSv [100 mrem] (NRC, 1980).

The Applicant proposes to use a vacuum dryer for both yellowcake and vanadium, which is the 

current industry standard for ISR facilities. In a vacuum dryer, the heater’s combustion source 

is separated from the dryer itself. This configuration eliminates the possibility of an explosion for 

the most part, which was assumed to be the initiating event for the accident scenario considered 

in the GEIS and discussed above. Therefore, the vacuum-dryer accidental release that could 

occur at the Ross Project would be expected to have less significant consequences than the 

multiple-hearth yellowcake-dryer accidental-release scenario considered in the GEIS. 

The Applicant analyzed the potential for a release of yellowcake due to a seal rupture in a 

vacuum dryer into the dryer room in the CPP. SOPs proposed by the Applicant, such as its 

conducting regular inspections of the seals, monitoring for pressure changes, and other 

indicators of seal problems during dryer operations, would reduce the likelihood of an unnoticed 

seal rupture. However, in the event of a yellowcake release due to a seal rupture, radiation 

doses to CPP personnel would be minimized because each worker would be required to wear 

respiratory protection when the dryer is in operation and would immediately evacuate the area. 

Public exposure would be significantly reduced, as described in the GEIS, due to atmospheric 

dispersion of any fraction of the yellowcake that is released from the dryer.

Accident-Analysis Conclusions 

The NRC staff reviewed and evaluated site-specific and Project-specific information related to 

potential accidents at the Ross Project and determined that the types of accidents analyzed in 

the GEIS and their potential consequences bound those that could occur for the proposed Ross 

Project. There would be no significant radiological impacts as a result of the potential accidents 

to the public or to occupationally exposed workers beyond those described in the GEIS. Based 

upon this finding, the potential doses could result as a MODERATE impact to occupational 

health and safety, in the case of an unmitigated accident, and a SMALL impact to public health 

and safety. Occupational health and safety impacts from accidents would be reduced by the 

Applicant’s implementing protective SOPs such as routine monitoring, spill response, spill-
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-106

cleanup, and respiratory protection. Thus, the overall radiological impacts to public and to 

occupational health and safety from accidents during the operation phase of the Ross Project

would be SMALL.

Nonradiological 

Normal Conditions

GEIS Section 4.4.11.2.4 identified the various chemicals, hazardous and nonhazardous, that 

are typically used at ISR facilities. The GEIS also identified the typical quantities of these 

chemicals that are used. The following hazardous chemicals would be used in the largest 

quantities at the CPP during the Ross Project’s operation phase: 

■ Anhydrous ammonia

■ Sodium hydroxide

■ Sulfuric acid and/or hydrochloric acid

■ Oxygen

■ Hydrogen peroxide

■ Carbon dioxide

■ Sodium carbonate

■ Sodium chloride

■ Ammonium sulfate

Each of these chemicals would be purchased in bulk, would be transported to the Project area 

by motorized vehicles, and would be stored within the controlled area of the Ross Project (i.e., 

in the fenced facility itself). Typical onsite quantities for some of these chemicals exceed the 

regulated, minimum-reporting quantities and trigger an increased level of regulatory oversight 

regarding possession (type and quantities), storage, use, and disposal practices. The use of 

hazardous chemicals at ISR facilities is controlled by 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 Part 1910.119: Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Standards/Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals. This 

regulation lists highly hazardous chemicals as well as toxic and reactive substances (i.e., 

chemicals that can potentially cause a catastrophic event at or above the threshold 

quantity).

■ 29 CFR Part 1910.120: Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response. This 

regulation instructs employers to develop and implement a written health and safety 

program for their employees involved in hazardous-waste operations. The program should 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-107

be designed to identify, evaluate, and control health and safety hazards and provide for 

emergency response during hazardous-waste operations.

■ 40 CFR Part 355: Emergency Planning and Notification. This regulation lists extremely 

hazardous substances and their threshold planning quantities so that emergency response 

plans can be developed and implemented. There are approximately 360 extremely 

hazardous substances listed. Over a third of these are defined by the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the “Superfund” law. 

The regulations associated with this statute also list so-called “reportable quantity” values for 

these substances. 

■ 40 CFR Part 302.4: Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification/Designation 

of Hazardous Substances. This regulation identifies the reportable quantities for the 

CERCLA hazardous substances on the promulgated list. There are approximately 800 of 

these substances, and they are compiled from the 1) CWA, Sections 311 and 307(a); 2) 

CAA, Section 112; 3) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA], Section 3001; and 

4) Toxic Substance Control Act, Section 7.

The Applicant’s compliance with applicable regulations would reduce the likelihood of continuing 

or significant releases, which may result in injury or illness to an exposed worker. The risk of 

offsite impacts to the public due to a chemical spill is not significant because chemicals would 

be stored and used in or near the facility and wellfields. Therefore, impacts to the public would 

be SMALL.

To promote occupational health and safety, the Applicant would issue a formal Safety Policy 

Statement to define its overall health- and safety-protection policy and the requirements that 

must be met by all employees and contractors at all times while at the Ross Project (Strata, 

2012a). In addition, the Applicant proposes the development of several plans, SOPs, and other 

management tools to further decrease and mitigate occupational health and safety impacts 

(Strata, 2011a). All workers and contractors would receive required health and safety training. 

This training would include indoctrination to plans such as the Project’s health and safety plan 

(HASP) as well as all pertinent SOPs and BMPs. The Ross Project would operate under a 

comprehensive Ross Project HASP, which would include specific industrial-hygiene SOPs and 

other HASPs. These SOPs would govern a worker’s entering a confined space, trenching and 

excavation of utility and pipeline corridors, referring to appropriate Material Safety Data Sheets 

(MSDSs), decanting a hazardous chemical, and donning appropriate levels of PPE. Other 

HASPs would include a respiratory protection plan, a hearing conservation plan, and a health 

and safety training plan. These latter plans would be developed and instituted by the Applicant 

only when it is not practical to use process or other engineering controls (Strata, 2012a). The 

Applicant’s HASP would also include specific training requirements as well as hazard 

identification and mitigation policies and SOPs. The HASP would define the protocols, 

methods, and procedures the Applicant would use to ensure compliance with the OSHA 

requirements found at 29 CFR Part 1910.

The types and quantities of chemicals (both hazardous and nonhazardous) identified for use at 

the proposed Ross Project are consistent with those evaluated in the GEIS. In addition, the 

Applicant proposed to implement the occupational health and safety protection plans evaluated 

for typical ISR facilities in the GEIS and to comply with the requirements of regulations 

governing the use and storage of chemicals. Therefore, the NRC staff has concluded that the 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-108

nonradiological impacts to public and occupational health and safety during normal operations 

of the Proposed Action would be SMALL.

Accident Conditions

Potential nonradiological accidents are consistent with the typical accidents at other industrial 

facilities, including high consequence chemical release events. In GEIS Section 4.4.11.2.2, the 

likelihood of such a release is determined to be low based upon historical operating experience 

at ISR facilities, primarily due to operators’ following commonly applied chemical safety and 

handling SOPs. Past history at current and former ISR facilities demonstrates that these 

facilities can be designed and operated with measures that adequately reduce the risks to 

worker and public health and safety. The GEIS concluded that the nonradiological impacts due 

to accidents at an ISR facility would be SMALL offsite and potentially MODERATE for workers 

involved in accident response and cleanup if no mitigation measures are observed. 

If a large quantity of one or more of the chemicals that would be present in significant quantities 

at the Ross Project were to be released during the Ross Project’s operations, the 

nonradiological impacts to public health and safety would depend on the proximity of potentially 

exposed populations. Potential receptors are sparse in the area around the Ross Project (the 

nearest residents to the Ross Project are identified in Figure 3.1 in SEIS Section 3.2). In 

addition, the Ross Project area is large and affords a great distance that would allow released 

hazardous chemicals to be either deposited or dispersed before reaching the Project 

boundaries, thereby diminishing individual impacts. Workers involved in a response and 

cleanup of an accident could experience MODERATE impacts, but training requirements and 

the establishment of and adherence to applicable procedures would reduce the impacts to 

SMALL. Thus, consistent with the GEIS, impacts to public and occupational health and safety 

due to an onsite accident during Ross Project operations would be SMALL.

4.13.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration

GEIS Section 4.4.11 indicated that the activities that would take place during aquifer restoration 

are similar to ISR facility operation (i.e., wellfield operation, uranium extraction, waste-water 

treatment, and waste disposal), except that each would begin to diminish as less and less 

uranium is recovered from the ore-zone aquifer. The gradual cessation of many of these 

processes as the Ross Project, such as uranium-loaded IX-resin elution, yellowcake drying and 

packaging, and vanadium recovery and packaging, further limits the relative magnitude of 

potential public and occupational health and safety hazards. There would be fewer 

opportunities for accidents with the decreasing number of operations and the decreasing 

workforce as well as fewer chemicals used onsite and smaller volumes of chemicals stored 

onsite. The same mitigation measures and management controls, such as an RPP and the 

Project’s HASP, as discussed earlier for the Ross Project’s construction and operation, would 

be observed during its aquifer-restoration phase as well. Thus, the nonradiological and 

radiological impacts to public and occupational health and safety during aquifer restoration 

would be SMALL.

4.13.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning

The GEIS found in Section 4.4.11 that the radiological impacts to the public and occupational 

health and safety from the decommissioning of an ISR project would be SMALL (NRC, 2009b). 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-109

Consistent with the description in the GEIS, the magnitudes of potential impacts from the 

decommissioning of the Ross Project facility and its wellfields would be less significant than 

impacts during operations because the hazards would be reduced and eliminated and the soils, 

structures, and equipment would be decontaminated. 

In addition to the mitigation measures described in SEIS Sections 4.13.1.1 and 4.13.1.2, the 

NRC will require that the Applicant submit a DP and a RAP for the Ross Project for its review 

and approval (see Appendix 6.1-A to the TR for the proposed RAP) (Strata, 2011b). Protection

of workers and the public would be ensured through the NRC’s approval of the DP and RAP,

verification that doses from exposures during the decommissioning phase would comply with 10 

CFR Part 20’s radiation-dose limits and would be ALARA. Following decontamination, 

demolishing, and decommissioning, the Ross Project area will only be released for unrestricted 

use when the area is in conformance with the conditions of the Source and Byproduct Materials 

License and the radiation-dose criteria for release in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The criteria 

in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A limit the dose from radiological contamination, a small amount of 

which could exist at the Project area after decommissioning is complete, to levels that are 

sufficiently low to protect public’s health and safety. Any area, item, or surface that cannot be 

economically decontaminated, where “economically decontaminated” would be defined by the 

Applicant, would be shipped to a properly licensed radioactive-waste disposal facility. 

Therefore, the impacts to public and occupational health and safety from the decommissioning 

of the Ross Project would be SMALL.

4.13.2 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Ross Project would not be licensed and the land would 

continue to be available for other uses. However, until the NRC has made its decision 

regarding the licensing of the Project, the Applicant could continue with some of preconstruction 

activities (e.g., monitoring-well installation). If a license is not issued, there would need to be 

some additional work to properly abandon these wells that would have been installed by the 

Applicant. However, the public and occupational impacts to health and safety of this No-Action 

Alternative would be less than those impacts associated with the construction of the Proposed 

Action (i.e., Alternative 1). Thus, the public and occupational impacts of the No-Action 

Alternative would be SMALL. 

4.13.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project 

Under Alternative 3, the North Ross Project would generally be the same as the Proposed 

Action, except that the facility (i.e., the CPP, associated buildings, and auxiliary structures as 

well as the surface impoundments) would be located to the north of where it would be located in 

the Proposed Action and the construction of a CBW would not be necessary, as described in 

SEIS Section 2.1.3. 

Under Alternative 3, the length of the wellfield pipelines could be increased and, thus, there 

would be more pipeline subject to failure. However, the Applicant would implement the same 

methods and SOPs described under the Proposed Action to reduce the risk and severity of 

pipeline failures (e.g., monitoring the pipelines to detect changes in pressure or flow, allowing 

for automatic shut-down of the pumping system, visually inspecting pipelines at least weekly, 

and removing contaminated soil). 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-110

Alternative 3 would be located, constructed, and operated farther away from the primary roads 

to the Ross Project area, which would require the construction of additional road extensions. 

This road construction would generate additional fugitive dust. However, the nearest residential 

receptors would be farther away from the CPP under the North Ross Project than they would be 

from the location of the CPP under the Proposed Action; thus, they would be less affected 

overall by fugitive dust, which could contain very low levels of uranium, and/or the impacts of 

accidents. Construction activities and chemical use would be similar to the Proposed Action 

because the construction footprint of the facility’s structures would be consistent with the 

Proposed Action. Activities associated with Strata’s constructing and decommissioning the 

CBW with the Proposed Action and the associated incremental contribution to public and 

occupational health and safety would not occur under Alternative 3. All other potential public 

and occupational health and safety impacts would be the same as described for the Ross 

Project in this SEIS Section 4.13.1. Consequently, as with the Proposed Action, workers 

involved in a response and cleanup of an accidental release could experience MODERATE 

impacts, but training requirements and the establishment of and adherence to applicable SOPs

would reduce the impacts to SMALL. Thus, the impacts to public and occupational health and 

safety of Alternative 3 would be SMALL.

4.14 Waste Management 

The Proposed Action could have potential waste-management impacts during all phases of its 

lifecycle. Waste volumes, disposal practices, and associated mitigation measures for the four 

phases of the Proposed Action were evaluated and compared to the impacts identified in GEIS

Sections 4.3.12 and 4.4.12 (NRC, 2009b). The waste-management practices, waste types, and 

estimated waste volumes that the Applicant has proposed are generally consistent with the 

typical ISR facility’s described in the GEIS. The impacts of the Applicant’s management of 

liquid and solid waste streams for each phase of the Proposed Action as well as the two 

Alternatives are evaluated in this section. Impacts as a result of the transportation of solid 

wastes offsite for disposal are evaluated in SEIS Section 4.3.1; impacts to the geology, soils, 

and water resources as a result of spills, leaks, and other accidental releases of liquid wastes as 

well as onsite disposal of liquid wastes are evaluated in SEIS Sections 4.4.1 and 4.5.1, 

respectively.

4.14.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, consists of four phases: construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning of a uranium-recovery facility and wellfields. The volumes of 

each type of waste the Applicant would generate at the Ross Project and the Applicant’s 

proposed management approach and disposal activities are fully described in SEIS Section 

2.1.1; respective types and quantities are reviewed in Table 4.10. The conditions stipulated in 

the UIC Class I Permit already obtained by the Applicant for its UIC Class I deep-disposal wells 

would mitigate many of the impacts of liquid-waste disposal at the Project (WDEQ/WQD,

2011b). 

The Applicant will be required to have formal agreements with solid-waste and byproductmaterial disposal facilities in place prior to uranium-recovery operation, which would mitigate 

impacts from solid-waste management (NRC, 2014b, License Condition Nos. 9.9 and 12.5). As 

part of these agreements, the Applicant would need to ensure that sufficient capacity for solid 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-111

Table 4.10

Ross Project Waste Streams

Waste Stream Source Disposal Method

Estimated 

Typical Quantity

NRC-Regulated Wastes

Excess Permeate

(Defined as the volume 

of permeate produced 

minus that which is reinjected into wellfields 

and/or is used as plant 

make-up water in the 

CPP.)

Uranium Production

Aquifer Restoration

RO Circuits

Reinjection into Wellfield

Deep-Well Injection

C: 0 m3

/min [0 gal/min]

O w/o RI: 

0.2 m3

/min 

[57 gal/min] 

(See notes.)

O w/ RI: 

0 m3

/min

[0 gal/min]

R w/o RI: 

0.6 m3

/min 

[160 gal/min] 

(See notes.)

R w/ RI: 

0 m3

/min 

[0 gal/min]

D: 0 m3/min [0 gal/min]

Brine and Other Liquid 

Byproduct Wastes

Uranium Production

Aquifer Restoration

RO Circuits

Spent Eluate

Process Drains

Contaminated Reagents

Filter Backwash

Wash-Down Water

Decontamination Showers

Deep-Well Injection

Evaporation from Surface

 Impoundments

C: 0 m3

/min [0 gal/min]

O w/o RI: 

0.2 m3/min 

[62 gal/min]

(See Notes.)

O w/ RI: 

0.9 m3

/min 

[227 gal/min] 

(See notes.)

R: 0.7 m3

/min 

190 gal/min] 

(See notes.)

D: 0.04 m3

/min [<10 gal/min]

Solid Byproduct Wastes Filtrate and Spent Filters

Scale and Sludges from

 Equipment Maintenance

Contaminated Soils

Damaged IX Resin

Contaminated Solids

 from Wells

Contaminated PPE

Contaminated Materials

 and Equipment

Shipment to NRC- or 

 Agreement State- 

 Licensed Disposal Facility

C: 0 m3

/yr [0 yd3/yr]

O: 76 m3

/yr [100 yd3/yr]

R: 76 m3

/yr [100 yd3/yr]

D: 3,058 m3 yr [4,000 yd3

/yr]
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-112

Table 4.10

Ross Project Waste Streams

(Continued) 

Waste Stream Source Disposal Method

Estimated 

Typical Quantity

Non-NRC-Regulated Wastes

TENORM Drilling Fluids and Muds Mud Pits C: 

Per Well = 

Drilling Fluids 

23 m3 [6,000 gal]

Drilling Muds 

0.1 m3 [15 yd3

] 

O: 0 m3 [0 gal]

R: 0 m3 [0 gal]

D: 0 m3 [0 gal]

Industrial or Municipal 

Solid Waste

General Office Trash Shipment to Municipal 

 Landfill

C: 11 m3

/wk [15 yd3/wk]

O: 11 m3

/wk [15 yd3/wk]

R: 11 m3

/wk [15 yd3/wk]

D: 11 m3/wk [15 yd3/wk]

Recyclable Solid Waste Plastic, Glass, Paper, 

 Aluminum, and 

 Cardboard

Shipment to Municipal 

 Recycling Facility

Recyclable Waste- 

 Collection Facility

C: 4 m3

/wk [5 yd3/wk]

O: 4 m3

/wk [5 yd3/wk]

R: 4 m3

/wk [5 yd3/wk]

D: 4 m3

/wk [5 yd3/wk]

Construction and 

Demolition Debris

Construction Debris

Decontaminated Materials

 and Equipment

Shipment to Demolition- 

 Debris Landfill

C: 4 m3

/wk [5 yd3/wk]

O: 4 m3

/wk [5 yd3/wk]

R: 4 m3

/wk [5 yd3/wk]

D: 1,529 m3 [2,000 yd3

] 

Petroleum-Contaminated 

Soil 

Equipment Spills and 

 Leaks

Shipment to 

 WDEQ/SHWD- 

 Permitted 

 Disposal Facility

C: < 0.8 m3/wk [< 1 yd3/wk]

O: < 0.8 m3

/wk [< 1 yd3/wk]

R: < 0.8 m3

/wk [< 1 yd3/wk]

D: < 0.8 m3

/wk [< 1 yd3/wk]

Hazardous Waste Used Batteries

Expired Laboratory 

 Reagents

Fluorescent Bulbs

Solvents, Cleaners, and

 Degreasers

Shipment to 

 WDEQ/SHWD- 

 Permitted 

 Recycling or Disposal 

 Facility

C, O, R, D: 

< 100 kg/mo [< 220 lb/mo]
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-113

Table 4.10

Ross Project Waste Streams

(Continued) 

Waste Stream Source Disposal Method

Estimated 

Typical Quantity

Non-NRC-Regulated Wastes (Continued) 

Used Oil Vehicle Maintenance Shipment to Used-Oil 

 Recycling Facility

C: 0.02 kg/mo [5 gal/mo]

O: 0.02 kg/mo [5 gal/mo]

R: 0.02 kg/mo [5 gal/mo]

D: 0.02 kg/mo [5 gal/mo]

Used Oil Filters 

and Oily Rags

Vehicle and Equipment

 Maintenance

Shipment to Used-Oil 

 Recycling Facility

C: < 9 kg/mo [< 20 lb/mo]

O: < 9 kg/mo [< 20 lb/mo]

R: < 9 kg/mo [< 20 lb/mo]

D: < 9 kg/mo [< 20 lb/mo]

Domestic Sewage Restrooms Onsite Waste-Water 

 Disposal or Treatment 

 System 

Holding Tanks/Portable 

 Toilets during 

 Construction and 

 Decommissioning

C: 9.8 m3

/d [2,600 gal/d]

O: 3 m3

/d [800 gal/d]

R: 1.1 m3

/d [300 gal/d]

D: 4.5 m3

/d [1,200 gal/d]

Sources: Strata, 2011b; Strata, 2012a; Strata, 2013.

C = Construction O = Operation R = Aquifer Restoration D = Decommissioning RI = Re-Injection

Notes: 

Excess permeate produced during the operation phase without concurrent aquifer restoration (2.5 years) is 0.22 m3

/min 

[57 gal/min] excess permeate minus 0.095 m3

/min [25 gal/min] used for plant make-up water equals 0.12 m3/min [32 

gal/min] for disposal with brine into a UIC Class I well (where evaporation from surface impoundments is not considered). 

The actual volume of excess permeate would likely be less than reported in the license application (Strata, 2013).

Excess permeate produced during aquifer-restoration sweep without re-injection (2 months) is 0.698 m3

/min [184.5 

gal/min] excess permeate minus 0.095 m3

/min [25 gal/min] plant make-up water equals 0.603 m3/min [159.5 gal/min] for 

disposal with brine into a UIC Class I well (evaporation from surface impoundments is not considered). The actual 

volume of excess permeate would likely be less than reported in the license application (Strata, 2013).

Brine produced during operation without concurrent aquifer restoration (2.5 years) is 0.23 m3/min [62 gal/min] brine 

minus 0.04 m3

/min [10.4 gal/min] evaporation equals 0.195 m3/min [51.6 gal/min] to UIC Class I disposal well.

Brine produced during operation with concurrent restoration is 0.859 m3

/min [227 gal/min] brine minus 0.033 m3/min [8.8 

gal/min] evaporation equals 0.826 m3

/min [218.2 gal/min] to UIC Class I disposal well.

Brine during aquifer restoration-only produces 0.72 m3

/min [190 gal/min] brine minus 0.035 m3/min [9.3 gal/min] 

evaporation equals 0.684 m3

/min [180.7 gal/min] to UIC Class I disposal well.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-114

radiologically and/or chemically contaminated wastes as well as solid byproduct material (liquid 

byproduct wastes would be disposed of onsite in the UIC Class I deep-injection wells) would be 

available throughout the lifecycle of the Ross Project. Condition No. 10.4 of the Draft License 

and the corresponding inspections would ensure that proper practices are used by the Applicant 

to comply with the safety requirements that will protect workers and the public during waste 

management (NRC, 2014b). The Applicant would implement waste-minimization and volumereduction BMPs, as possible, to further mitigate the impacts of waste management (Strata, 

2011a). 

Each of the disposal facilities noted in Table 4.10 has indicated to the Applicant that it has 

sufficient disposal capacity to accept the volumes of wastes shown in Table 4.10 (see Table ER 

RAI Waste-1-1 in Strata, 2012a).

4.14.1.1 Ross Project Construction

As described in GEIS Section 4.4.12, construction activities would be expected to generate 

small quantities of wastes. No byproduct or source material that is regulated by the NRC would 

be generated during the Proposed Action’s construction phase. The GEIS found that the wastemanagement impacts from the construction of an ISR facility would be SMALL due to the limited 

volumes of wastes (NRC, 2009b). 

Liquid Waste

Liquid wastes not containing byproduct material would be generated during construction of the 

Ross Project from the Applicant’s drilling and development of injection, recovery, and monitoring 

wells. The Applicant estimated that a volume of 22,000 L [6,000 gal] of water and 12 m3 [15 

yd3

] of drilling muds would be produced per well (Strata, 2012a). Construction of the UIC Class 

I deep-injection wells would also produce drilling fluids and muds. These fluids would be stored 

onsite in mud pits, which would be constructed adjacent to the respective drilling pad(s) and 

evaporated. GEIS Section 4.4.12.1 found that the liquid-waste-management impacts from the 

construction of an ISR facility would be SMALL due to the limited volumes of wastes (NRC, 

2009b). 

Construction releases from the mud pits would be mitigated by the implementation of sedimentcontrol BMPs (Strata, 2011a). The dried pits would be backfilled, graded, covered with topsoil, 

and reseeded, to achieve the reclamation standards required by WDEQ/LQD (Strata, 2011a). 

The Applicant would attempt to complete reclamation of the mud pits within one construction 

season to minimize wind and water erosion. The reclaimed mud pits would be included in final

radiation surveys that would be accomplished during the Proposed Action’s decommissioning 

phase so that no potential long-term impacts from radioactivity would be present (Strata, 

2011a).

Waste water not containing byproduct material would be produced during aquifer-pumping tests 

and during the Applicant’s sampling of wells to develop the data necessary for the hydrologictest data packages. These data packages would be required by the Source and Byproduct 

Materials License, and they will be required to be reviewed and approved by the NRC prior to 

the Applicant’s injection of lixiviant into a new wellfield (NRC, 2014b, License Condition No. 

10.13). This ground water, which would potentially contain technologically enhanced naturally 

occurring radioactive material (TENORM) would be discharged per a temporary WYPDES 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-115

Permit (No. #WYG720229) issued by WDEQ/WQD, as described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.5. This 

Permit would require the Applicant to mitigate the potential for erosion and to meet discharge

limitations for TDS, total suspended solids (TSS), pH, radium, and uranium. Because of the 

Permit requirements, the potential impacts of this discharge would be SMALL.

The Applicant estimates that 20 L/mo [5 gal/mo] of used oil would be generated and shipped to 

a local commercial recycler (Strata, 2012a). Strata also estimates that 9,800 L/d [2,600 gal/d] of 

domestic sewage would be generated during construction; this waste would be managed in 

portable toilets which would later be removed from the Project area (Strata, 2012a). 

The potential impacts of the management of liquid wastes during construction, therefore, would 

be SMALL.

Solid Waste

Solid wastes generated during the construction of the Proposed Action would be of limited 

quantity and volume. The estimated volume of each type of waste and the respective disposal 

practices that would be used by the Applicant to manage the wastes are described in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1 and are summarized as follows:

■ Less than 9 kg/mo [20 lb/mo] of used oil filters and oily rags would be produced and 

shipped to a local commercial recycler. 

■ 19 m3/wk [25 yd3/wk] of solid waste not regulated by the NRC nor the EPA would be 

generated and disposed or recycled at an offsite local landfill. 

■ Less than 1 m3/wk [1 yd3/wk] of petroleum-contaminated soil would be transported by a 

waste-disposal contractor to a permitted facility in northeast Wyoming, such as the 

Campbell County Landfill. 

■ Less than 100 kg/mo [220 lb/mo] of hazardous waste would be securely and 

appropriately accumulated at the Ross Project and transported by a hazardous-waste 

contractor to an appropriately permitted, commercial treatment, storage and disposal 

(TSD) facility outside of Wyoming (Strata, 2012a). 

The Applicant has proposed to minimize the volume of used oil and hazardous waste by 

servicing its vehicles and equipment offsite and by limiting its chemical-reagent orders to 

quantities that can be consumed within the reagents’ shelf lives (Strata, 2011a).

The Applicant’s estimated waste volumes are similar to those described in GEIS Section 4.4.12. 

Thus, the potential impacts of the management of solid wastes during the construction of the 

Proposed Action would be SMALL.

4.14.1.2 Ross Project Operation

As described in GEIS Section 4.4.12.2, waste-management impacts during the operation of an 

ISR facility would be SMALL, based upon the required pre-operational disposal agreement(s) 

for solid byproduct material in addition to regulatory controls such as the applicable permit and 

license conditions with which an Applicant must comply as well as the inspections the NRC and 

other regulatory agencies would perform (NRC, 2009b). At the Ross Project, the UIC Permit for 

the Class I injection wells that has already been obtained by Strata for deep-well injection of 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-116

liquid byproduct material specifies operating conditions and reporting requirements with which 

the Applicant must comply (WDEQ/WQD, 2011b). Design specifications related to byproduct 

material that would need to be approved by the NRC include waste-treatment and volumereduction techniques, surface-impoundment leak-detection systems, and other routine 

monitoring activities that would further minimize the potential for impacts to the environment 

(NRC, 2009b). 

Liquid Waste

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1, liquids containing byproduct material which would be 

generated during ISR operations include process bleed (an average of 1.25 percent of injection 

volume) and other process solutions and waste waters. The process bleed would be treated by 

a two-stage RO circuit during the Proposed Action, producing a minimized volume of brine. 

Permeate from the RO process would be re-used as plant make-up water or lixiviant. Excess 

permeate requiring disposal would be only generated during the first two and one-half years of 

uranium-recovery operation before aquifer restoration begins (Strata, 2011a). The Applicant 

proposes that excess permeate, up to with 0.2 m3

/min [57 gal/min] would be discharged to the 

surface impoundments. The double-liner, leak-detection system the Applicant proposes for its 

surface impoundments, in addition to the monitoring and reserve-capacity requirements 

mandated by NRC regulations, would allow detection of any surface-impoundment spills or 

leaks before any significant release of material occurs (NRC, 2009b; NRC, 2014b, License 

Condition Nos. 10.8, 10.20, and 12.12). These requirements were also anticipated by GEIS

Section 4.4.12.1, when it concluded that similar waste-management techniques would result in 

SMALL impacts. Thus, the potential impacts of the Proposed Action’s use of surface 

impoundments for the management of liquid byproduct waste would be SMALL.

The Applicant estimates that, during uranium-recovery operation with concurrent aquifer 

restoration, less than 0.9 m3

/min [200 gal/min] of brine and other process waste waters would 

be disposed of into the UIC Class I deep-injection wells (see Table 4.10). The lined surface 

impoundments and a storage tank with secondary containment would be used to manage the 

brine before its disposal in the deep-disposal wells (Strata, 2012b). The use of the surface 

impoundments for waste management and the disposal by UIC Class I deep-well injection that 

the Applicant proposes are consistent with the waste-management practices described in the 

GEIS. As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.5, the Applicant expects the capacity of each of the 

five UIC Class I wells would range between 2.2 – 5 L/s [35 – 80 gal/min]. The Applicant has 

also proposed storage tanks at the location of the Class I deep-disposal wells which, in addition 

to the lined surface impoundments at the CPP, would provide surge capacity for the 

management of all brine (Strata, 2012b). The UIC Class I Permit from the WDEQ sets a 

maximum limit on the injection pressure (2,570 psi) and sets a range for the annulus pressure 

(200 – 800 psi). Injection at pressures less than the injection limit ensures that the capacities of 

the target aquifers (Deadwood and Flathead Formations) are not exceeded. 

The Applicant expects that ground water generated during the construction and development of 

recovery and injection wells would be disposed of in mud pits similarly to the disposal of drilling 

fluids generated during the construction phase. However, drilling fluids generated during 

development of wells completed in an aquifer affected by uranium recovery would be disposed 

of in the lined surface impoundments or via the UIC Class I deep-injection wells (Strata, 2012b). 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-117

The volume of used oil that would be produced during the Proposed Action’s operation and its 

management would be the same as during its construction (Strata, 2012a). The volume of 

domestic sewage, which would be managed in an onsite system, would be approximately 3,000 

L/d [800 gal/d] (Strata, 2012a).

The potential impacts of the management of liquid wastes during operation would therefore be 

SMALL.

Solid Waste

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1, the Applicant estimates that approximately 80 m3

/yr [100 

yd3

/yr] of solid byproduct waste would be generated during the operation phase of the Proposed 

Action (Strata, 2012a). The Applicant proposes to minimize the quantity of solid byproductmaterial waste by selecting high-efficiency filter media for the uranium-recovery and aquiferrestoration circuits (Strata, 2011a). Getting more use out of filter media would minimize the 

quantity used as well as the waste generated during operations. This byproduct material would 

be accumulated inside 210-L [55-gal], lined drums and stored in a restricted area of the CPP 

(Strata, 2011a). Full drums would later be sealed and moved into a 15-m3 [20-yd3

] roll-off 

container. Roll-off containers would be stored in a restricted area outside of the CPP where 

access is secured and restricted. Sealed roll-off containers would be transported to a disposal 

facility licensed by the NRC or an Agreement State. This disposal would only be allowed by the 

NRC after pre-operational agreements between the Applicant and the licensed facility(ies) have 

been executed. The Applicant has identified four facilities currently licensed to receive such 

waste byproduct material and that can ensure adequate capacity for the solid byproduct 

material generated by the Ross Project (Strata, 2012a). The NRC will require in the Source and 

Byproduct Materials License that a formal agreement with each facility to be used for disposal 

by the Applicant be formally executed before any uranium-recovery activities would begin at the 

Ross Project area.

Solid non-byproduct waste and hazardous-waste volumes generated during the Proposed 

Action’s operation would be similar to or less than that generated during its construction (Strata, 

2011a). Therefore, the potential impacts of the management of all solid wastes during Ross 

Project operation would be SMALL.

4.14.1.3 Ross Project Aquifer Restoration

In GEIS Section 4.4.12.3, the impacts associated with waste management during an ISR 

facility’s aquifer-restoration phase were evaluated. These were determined to be generally the 

same as those during its operation. Thus, the GEIS found that waste-management impacts 

would be SMALL. 

Liquid Waste

The liquids containing byproduct material generated during the Proposed Action’s aquiferrestoration, which concurrent with operation, would be less than 14.3 L/s [227 gal/min] of brine 

(see Table 4.10). During the few years at the end of the Project when no wellfields are in

operation, the liquid byproduct material would be 12 L/s [190 gal/min]. The Applicant has 

proposed to minimize the volume of liquid byproduct material that would be generated while the 

Ross Project is in the aquifer-restoration phase by its limiting the ground-water sweep to the 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-118

perimeter of a wellfield module, rather than throughout the entire module. As during operation, 

the two-stage RO circuit would reduce the volume of brine requiring disposal. Evaporation from 

the surface impoundments, where brine would be stored, would further reduce the volume of 

brine requiring disposal (see Table 4.10). All permeate after RO would be used for aquifer 

restoration and for process water. 

The volume of used oil that would be produced during the Proposed Action’s aquifer-restoration 

phase would be the same as or less than that produced during its construction and operation 

(Strata, 2012a). The volume of domestic sewage managed with the Ross Project’s onsite 

treatment system would decrease to approximately 1,100 L/d [300 gal/d] (Strata, 2012a) due to 

the smaller number of workers at the Ross Project during aquifer restoration. Thus, the 

potential impacts of the management of all types of liquid wastes during aquifer restoration at 

the Proposed Action would be SMALL.

Solid Waste

The management of solid wastes, including byproduct material and hazardous wastes, 

generated during the aquifer-restoration phase of the Proposed Action would be similar to its 

construction and operation phases (Strata, 2011a). The volume of office and municipal solid 

wastes would decrease due to the smaller workforce during aquifer restoration (i.e., 200 to 60 

tod 20 workers, respectively), while the volume of byproduct material and other wastes would 

also diminish, producing less and less byproduct material, as the aquifer is restored. Thus, the 

potential impacts of the management of solid wastes during aquifer restoration would be 

SMALL.

4.14.1.4 Ross Project Decommissioning

As described in GEIS Section 4.4.12.4, the impacts associated with liquid-waste management 

during decommissioning at an ISR facility would be SMALL and would be similar to the 

respective construction and operational impacts. However, the volume of solid byproduct waste 

and all other types of solid wastes generated during decommissioning would be substantially 

greater than during the other phases due to the decontamination, dismantling, demolishing, and 

disposal of the Ross Project components (Strata, 2012a). 

Liquid Waste

The Applicant estimates that less than 0.6 L/s [10 gal/min] of brine would be generated and 

disposed of by deep-well injection during the Proposed Action’s decommissioning (Strata, 

2012a). This volume would be a significant reduction from that generated during the other 

phases of the Proposed Action. The volume of used oil that would be generated during 

decommissioning and its management would be the same as that generated during operation 

(Strata, 2012a). As during the construction phase, the estimated 4,500 L/d [1,200 gal/d] of

domestic sewage would be managed by the Applicant’s use of portable toilets during the 

decommissioning phase, and the toilets would be removed when decommissioning is complete. 

(Strata, 2012a). Thus, the potential impacts of the management of liquid wastes during the 

decommissioning phase of the Proposed Action would be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-119

Solid Waste

The Applicant estimates that decommissioning would generate 3,000 m3 [4,000 yd3

] of solid

waste byproduct material (Strata, 2012a). The nature of this material is described in SEIS

Section 2.1.1. A typical ISR project generates approximately 4,500 m3 [6,000 yd3

] of waste 

byproduct material, and Strata would generate less; thus, the analysis in the GEIS is bounding

and the potential impacts are SMALL (NRC, 2009b). 

The onsite collection, minimization, and storage of the solid byproduct material would follow the 

same techniques and SOPs as those described for the Proposed Action’s operations. The preoperational agreements with one or more appropriately licensed waste-disposal facilities would 

govern the disposal of this material the same as during the Ross Project’s operation phase. 

The Applicant proposes to reduce the quantity of solid byproduct material by decontaminating 

as many surfaces as technically possible, using decontamination techniques such as highpressure washing, sand blasting, and acid rinsing that allow waste volumes to be volume 

reduced (Strata, 2011a). Where possible, the Applicant has indicated that it intends to 

decontaminate equipment and building surfaces, such as mobile equipment, dismantled 

process equipment, and demolished building components. By doing so, the Applicant could 

demonstrate that the respective radioactivity levels are below regulatory concern and could be 

reclassified for unrestricted use. 

The Applicant has estimated that decommissioning would generate 1,500 m3 [2,000 yd3

] of solid 

non-byproduct-containing waste. Such waste would consist of construction debris and 

decontaminated equipment and materials (Strata, 2012a). As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1, 

the Applicant has proposed that this waste would be disposed of in local solid-waste landfills. 

The estimated volume of solid waste would be about twice the amount generated by the typical 

ISR facility as described in the GEIS (NRC, 2009b); however the capacity of the local landfills 

were shown in the Applicant’s responses to the NRC’s Requests for Additional Information and 

the Applicant’s corresponding table indicated there would be sufficient local capacity for 

disposal of this volume (Strata, 2012a). 

The volumes of other typical solid and hazardous wastes including industrial or municipal 

wastes, recyclable materials, demolition wastes, and petroleum-contaminated soil generated 

during the Proposed Action’s decommissioning would be similar to those generated during 

construction and operation (Strata, 2012a). Thus, the potential impacts of the management of 

solid wastes during the decommissioning phase, therefore, would be SMALL.

4.14.2 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Ross Project would not be licensed and the land would 

continue to be available for other uses. However, the Applicant could continue preconstruction 

activities until that decision is made. Thus, drilling fluids and muds from drillholes and wells 

installed by the Applicant to delineate the ore zone as well as to characterize the ground water 

and the geotechnical, subsurface conditions at the Ross Project area would continue to be 

generated under the No-Action Alternative. These wastes would continue to be contained in 

mud pits constructed at each well pad (as described in SEIS Section 2.1.1), and then they 

would be evaporated to dryness. The dried pits would be backfilled, graded, covered with 

topsoil, and reseeded to achieve reclamation standards required by WDEQ/LQD (Strata, 

2011a). No additional, distinct waste-management impacts would result from the No-Action 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-120

Alternative; thus, the potential impacts of waste management in the No-Action Alternative would 

be SMALL.

4.14.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project

Under Alternative 3, the North Ross Project would generally be the same as the Proposed 

Action, except that the facility (i.e., the CPP, associated buildings, and auxiliary structures as 

well as the surface impoundments) would be located to the north of where it would be located in 

the Proposed Action, as described in SEIS Section 2.1.3. The wastes generated during this 

Alternative would be essentially the same as those generated during the Proposed Action 

during each of its phases: Alternative 3 would be constructed and operated the same as the 

Proposed Action, and its aquifer restoration and decommissioning would also be the same. 

Thus, the waste-management techniques and waste-disposal strategies employed for the 

Proposed Action would also be employed for Alternative 3.

However, as described in SEIS Section 2.1.3, the construction of the CBW would not be 

required at the north site (i.e., it would be necessary only at the south site because of that site’s 

higher water table). Consequently, the volume of liquid wastes generated at north site would be 

reduced by the volume of any leaks and/or ground water that would need to be dewatered from 

inside the CBW during facility operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of Alternative 

1. In addition, the volume of solid waste ultimately requiring disposal would be reduced by the 

small amount of material generated during the breach of the CBW during decommissioning. 

Therefore, potential impacts of waste management for Alternative 3 would be SMALL.

4.15 References

10 CFR Part 20. Title 10, “Energy,” Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20 “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO). 

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

of Source Material.” Washington, DC: GPO. 1985, as amended

10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. Title 10, “Energy,” Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, 

“Domestic Licensing of Source Material,” Appendix A, “Criteria Relating to the Operation of 

Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or 

Concentration of Source Material from Ores Processed Primarily for their Source Material 

Content.” Washington, DC: GPO. 1985, as amended.

29 CFR Part 1910. Title 29, “Title,” Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910, “Occupational 

Safety and Health Standards.” Washington, DC: GPO. 1974, as amended.

40 CFR Part 192. Title 40, “Protection of the Environment,” Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

192, “Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings.” 

Washington, DC: GPO. 1983, as amended.

40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter C. Title 40, “Protection of the Environment,” Code of Federal 

Regulations, Chapter I, Subchapter C. Washington, DC: GPO. 1971, as amended.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-121

49 CFR Part 171. Title 49, “Transportation,” Code of Federal Regulations, Part 171, “General 

Information, Regulations, and Definitions,” Subpart B, “Incident Reporting, Notification, BOE 

Approvals and Authorization.” Washington, DC: GPO. 2003, as amended.

49 CFR Part 172. Title 49, “Transportation,” Code of Federal Regulations, Part 185, 

“Hazardous Material Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous Materials Communication, 

Emergency Response Information, Training Requirements, and Security Plans.” Washington, 

DC: GPO. 1972, as amended.

APLIC (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee). Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on 

Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. CEC-50-2006-022. Washington, DC: Edison 

Electric Institute; Sacramento, CA: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee; Sacramento, CA: 

California Energy Commission. 2006.

(US)BLM (U.S. Bureau of Land Management). Visual Resource Management. Manual 8400. 

Washington, DC: GPO. 2007. Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

(ADAMS) Accession No. ML ML101790184. 

(US)BLM. Visual Resource Inventory. Manual H–8410–1. Washington, DC: USBLM. 2010. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML112710288. 

 

(US)CB (U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce [DOC]). “State and County 

QuickFacts, Wyoming, Crook County, Campbell County.” At http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd

/states/56000.html (as of June 25, 2012). 2012a.

(US)CB. “2006 – 2010 American Community Survey.” At http://factfinder2.census.gov (as of 

April 26 and May 2, 2012). 2012b.

Cogema (Cogema Mining, Inc.). Response to NRC Requests for Additional Information, 

Cogema Irigaray Mine Restoration Report. TAC No. LU0113. Mills, WY: Cogema. 2006a. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML061770435.

Cogema. “Summary Table.” Irigaray Mine Unit Restoration Request for Additional Information

Responses. Mills, WY: Cogema. 2006b. ADAMS Accession No. ML062400363.

CEQ (Council of Environmental Quality). Environmental Justice, Guidance under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Prepared for The Executive Office of the President. Washington, 

DC: GPO. December 1997. ADAMS Accession No. ML13022A298.

Countess, R., W. Barnard, C. Claiborn, D. Gillette, D. Latimer, T. Pace, and J. Watson. 

“Methodology for Estimating Fugitive Windblown and Mechanically Resuspended Road Dust 

Emissions Applicable for Regional Air Quality Modeling” in 10th International Emission Inventory 

Conference Proceedings. Westlake Village, CA: Countess Environmental. May 2001. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13022A448.

Crow Butte Resources, Inc. Response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Request for 

Additional Information/Mine Unit 1 Groundwater Restoration Completion/Crow Butte Uranium 

Project. Crawford, NE: Crow Butte Resources. August 2001. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML012710072.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-122

(US)DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement 

Policy and Guidance. Washington, DC: Noise and Air Quality Branch, Office of Environment 

and Planning, Federal Highway Administration, USDOT. June 1995. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13023A373.

EOP (Executive Office of the President). Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. EO No. 12898. Washington, DC: GPO. 

February 1994. ADAMS Accession No. ML13023A255.

(US)EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Protective Noise Levels. 

Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document. EPA 550/9-79-100. Washington, DC: USEPA. 

November 1978. ADAMS Accession No. ML13015A552.

Ferguson, D. A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of Strata Energy’s Proposed Ross ISR 

Uranium Project, Crook County, Wyoming (Redacted Version). Prepared for Strata Energy, 

Inc., Gillette, Wyoming. Butte, MT: GCM Services, Inc. 2010.

International Dark-Sky Association. “Light Pollution and Human Health.” 2013. At 

http://www.darksky.org/education/312 (as of September 13, 2013).

Mackin, P.C., D. Daruwalla, J. Winterle, M. Smith, and D.A. Pickett. “A Baseline Risk-Informed 

Performance-Based Approach for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Licensees.” NUREG/CR–

6733. Washington, DC: USNRC. September 2001.

(US)NPS (U.S. National Park Service, US Department of Interior). Jeffery R. Hanson and Sally 

Chirino. Ethnographic Overview and Assessment of Devils Tower National Monument, 

Wyoming. Paper 4. Washington, DC: USNPS. 1997.

(US)NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Final Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement on Uranium Milling Project M-25.” NUREG–0706. Washington, DC: USNRC. 1980. 

ADAMS Accession Nos. ML032751663, ML0732751667, and ML032751669.

(US)NRC. “Final Environmental Impact Statement To Construct and Operate the Crownpoint

Uranium Solution Mining Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico.” NUREG–1508. Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 1997. ADAMS Accession No. ML082170248.

(US)NRC. “Environmental Assessment for Renewal of Source Material License No. SUA-1534, 

Crow Butte Resources Incorporated, Crow Butte Uranium Project, Dawes County, Nebraska.” 

Washington, DC: USNRC. 1998. Accession No. ML071520242.

(US)NRC. “Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications, 

Final Report.” NUREG–1569. Washington, DC: NRC. 2003a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML032250177.

 

(US)NRC. “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS 

Programs.” NUREG–1748. Washington, DC: USNRC. August 2003b. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML032450279.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-123

(US)NRC. “License Amendment 15/Crow Butte Resources In Situ Leach Facility/License No. 

SUA-534/Wellfield #1 Restoration Acceptance/TAC No. L52491.” Washington, DC: USNRC. 

2003c. ADAMS Accession No. ML030440055.

(US)NRC. “Technical Evaluation Report/Review of Power Resources Inc.’s A-Wellfield Ground 

Water Restoration Report for the Smith Ranch-Highland Uranium Project.” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2004a. ADAMS Accession No. ML041840470.

(US)NRC. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC 

Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” No. 7590-01-P. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2004b. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML033380930.

(US)NRC. “Review of Cogema Mining Inc., Irigaray Mine Restoration Report, Production Unites 

1 through 9, Source Material License SUA-1341 (TAC LU0137).” Washington, DC: USNRC. 

2006. ADAMS Accession No. ML062570175.

(US)NRC. “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities. Volumes 1 and 2.” NUREG–1910. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2009b. ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML082030185 and ML091480188.

(US)NRC. “NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2009-05/Uranium Recovery Policy Regarding: (1) 

The Process for Scheduling License Reviews of Applications for New Uranium Recovery 

Facilities and (2) The Restoration of Groundwater at Licensed Uranium In Situ Recovery 

Facilities.” Washington, DC: USNRC. 2009c. ADAMS Accession No. ML083510622.

(US)NRC. “Environmental Impact Statement for the Moore Ranch ISR Project in Campbell 

County, Wyoming. Supplement to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach 

Uranium Milling Facilities, Final Report.” NUREG–1910, Supplement 1. Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2010. ADAMS Accession No. ML102290470.

(US)NRC. “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 Uranium Leach Milling Facilities.” NUREG–1910, Supplement 2. Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2011a. ADAMS Accession No. ML103440120.

(US)NRC. “Environmental Impact Statement for the Lost Creek ISR Project in Sweetwater 

County, Wyoming. Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ 

Uranium Leach Milling Facilities.” NUREG–1910, Supplement 3. Washington, DC: USNRC. 

2011b. ADAMS Accession No. ML11125A006.

(US)NRC. “Safety Evaluation Report for the Strata Energy, Inc. Ross ISR Project, Crook 

County, Wyoming, Materials License No. SUA-1601, Docket No. 040-09091, Strata Energy, 

Inc.” Washington, DC: USNRC. 2014a. ADAMS Accession No. ML114002A107. 

(US)NRC. “Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, No. SUA-1601.” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2014b. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A111. 

(US)NRC. “Subject: Technical Evaluation Report, Review of Restoration Report for Mine Units 

2 Through 6 of the Christensen Ranch Satellite Facility, Uranium One Willow Creek In Situ
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-124

Recovery Project, Johnson and Campbell Counties. (TAC No. J00563).” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2012a. ADAMS Accession No. ML12174A036.

(US)NRC. “Technical Evaluation Report, Christensen Ranch Mine Units 2 Through 6 

Restoration Report, Uranium One USA, Inc., Willow Creek ISR Facility.” Washington, DC: 

NRC. 2012b. ADAMS Accession No. ML12174A048.

(US)OSHA (U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration). “Wyoming Plan.” 2011. At 

http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/wyoming.html (as of April 24, 2012).

PRI (Power Resources, Inc.) Smith Ranch-Highland Uranium Project, A-Wellfield Ground 

Water Restoration Information. Glenrock, WY: PRI. 2004. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML040300369.

Roberts, B.C. Construction Activity, Emissions, and Air Quality Impacts: Real-World 

Observations from an Arizona Road-Widening CASE Study. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department 

of Transportation. 2010. 

Stout, Dennis E. and R. Mark Stover. “The Smith Ranch Uranium Project” from The Uranium 

Institute Twenty-Second Annual Symposium, September 3–5, 1997, London, United Kingdom.” 

London: The Uranium Institute. December 1997.

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Environmental Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130342, ML110130344, and 

ML110130348.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, Technical 

Report, Volumes 1 through 6 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 

2011b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130333, ML110130335, ML110130314, ML110130316, 

ML110130320, and ML110130327.

Strata. Air Quality Permit Application for Ross In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project. Prepared for 

Strata Energy, Inc. Sheridan, WY: Inter-Mountain Laboratories, IML Air Science. 2011c. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML11222A060.

Strata and Crook County. Memorandum of Understanding for Improvement and Maintenance of 

Crook County Roads Providing Access to the Ross ISR Project. Sundance, WY: Crook 

County. April 6, 2011d. ADAMS Accession No. ML111170303.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, RAI Question 

and Answer Responses, Environmental Report, Volume 1 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-

09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2012a. ADAMS Accession No. ML121030465.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, RAI Question 

and Answer Responses, Technical Report, Volumes 1 and 2 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-

09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2012b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML121020357 and 

ML121020361. 
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4-125

Strata. “RE: Request Update of ER Table 1.6-1.” Email to J. Moore, NRC, from B. Schiffer, 

Strata. 2013. Dated September 23, 2013. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2013a. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13035A014. 

WDEQ/AQD (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division). “Air Quality.” 

Rules and Regulations, Chapter 3. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/AQD. 2010.

WDEQ/AQD. Permit to Construct, Air Quality Permit #12198. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/AQD. 

2011. September 13, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML112770430.

WDEQ/LQD (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division). “Noncoal 

In Situ Mining,” Rules and Regulations, Chapter 11. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/LQD. 2005.

WDEQ/LQD. Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment of Coal Mining in the Middle Powder 

River Basin, Wyoming. WDEQ-CHIA-27. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/LQD. March 2011.

WDEQ/WQD (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division). 

“Implementation Policy for Radium Effluent Limits in WYPDES Permits.” At 

http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/wypdes_permitting/index.asp (as of June 25, 2012). 2005. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13015A683.

WDEQ/WQD. “Water Quality,” Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1. Cheyenne, WY: 

WDEQ/WQD. 2007.

WDEQ/WQD. Authorization to Discharge Wastewater Associated with Pump Testing of Water 

Wells Under the Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Authorization 

#WYG720229. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/WQD. March 2011a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13015A695. 

WDEQ/WQD. Strata Energy, Inc. – Ross Disposal Injection Wellfield, Final Permit 10-263, 

Class I Non-hazardous, Crook County, Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/WQD. 2011b. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML111380015. 

WDWS (Wyoming Department of Workforce Services). “Labor and Employment,” Rules and 

Regulations, Chapter 11. Cheyenne, WY: WDWS. 2012.

Cumulative Impacts

5-1 

5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

5.1 Introduction

The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) regulations, as amended (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500 – 

1508), define cumulative impacts 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” (40 CFR 1500 – 1508). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, 

but collectively significant, actions that take place over a period of time. (For the purposes of 

this FinalSupplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS, or FSEIS if the respective 

section, figure, or table did not appear in the Draft SEIS [DSEIS]) analysis, the phrase 

“cumulative impacts” is synonymous with the phrase “cumulative effects.”) A proposed project 

could contribute to incremental cumulative impacts when its environmental impacts overlap with 

those of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFAs) in a given area. 

For this SEIS, other past, present, and future actions near the Ross Project include (but are not 

limited to) cattle and sheep grazing, agricultural production, other uranium-recovery activities, 

coal mining, oil and gas production, and wind-farm operation.

This analysis of the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action is based upon publicly available 

information on existing and proposed projects, information in the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement (GEIS), NUREG–1910 (NRC, 2009b), and general knowledge of the conditions in 

Wyoming and in the nearby communities. The current primary activities taking place in the area 

of the Ross Project are mineral recovery and mining as well as oil and gas development. The 

Power River Basin contains the largest deposits of coal in the United States (U.S.) as well as 

significant reserves of other natural resources including uranium, oil, and gas (NRC, 2010). 

There has been a resurgence in interest in these mining and recovery activities. 

This section evaluates the potential for cumulative impacts associated with the Ross Project and 

other RFFAs as described below in Section 5.2. The GEIS provides an example methodology 

for conducting a cumulative-impacts assessment (NRC, 2009b). This methodology, which has 

been used by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff in its cumulative-impact 

analysis in this SEIS, is discussed in Section 5.3. 

5.2 Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

The Ross Project area, where the Proposed Action would be sited, is located just within the 

Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region (NSDWUMR) as defined in the GEIS 

(NRC, 2009b). The Ross Project encompasses approximately 696 ha [1,721 ac] of land, all of 

which is located in Crook County, Wyoming. It is located within the Lance District (see Figure 

2.1), so-called due to its location above the uranium-rich Late Cretaceous Lance Formation as 

discussed earlier in Section 3.4. The surface landowners of the Ross Project area include 

private parties (553 ha [1,367 ac]), the State of Wyoming (Wyoming) (127 ha [314 ac]), and the 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (16 ha [40 ac]). The subsurface-mineral owners 

include the same parties, except that of 553 ha [1,367 ac] of privately owned land, 65 ha [160 

ac] of subsurface mineral rights are administered by BLM. The surface water at the Ross 

Project predominantly flows in a northeasterly direction to the Little Missouri River, while the 

ground water, which is part of the Powder River Basin regime, flows mostly westerly. This 
Cumulative Impacts

5-2 

bifurcation is important to note as cumulative impacts are identified and evaluated. The Ross 

Project area, at approximately 7 km2 [somewhat less than 3 mi2

] in size, represents 

approximately 0.03 percent of the 25,900 km2 [10,000 mi2

] of the entire Powder River Basin.

5.2.1 Actions

The historical and current actions (i.e., historical and current land uses) on and near the Ross 

Project area include livestock grazing, crop cultivation and agriculture, wildlife habitats, oil 

production, and, to the northeast, bentonite mining (Strata, 2011a). The historical Nubeth Joint 

Venture (Nubeth) was also operated on some of the land which comprises the proposed Ross 

Project area. SEIS Section 3.2 discusses these historical and present land uses in more detail; 

these land uses are expected to continue into the future, albeit to a lesser extent, while the Ross 

Project is operating in the area. It should be noted that no long-term, permanent changes to the 

environment are anticipated as a result of the Ross Project within about 8 km [5 mi] of the Ross 

Project area, except for the potential installation of additional roads. The extensive aquiferrestoration and site-reclamation activities that Strata Energy, Inc. (Strata) (herein also referred 

to as the “Applicant”) would perform during the Ross Project’s aquifer-restoration and 

decommissioning phases would ensure that no permanent land-use changes occur on the Ross 

Project area itself.

Several industries presently conduct activities in and near Crook County, activities which could 

have environmental impacts that, when combined with those of the Ross Project, could be 

greater than the individual impacts of the Ross Project. In addition, some of these activities, 

such as uranium recovery as well as oil and gas production, could be actively expanded within 

Crook County and into its neighboring counties. These activities are described below.

5.2.1.1 Uranium Recovery

Uranium was discovered in 1918, near Lusk, Wyoming, and then first mined in 1920. Greater 

uranium reserves were discovered in both the Powder River Basin and the Wind River Basin 

during the 1950s, and continued exploration for uranium resulted in the delineation of additional 

sedimentary uranium deposits in the major basins of central and south Wyoming, including the 

Powder River Basin. Uranium production in Wyoming declined in the mid-1960s, but increased 

again in the late 1960s and 1970s. Conventional uranium-mine production peaked in 1980 and 

then decreased in the early 1980s through the early 1990s when in situ uranium-recovery (ISR) 

facilities were established. The total uranium-mine production in the U.S. in 2007 was 2.1 

million kg [4.5 million lb], almost half of which was produced in the southernmost Powder River 

Basin. ISR replaced conventional uranium mining and milling as the preferred means for 

extracting uranium in the U.S. Currently, only ISR facilities are extracting uranium in Wyoming. 

Interest in uranium-recovery has translated into several ISR projects in Wyoming (see Table 

5.1). The Ross Project is one. In addition, the Applicant indicates that it might develop at least 

four additional satellite uranium-recovery areas within the larger Lance District over the next few 

years (each of which would be subject to its own license-amendment actions by the NRC). 

Several other ISR projects are currently licensed in Wyoming as well, with two facilities 

operating and two ready for construction in the Powder River Basin (see Figure 5.1).

None of these operating and/or licensed ISR projects is located in Crook County (i.e., the 

location of the proposed Ross Project) nor have any other Crook County ISR facilities been 
Cumulative Impacts

5-3 

officially proposed to the NRC. However, four ISR projects are reportedly in the very early 

stages of development in Crook County (Strata, 2012a). In addition, two licensed ISR facilities 

Table 5.1

Uranium-Recovery Projects 

within Eighty Kilometers [Fifty Miles] of Ross Project Area

Project Owner County

Direction

and

Distancea 

(km [mi]) Status

Smith Ranch

License SUA-1548

North Butte

Ruby Ranch

Cameco 

Resources Inc./

Power 

Resources Inc.

Converse

Campbell

Campbell

SSW

180 km

[110 mi]

Operating.

Renewal and expansion 

(additional satellite areas) 

license application in 

technical review. 

Construction activities are 

occurring at the North 

Butte site.

Ruby Ranch expansion 

license application not yet 

submitted.

Willow Creek

(Formerly Irigaray/

Christensen 

Ranch)

License SUA-1341

Ludeman 

Allemand-Ross

Uranium One Johnson and 

Campbell

Converse

Converse

WSW

120 km

[75 mi]

Operating.

Renewal license issued 

March 2013. 

Amendments to include 

Ludeman (license 

application has been 

submitted) and, later, 

Allemand-Ross (license 

application has not been 

submitted) satellite areas.

Nichols Ranch

License SUA-1597

Uranerz 

Energy 

Corporation

Johnson and 

Campbell

SW

120 km

[75 mi]

Licensed and

under construction.

Moore Ranch

License SUA-1596

Energy Metals 

Corporation/

Uranium One

Campbell SW

150 km

[90 mi]

Licensed, but not yet 

under construction.

Reno Creek AUC LLC Campbell SW

105 km

[65 mi]

License application 

submitted.

Sources: Strata, 2012a; NRC, 2013a.

Note:

a Approximate distance from the Ross Project area to the respective ISR project in “as the crow flies” 

 (i.e., a straight line) in kilometers [miles].
5-4 

Figure 5.1

Circular Area of an Eighty-Kilometer [Fifty-Mile] Radius around Ross Project Area

P

5

L

Source: Strata, 2012a.
Cumulative Impacts

5-5 

are located in adjacent Campbell County (satellite areas of the Smith Ranch ISR Project, which 

is currently operating, and the Moore Ranch, which is still to be constructed). Two other ISR 

facilities overlap both Campbell and Johnson Counties (Willow Creek, which is currently 

operating, and Nichols Ranch, which is licensed and under construction). 

The Applicant describes in its license application the types and sequence of its planned 

development of the Lance District. The Applicant has identified significant uranium resources 

within the District, and it intends for the Ross Project to be the first of several “satellite” areas. 

These potential satellite areas could consist of those shown in Figure 2.2 in SEIS Section 2.1.1, 

including, within the northern portion of the Lance District, Ross Amendment Area 1 and, to the 

south within the Lance District, the potential Kendrick, Richards, and Barber satellite areas 

(Strata, 2012a). If additional wellfields were to be developed by the Applicant and licensed by 

the NRC, the Ross Project’s Central Processing Plant (CPP) would be used to process 

pregnant solutions from these satellite areas into yellowcake. In addition, the Applicant also 

proposes that ion-exchange (IX) resin loaded with uranium (“uranium-bearing” or “pregnant”) 

would be accepted at the Ross Project’s CPP from other offsite ISR facilities (this activity is 

referred to as “toll milling”) or companies and/or from water-treatment plants (Strata, 2011a). 

This additional potential use of the CPP at the Ross Project is the reason that the Plant is 

designed for four times the capacity needed for only the Ross Project.

Lance District

The four satellite areas within the Lance District that the NRC staff has identified as reasonably 

foreseeable are as follows:

Ross Amendment Area 1

This area would be an extension of the proposed Ross Project to the north and west. This area 

would not increase the overall production rate of yellowcake, but rather it would increase the 

operating life of the Ross Project. As uranium production from the early wellfields within the 

Ross Project area begins to diminish and the wellfields begin to enter the aquifer-restoration 

phase of the proposed Project, additional wellfields in the Ross Amendment Area 1 could be 

begin uranium recovery. The Ross Amendment Area 1 could extend the lifetime of the Ross 

Project by several years as shown in Figure 2.6 (Strata, 2012a). 

Kendrick Satellite Area

The Kendrick satellite area would be contiguous to the Ross Project area as shown in Figure 

2.2 in SEIS Section 2.1.1. However, unlike the Ross Amendment Area 1, the Kendrick satellite 

area would allow the Applicant to increase its production of yellowcake to approximately 

680,000 kg/yr [1.5 million lb/yr] (Strata, 2012a).

Richards Satellite Area

The Richards satellite area would be contiguous to the Kendrick satellite area. The uraniumrich solutions extracted from this satellite area would be piped to the Ross Project’s CPP for 

uranium recovery or, potentially, piped to the Barber satellite area as described below (Strata, 

2012a). The relative schedule for this satellite would be identified by the Applicant in the future.
Cumulative Impacts

5-6 

Barber Satellite Area

Although the Applicant’s plans for development of the Lance District are not yet complete, Strata 

anticipates that a remote IX-only plant would be constructed at the Barber satellite area. This 

would mean that the pregnant, uranium-rich solutions brought to the surface at the Barber 

satellite area would be treated by IX to yield uranium-loaded resin, which would then be trucked 

to the Ross Project’s CPP for further processing (e.g., resin elution) (Strata, 2012a). This 

additional uranium would increase the CPP’s output to approximately 993,000 kg/yr [2.19 million 

lb/yr]. In addition, the Applicant would investigate the possibility of transferring pregnant 

solutions from wellfields in the Richards satellite area to the remote IX facility at the Barber 

satellite area before transfer to the CPP at the Ross Project area.

Other Potential ISR Facilities within 80 Kilometers [50 Miles] of the Ross Project

There are no other uranium-recovery or nuclear-fuel-cycle projects currently located within 80 

km [50 mi] of the Ross Project area nor have any Letters of Intent or license applications been 

submitted to the NRC for any ISR projects within 80 km [50 mi] (see Figure 5.1) (Strata, 2011a). 

There are, however, four other uranium-recovery operations in various very early planning 

stages located within 80 km [50 mi] of the Ross Project, including the following:

Potential Aladdin Project

The potential Aladdin ISR Project would be located in Crook County, approximately 66 km [41 

mi] east-northeast of the Ross Project, although the driving distance to this Project would be 

approximately 113 km [70 mi]. The Aladdin Project is being considered by Powertech Inc. and 

comprises approximately 7,099.8 ha [17,554 ac]. 

Potential Elkhorn Project

The potential Elkhorn ISR Project is currently being evaluated by NCA Nuclear, Inc. (a wholly 

owned subsidiary of Bayswater Uranium Corporation). This Project would also be located in 

Crook County, approximately 26 km [16 mi] from the Ross Project (driving distance would be 

approximately 30 km [20 mi]). It is currently estimated that this Project’s area of 2,110 ha [5,215 

ac] may ultimately yield approximately 544,000 kg [1.2 million lb] of uranium. The Project is 

located near the former, and decommissioned, Homestake Hauber Uranium Mine (see below).

Potential Hauber Project

The potential Hauber ISR Project would also be owned by NCA Nuclear, Inc., in a joint venture 

with Ur-Energy Inc. This Project would be located approximately 23 km [14 mi] from the Ross 

Project area, or 30 km [20 mi] if driven, and would comprise approximately 2,090 ha [5,160 ac]. 

The total uranium production from this Project is estimated at 680,000 kg [1.5 million lb] (Strata, 

2012a). This Project would be located near the now-closed Hauber Uranium Mine, which was 

operated between 1958 and 1966 and which is discussed below (Strata, 2011a).

Potential Alzada Project

The potential Alzada ISR Project would be owned and operated by NCA Nuclear, Inc. and 

would comprise approximately 10,000 ha [25,000 ac]. It would be located approximately 62 km 
Cumulative Impacts

5-7 

[39 mi] north-northeast of the Ross Project area (driving distance would be approximately 129 

km [80 mi]) (Strata, 2012a).

Other ISR Facilities within the Powder River Basin

There are four other ISR Projects in various stages of the NRC’s licensing process and/or 

currently operating or being constructed within the Powder River Basin, all of which are located 

in Wyoming, although none of these Projects are within a 80-km [50-mi] radius of the Ross 

Project. However, the 80-km [50-mi] cumulative-impacts area does not include the entire 

Powder River Basin; thus, none of these four Projects is located within that cumulative-impacts 

area. Two of these facilities are currently operating; two have been licensed, one of which has 

begun construction. The owner of a fifth ISR Project has submitted a license application to the 

NRC in October 2012. These ISR projects include the following:

Smith Ranch ISR Project

The Smith Ranch ISR Project conducts uranium recovery and is currently being operated by 

Power Resources Inc. (dba Cameco Resources Inc. [Cameco]). The Smith Ranch Project is 

primarily located in Converse County, Wyoming, but this Project also includes several remote 

satellite areas in other Wyoming counties—one of which is not located in the Powder River 

Basin (i.e., in the Wind River Basin). A license application to renew and to expand Source 

Materials License SUA-1548 for the Smith Ranch Project was received by the NRC in February 

2012 (see Docket No. 40-8964). If the NRC grants a license amended and renewed as 

proposed, the Smith Ranch License would allow Cameco to continue conducting ISR activities 

at its Smith Ranch Project as well as to initiate and/or expand ISR activities at its associated 

and remote ISR satellite areas: 1) the Highlands and the Reynolds Ranch satellite areas, both 

also located in Converse County, Wyoming; 2) the Gas Hills remote satellite area in Fremont 

and Natrona Counties, Wyoming; 3) the North Butte remote satellite area in Campbell County, 

Wyoming; and 4) the Ruth remote satellite area in Johnson County, Wyoming (NRC, 2013a). 

Willow Creek ISR Project

The Willow Creek ISR Project is located in Johnson and Campbell Counties, Wyoming; the 

Project is owned by Uranium One (see Docket No. 40-8502). The NRC license was renewed 

for this Project in March 2013. A license application for the Ludeman ISR Project was originally 

submitted to the NRC in January 2010, but it was subsequently withdrawn in May 2010. A 

license application was resubmitted by the owner of the Project, Uranium One, in December 

2011, where three specific subdivisions of the Ludeman area, which is located in Converse 

County, would be satellites of the Willow Creek ISR Project (NRC, 2013a). Both of these 

Projects are situated in the Powder River Basin. The Ludeman Project consists of 

approximately 8,000 ha [20,000 ac]; the Willow Creek Project is approximately 5,500 ha [13,600 

ac].

Nichols Ranch ISR Project

The Nichols Ranch ISR Project is located in Johnson and Campbell Counties of Wyoming. It is 

owned by the Uranerz Corporation (Uranerz) and is comprised of 1,251 ha [3,091 ac]. Its NRC 

license has been granted, and the facility is currently under construction (see Docket No. 40-

9067) (NRC, 2013a). Uranerz has received an Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permit from 
Cumulative Impacts

5-8 

the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ). The company has also signed a 

toll-milling agreement with the owner of the Smith Ranch Project, Cameco, to transfer uraniumloaded IX resin from the Nichols Ranch ISR Project to the Smith Ranch Project for final 

processing to yellowcake.

Moore Ranch ISR Project

The Moore Ranch ISR Project is located in Campbell County, Wyoming; it is owned by Energy 

Metals Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Uranium One. It is comprised of 

approximately 2,879 ha [7,110 ac]. It is currently licensed by the NRC to operate through 

September 2020 (see Docket No. 40-9073) (NRC, 2013a); construction on this ISR facility has 

not yet begun. 

Reno Creek ISR Project

AUC LLC, submitted a license application in October 2012 to site, design, license, construct, 

and operate an ISR facility in Campbell County, Wyoming (NRC, 2012c).

Past ISR Facilities within 80 Kilometers [50 Miles] of the Ross Project 

In addition to the present and reasonably foreseeable uranium-recovery facilities described 

above, it should be noted that, historically, two uranium-recovery facilities were located in the 

80-km [50-mi] area surrounding the Ross Project area. The first was a historic uranium mine 

near Hulett, and the second, Nubeth, is identified above; Nubeth has been included in this 

SEIS’s analysis of pre-licensing, site-characterization data as well as cumulative impacts in this 

section. 

The historic Homestake Hauber Uranium Mine was operated by the Homestake Mining 

Company between 1958 – 1966; the mine closed in 1966. It is also located in Crook County, 

approximately 19 km [12 mi] to the northeast of the Ross Project. This mine is no longer a 

contributor to cumulative impacts in the area because it is not operating and, thus, no longer 

producing impacts related to traffic, water resources, ecology, air quality, noise, and so forth. 

However, it is now a part of the area currently being explored for additional potential uranium 

recovery by NCA Nuclear, Inc., in a joint venture with Ur-Energy Inc. The potential Hauber ISR 

Project is described above; the Project is currently in the planning stages. This Project would 

be the nearest uranium-recovery project to the proposed Ross Project. 

Nubeth was described more extensively in SEIS Sections 2.1.1 and 3.5.3. This research and 

development ISR operation operated between 1978 – 1979. Nubeth was decommissioned 

according to NRC and WDEQ requirements, and final approval for its decommissioning was 

issued between 1983 – 1986. Additional information regarding potential impacts from this 

historical operation is included in this SEIS Section’s assessment of cumulative impacts.

5.2.1.2 Mining

Coal as well as other natural resources are mined in and around Crook, Weston, and Campbell 

Counties. Indeed, Powder River Basin coal mines supply almost 97 percent of the coal 

produced in Wyoming each year (BLM, 2005a; BLM, 2005b; BLM, 2005c), and Wyoming 

produces the greatest quantity of coal in the U.S. Thus, substantial mining activities occur 
Cumulative Impacts

5-9 

throughout the Basin, and coal mining continues to be the most prolific mining activity in the 

region.

Coal Mining

Coal mining in the Powder River Basin began in 1883, and underground coal mines began 

operation during 1894. The Powder River Basin emerged as a major coal-production area 

during the 1970s and early 1980s. The largest area, the Gillette coalfield, is approximately 24 

km [15 mi] wide and extends from approximately 35 km [22 mi] north of Gillette, Wyoming, to 

approximately 40 km [25 mi] south of Wright, Wyoming. A second coal area is approximately 30 

km [20 mi] wide, extending from Sheridan, Wyoming, north to the Wyoming-Montana state line. 

In 2007, this region accounted for approximately 97 percent of Wyoming's production and 

hosted the 10 largest coal mines in the U.S. Coal production in the Wyoming portion of the 

Powder River Basin is expected to grow at an annual rate of 2 – 3 percent per year. Additional 

coal leases and associated lands may be required to keep up with the world’s demand (BLM, 

2009e).

The Powder River Federal Coal Region was decertified as a Federal coal-production region by 

the Powder River Regional Coal Team in 1990, which allowed leasing to occur in the region on 

an application basis. Because of decertification, U.S. coal production increased 11 percent, 

from 900,000 t [1 million T] in 1990 to 1.1 million t [1.2 million T] in 2007 (BLM, 2009a). From 

1990 – 2008, the BLM’s Wyoming State Office held 25 competitive lease sales and issued 19 

new Federal coal leases representing more than 5.7 billion tons of coal using the “lease by 

application” process (BLM, 2005a; BLM, 2005b; BLM, 2005c). In 2003, the cumulative 

disturbed-land area attributable to coal mines within the Powder River Basin totaled nearly 

28,000 ha [70,000 ac]. Reasonably foreseeable future development projects contributing to the 

estimate of the cumulative acreage disturbed range from 47,400 – 50,600 ha [117,000 – 

125,000 ac] in 2015. Other developments related to coal include railroads, coal-fired power 

plants, major 230 kV-transmission lines, and coal-technology projects. The total land area of 

other coal-related disturbance in the Powder River Basin in 2003 was nearly 2,000 ha [5,000 

ac]. 

Within 80 km [50 mi] of the Ross Project there are 9 active coal mines (Strata, 2012a). 

Table 5.2 lists surface coal mines within 80 km [50 mi]; the respective locations are shown in 

Figure 5.1. 

Table 5.2

Active Coal Mines within Eighty Kilometers [Fifty Miles] 

of Ross Project Area

Mine Name Owner

Straight-Line 

Distance

km [mi]

Driving 

Distance

km [mi]

Belle Ayr Mine Alpha Coal West, Inc. 64 [40] 103 [64]

Buckskin Mine Buckskin Mining Company 47 [29] 108 [67]

Caballo Mine Peabody Caballo 

Coal L.L.C.

63 [39] 109 [68]
Cumulative Impacts

5-10

Table 5.2

Active Coal Mines within Eighty Kilometers [Fifty Miles] of

Ross Project Area

(Continued)

Mine Name Owner

Straight-Line 

Distance

km [mi]

Driving 

Distance

km [mi]

Coal Creek Mine Thunder Basin Coal Co. 

L.L.C.

72 [45] 137 [85]

Cordero Rojo Mine Cloud Peak Energy/

Cordero Rojo Mine

68 [42] 119 [74]

Dry Fork Mine Western Fuels Wyoming Inc. 45 [28] 85 [53]

Eagle Butte Mine Alpha Coal West Inc. 48 [30] 93 [58]

Rawhide Mine Peabody Energy 

Rawhide Mine

47 [29] 100 [62]

Wyodak Mine Wyodak Resources 

Development

45 [28] 71 [44]

Source: Wyoming State Mine Inspector, 2010; BLM, 2012 as cited in Strata, 21012a.

Bentonite Mining

Bentonite is weathered volcanic ash that is used in a variety of products such as drilling muds 

and cat litters because of its absorbent properties. There are 10 bentonite-producing mines in 

in the 80-km [50-mi] area surrounding the proposed Ross Project area (see Figure 5.1 and 

Table 5.3). One, the Oshoto Mine, is 8 km [5 mi] (driving distance) from the Ross Project area. 

The two next closest bentonite mines are approximately 56 – 69 km [35 – 43 mi] from the Ross 

Project area. Table 5.3 presents the relative distances to the Ross Project area from these 

bentonite mines.

Table 5.3

Active Bentonite Mines within Eighty Kilometers [Fify Miles] 

of Ross Project Area

Mine Name Owner

Straight-Line 

Distance

km [mi]

Driving 

Distance

km [mi]

ACC South Dakota American Colloid 

Company

74 – 80

[46 – 55]

129

[80]

Alzada North American Colloid 

Company

56 – 65

[35 – 40]

89

[55]

Alzada South American Colloid 

Company

56 – 65

[35 – 40]

72

[45]
Cumulative Impacts

5-11

Source: Wyoming State Mine Inspector, 2010; WDEQ, 2012; BLM, 2008; BLM, 2011 

 as cited in Strata, 2012a.

Other Mining

Sand, gravel, and clinker (or “scoria”) have been and continue to be mined in the Powder River 

Basin. Aggregate, which is sand, gravel, and stone, is used for construction purposes. The 

largest aggregate operation is located in the Powder River Basin in northern Converse County, 

and it has an associated total area of land disturbance of approximately 27 ha [67 ac], of which 

1.62 ha [4 ac] have been reclaimed. Scoria is used as aggregate where alluvial-terrace gravel 

or in-palace granite or other igneous rock is not available. Scoria generally is mined in 

Converse and Campbell Counties, in the western portion of the Powder River Basin (BLM, 

2005a; BLM, 2005b; BLM, 2005c). None of these are within 80 km [50 mi] of the Ross Project 

area (see Figure 5.1).

Oil and Gas Production 

Regional oil- and gas-related activities (i.e., exploration, extraction, and pipeline development) 

could have the potential to generate cumulative impacts (BLM, 2005b) when evaluated in 

conjunction with the Ross Project as well. There are approximately 472 oil- and gas-production 

units evenly dispersed throughout the Powder River Basin in various stages of production. The 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission reported that, in 2003, oil and gas wells in the 

Table 5.3

Active Bentonite Mines within Eighty Kilometers [Fifty Miles] 

of Ross Project Area

(Continued)

Mine Name Owner

Straight-Line 

Distance

km [mi]

Driving 

Distance

km [mi]

BPM Colony Mill Bentonite Performance 

Minerals L.L.C.

71

[44]

151

[94]

BPM Colony Mine Bentonite Performance 

Minerals L.L.C.

71

[44]

151

[94]

BPM Montana

Bentonite 

Performance Minerals 

L.L.C.

56 – 64

[35 – 40]

72

[45]

Colony East Mill American Colloid 

Company

71

[44]

151

[94]

Colony West Mill American Colloid 

Company

69

[43]

151

[94]

Oshoto Mine Black Hills Bentonite 5 

[3]

8 

[5]

Thornton Plant Black Hills Bentonite 56

[35]

69

[43]
Cumulative Impacts

5-12

Powder River Basin produced approximately 113 million barrels of oil and 1.1 billion m3 [40 

billion ft3

] of conventional gas (BLM, 2005a; BLM, 2005b; BLM, 2005c). 

From 1992 – 2002, oil extraction from conventional oil and gas wells in Campbell and Converse 

Counties within the Powder River Basin decreased approximately 60 percent. Most of 

Wyoming’s current oil production is from old oil fields with declining production and the level of 

exploration drilling to identify new fields has been low (BLM, 2005a). Data posted by the 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) show that the production of oil and 

gas in Crook County has declined from their respective peaks in 1985 and 1990 – 2007, from 

which time the production has remained approximately constant (WOGCC, 2013). In Campbell 

County, gas extraction has declined steadily since its peak in 2001 – 2005, and oil extraction 

has declined since approximately 1992, except for slight increases since 2010. The BLM’s 

Wyoming State Office’s Whitepaper entitled “Hydraulic Fracturing,” dated July 2013, includes 

shallow coal-bed-methane (CBM) wells and the Niobrara Shale as likely targets for hydraulic 

fracturing technology, although according to the WOGCC, Crook County does not produce CBM 

nor has it seen any development of the Niobrara Shale characteristic of southeastern Wyoming 

(BLM, 2013). Of all of the BLM districts in Wyoming, projected water use for hydraulic fracking 

is the lowest in the Newcastle District, which includes Crook Country. 

Oil- and gas-related development includes major transportation pipelines and refineries as well. 

In 2003, the cumulative disturbed-land area in the Powder River Basin from oil and gas 

activities, CBM expansion, and related developments was nearly 76,100 ha [188,000 ac]. The 

corresponding projection for the year 2015 is approximately 123,000 ha [305,000 ac] (BLM, 

2005a; BLM, 2005b; BLM, 2005c). The depth to producing gas- and oil-bearing units generally 

ranges from 1,219 – 4,115 m [4,000 – 13,500 ft], but some wells are as shallow as 76 m [250 ft] 

(BLM, 2005a; BLM, 2005b; BLM, 2005c). 

There are three oil-producing wells on the Ross Project area itself in addition to three oil-field 

water-supply (i.e., industrial) wells and two injection wells (Strata, 2011a). These wells are 

mostly used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and are discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.1. Figure 

3.2 indicates the locations of all oil- and gas-producing wells in a 3-km [2-mi] radius of the Ross 

Project area. 

Coal-Bed Methane Development

Natural-gas production has been increasing in Wyoming. CBM is located where there are 

abundant coal resources. For this reason, the majority of CBM production in Wyoming occurs in 

the Powder River Basin, within the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. Annual CBM 

production in the Powder River Basin increased rapidly between 1999 – 2003, with nearly 

15,000 producing CBM wells in the Powder River Basin in 2003 and a total CBM-production 

volume of 10.3 billion m3 [364 billion ft3

] (BLM, 2005a; BLM, 2005b; BLM, 2005c). However, 

there are no CBM-producing wells in the Lance and Fox Hills aquifers within the 80-km [50-mi] 

radius vicinity of the Ross Project area. This is because the stratigraphic layers targeted at the 

Ross Project lie below the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations where CBM production occurs 

(Strata, 2012a). 
Cumulative Impacts

5-13

Wind-Power Development 

While there is potential in the Powder River Basin for wind-power generation to contribute to 

region’s meeting forecasted electric-power demands, it depends upon 1) the location of sagegrouse core breeding areas and 2) the available transmission capacity to send power to users. 

Both the location of Greater sage-grouse core breeding areas and transmission capability may 

be constraining factors (BLM, 2008). 

There are currently no wind-power projects within the 80-km [50-mi] vicinity of the Ross Project 

area, and only one has been proposed (see Figure 5.1) (Strata, 2012a). This wind-power 

project, as proposed, would have a 250-MW capacity with 166 turbines generating 

approximately 600 million kWh annually (Strata, 2012a). It would be constructed and operated 

by Wind Energy America. The turbines would be located approximately 42 miles southsoutheast of the Ross Project area, although it would be approximately 97 km [60 mi] to drive 

between the two operations. The project would be south of Interstate (I)-90, where the Ross 

Project area would be north of I-90.

5.3 Cumulative-Impacts Analysis

5.3.1 EISs as Indicators of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

One indicator of RFFAs in a particular region of interest is the number of recent draft and final 

environmental impact statements (EISs) and environmental assessments (EAs) that have been 

prepared by Federal agencies. The NRC used information presented in GEIS Section 5.1.1 as 

well as publicly available information, several site-specific EISs and Supplemental EISs (SEISs) 

for projects in the Powder River Basin, and draft and final programmatic EISs for large-scale 

actions related to several states, including Wyoming, to accomplish its cumulative-impacts 

analyses (NRC, 2009b). 

5.3.2 Methodology

For the determination of potential cumulative impacts, the NRC staff reviewed Appendix F of the 

GEIS and determined that a Level 2 cumulative-impacts analysis was appropriate for this Ross 

Project SEIS due to the fact that concerns were identified during the site-specific analysis (SEIS 

Section 4) with respect to the sustainability or quality of some of the resource areas within the 

uranium-milling region (NRC, 2009b). Therefore, the following methodology was developed, 

based upon CEQ guidance for a Level 2 cumulative-impacts analysis as described in the GEIS 

(CEQ, 1997; NRC, 2009b): 

■ Identify for each resource area potential environmental impacts that would be of concern 

from a cumulative-impacts perspective. The impacts of the Proposed Action and the two 

Alternatives are described and analyzed by resource area in SEIS Section 4, 

“Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures.” 

■ Identify the geographic scope for the analysis of each resource area. This scope would 

be expected to vary from resource area to resource area, depending upon the 

geographic extent of the potential impacts. 

■ Identify the timeframe over which cumulative impacts would be assessed. The 

cumulative-impacts analysis timeframe selected for the proposed Ross Project was 
Cumulative Impacts

5-14

selected as 2013 in 2011, the estimated earliest year in which the when the Applicant 

could receive its Source and Byproduct Materials License from the NRC and could begin 

major construction. While there have been some preconstruction activities conducted by 

the Applicant since 2009, those activities have been determined to be minor with respect 

to cumulative impacts, because most of the actions have been simply ground-water 

monitoring-well installation, surface-water- and meteorological-station installation, data 

collection (i.e., ground-water and surface-water monitoring in addition to meteorological 

monitoring and a variety of pre-licensing, site-characterization field surveys); minor road 

construction; and renovation of a ranch house into Strata’s Field Office). 

After the NRC approves the Applicant’s development of its post-licensing, preoperational ground-water constituent-concentration values (i.e., after the first wellfield is 

fully installed and all required wellfield data have been collected and reported) that would 

be used for lixiviant-excursion detection and aquifer-restoration success, the Applicant 

could begin uranium recovery. In general, the cumulative-impacts analysis timeframes 

terminate in 2027, which represents the projected license-termination date at the end of 

the decommissioning period (see Figure 2.6 in SEIS Section 2.1.1). In some resource 

areas, however, the NRC’s analysis considers impacts beyond 2027 to the extent that 

some resources, such as ground-water resources, could require additional time to 

equilibrate after the complete decommissioning of the Ross Project.

■ Identify past, existing, and anticipated future projects and activities in and surrounding 

the Project area. These projects and activities are identified in this section. 

■ Assess the cumulative impacts for each resource area as a result of the Proposed 

Action and the reasonable Alternatives and other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. This analysis should 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 terminology was used to define the level of cumulative impact: 

SMALL: The environmental impacts 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 impacts are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize 

important attributes of the resource considered. 

LARGE: The environmental impacts are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

destabilize important attributes of the resource considered. 

 

In conducting this assessment, the NRC staff recognized that for many aspects of the activities 

associated with the proposed Ross Project, there would be SMALL impacts on 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 an appropriate level of analysis that 

was merited for each resource area potentially affected by the Proposed Action and 

alternatives. The level of detailed analysis was determined by considering the impact level to 
Cumulative Impacts

5-15

that resource, as described in SEIS Section 4, as well as the likelihood that the quality, quantity, 

or stability of the given resource could be affected. 

The subsequent sections document the NRC’s cumulative-impact analysis in the following 

areas:

■ Land Use

■ Transportation

■ Geology and Soils

■ Water Resources

■ Ecology

■ Air Quality

■ Global Climate Change and 

Greenhouse-Gas (GHG) Emissions

■ Noise

■ Historical, Cultural, and

Paleontological Resources

■ Visual and Scenic Resources

■ Socioeconomics

■ Environmental Justice

■ Public and Occupational 

Health and Safety

■ Waste Management

5.4 Land Use

The geographic area within which cumulative impacts to land use were evaluated were Crook 

and Weston Counties, which are within the BLM’s Newcastle Field Office planning area, and 

Campbell County, which is within the planning area administered by the BLM’s Buffalo Field 

Office (see Figure 2.1 in SEIS Section 2.1). These three counties include over 26,000 km2

[10,000 mi2

] and incorporate the approximately 96 km2 [56 mi2] of the Lance District area. 

These three Counties serve as the geographic area where socioeconomic factors that could 

relate to land use (i.e., reasonable commuting, shopping, and/or lodging or new-home 

distances) would occur. This area is referred to in this section as the “land-use cumulativeimpacts study area.” Given the size of the three Counties and the size of the Ross Project, the 

Project would be approximately 0.03 percent of the entire land-use cumulative-impacts study 

area. The timeframe for this cumulative-impacts analysis is from 2013, when it was estimated 

the Applicant could be issued a Source and Byproduct Materials License by the NRC, through 

2027, when the Ross Project and the satellites in the Lance District would be completely 

decommissioned and the aquifers would have been restored. 

Land use within the Powder River Basin is diversified and cooperative, with CBM as well as oiland gas-extraction activities sharing the land with livestock. Although Federal grasslands and 

forests cover approximately 21 percent of the Powder River Basin area, most rangeland is 

privately owned (68 percent) and is used primarily for grazing cattle and sheep. In Crook 

County, land ownership is also primarily private. Within Campbell County, however, land 

ownership is primarily Federal and is allocated by the BLM for use as pastureland (see Figure 

3.1 in SEIS Section 3.2).

As noted in SEIS Section 4.2, the land-use impacts of the Ross Project would result primarily in 

the interruption, reduction, or impedance of livestock grazing and wildlife habitat; there is not 

public access to the Project area generally (e.g., for hunting or fishing) nor is there significant 

agriculture occurring currently at the Ross Project area (see Table 3.1 in SEIS Section 3.2). 

There are no longer any impacts from historical operations at the Ross Project area (i.e., 

Nubeth). In addition, the area that would be disturbed by the Ross Project encompasses a total 
Cumulative Impacts

5-16

of 114 ha [282 ac] of land, which represents 16 percent of the Ross Project area. The 

permanent impacts of the Ross Project would be limited, because the Applicant would be 

required to return the land to the pre-licensing conditions described in SEIS Sections 2.1.1.2 

and 3.2, unless the respective landowners wish to have certain roads, for example, remain. 

Thus, the potential land-use impacts from the Ross Project would be temporary and SMALL 

through all of its phases, as discussed in SEIS Section 4.2. 

Mining in the form of coal, mineral, oil, and gas extraction are all important land uses of the 

cumulative-impacts study area. As noted Section 5.2, both conventional and CBM oil and gas 

production are expected to continue in upcoming years. As of 2010, there were over 2,600 

conventional oil- and gas-well permits in the land-use cumulative-impacts study area (USGS, 

2011), with 889 producing wells (or less than 1 producing well per 26 km2 [10 mi2

]). A typical 

drilling location, including a well pad and any access roads, disturbs approximately 1.11 ha 

[2.75 ac] of land (BLM, 2009e); at a density of 1 well per 26 km2 [10 mi2

], this would represent 

up to 0.04 percent of the land affected by these wells. In addition, over 1,570 of the permitted 

wells have been abandoned and are no longer being used. Through 2008, 547 CBM wells had 

been drilled within the three-County study area (or approximately one producing well per 52 km2 

[20 mi2], affecting approximately 0.02 percent of the total land area) (USGS, 2011). Because of 

the small area of impact for each well and the moderate number of wells currently being 

operated, the cumulative impacts by the use of land for oil and gas production is SMALL. 

As noted in Section 5.2, coal production in the Wyoming portion of the Powder River Basin is 

expected to grow at an annual rate of 2 – 3 percent per year. It is predicted that from 2010 – 

2020, the land area impacted by coal development in the Powder River Basin will increase from 

39,927 ha – 55,621 ha [98,662 ac – 137,443 ac]. By 2020, these impacts would represent 1.3 

percent of the land in the Powder River Basin. However, most of this coal-mining growth would 

be in the central area of Campbell County and in an area where the nearest coal mine is over 

45 km [28 mi] from the Ross Project area. In the 80-km [50-mi] area shown in Figure 5.1, there 

are 9 operating coal mines (Strata, 2012a). This land use dedicated to coal mining has and 

would continue to have a MODERATE impact in the land-use cumulative-impacts study area.

There are no operating nor licensed ISR uranium-recovery facilities within 80 km [50 mi] of the 

Ross Project area, although there are four uranium-recovery projects in the very early stages of 

development as described in SEIS Section 5.2 (i.e., Aladdin, Elkhorn, Hauber and Altzada). 

There is also a potential for development of other uranium facilities to the north, east, and south 

of the Ross Project as part of the entire Lance District as described earlier. Thus, some landuse changes as a result of these reasonably foreseeable future developments could occur. To 

assess the projected land area that would be affected by the development of these present and 

foreseeable future actions, the NRC staff assumed that approximately the same area affected 

by the Ross Project and its disturbance of 114 ha [282 ac] would also be approximately the 

same as by these other ISR projects. Using this assumption, the NRC staff estimated that the 

four other non-Strata projects and the four other Strata Lance-District projects would impact an 

additional 904 ha [2,240 ac], for a total area disturbed by potential ISR projects in the land-use 

cumulative-impacts study area of 1,017 ha [2,520 ac]. This acreage accounts for only 

approximately 0.04 percent of the total study area. Therefore, these ISR projects would have a 

SMALL impact on land use.

The NRC staff has concluded that the cumulative impacts on land use in the study area 

resulting from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is MODERATE. The 
Cumulative Impacts

5-17

Ross Project would have a SMALL incremental effect on land use when added to the 

MODERATE cumulative land-use impacts. 

5.5 Transportation

An area with an 80-km [50-mi] radius was used as the geographic boundary in the evaluation of 

the cumulative impacts of transportation for this SEIS (referred to in this section as the 

“transportation cumulative-impacts study area”). This study area was selected because it 

incorporates the area that would likely be travelled by the majority of the workers at the Ross 

Project and includes the distance to the nearest Interstate highway (i.e., I-90). The analysis of 

transportation-related cumulative impacts uses the timeframe of 2013 – 2027, which would be 

the entire lifecycle of Ross Project from licensing to final decommissioning. The analysis 

assumes that, within this timeframe, the four potential satellite areas within the Lance District 

would be developed sufficiently by the Applicant to construct and begin operation.

The environmental impacts identified in SEIS Section 4.3.1 for the Ross Project would result 

from the transport of chemical supplies, building materials, yellowcake product, vanadium 

product, solid byproduct wastes, other hazardous and nonhazardous wastes, and the 

commuting workforce, all of which increase traffic volumes to and from the Ross Project area. 

During the phases of the Ross Project examined in SEIS Section 4.3, traffic volume was 

estimated to increase up to 400 percent. This traffic would predominantly be present on the 

local Crook County roads. As a result, the wear and tear of the county roads would be 

significantly increased, and the potential for wildlife mortality and vehicular accidents would 

increase as well. Therefore, the transportation impacts were found to be SMALL to 

MODERATE to LARGE on local and county roads, depending upon the Project phase, and 

SMALL to the Interstate-highway system, as discussed in Section 4.3. With the mitigation 

measures discussed in Section 4.3, the overall transportation impacts would be reduced to 

SMALL to MODERATE. Once the Ross Project is decommissioned, most wellfield roads 

constructed as part of the Ross Project would be removed, and the traffic volume would subside 

to possibly a little more than the 2010 volume. 

Direct impacts to the roads and highways within the transportation cumulative-impacts study 

area include increased vehicular-traffic volumes and increased risk of vehicular accidents during 

daily commutes by workers and the trips their families take, especially on roads such as New 

Haven and D Roads. Ross Project workers would use these local and county roads as would 

workers from the Lance District satellite areas and two of the five potential ISR projects currently 

being planned. If the same workforce is assumed for the two other potential ISR projects; if they 

are assumed to be under construction at the same time; and if it is assumed that the workers at 

both the Elkhorn and Hauber Projects were to use D or New Haven Roads to commute to and 

from work, these assumptions would increase the traffic on D and New Haven Roads to 

approximately and conservatively 920 additional automobiles on these roads alone per day (it 

was assumed here that the Ross Project would be already in its operation phase and its 

workforce would have been reduced to 60 workers). In addition, all of the supply and materials 

deliveries during their respective construction phases and uranium-product shipments would 

need to be added to this traffic volume. The volume that results, if the same number of 

deliveries and shipments by the other potential ISR projects is assumed, would increase to 

almost 1,000 vehicles per day. (Also, D Road is already being used by the Oshoto bentonite 

mine northeast of the Ross Project area, although there are only a reported eight workers 

currently commuting to that facility; consequently, this traffic was already considered under the 
Cumulative Impacts

5-18

Ross Project’s transportation impacts in SEIS Section 4.3.) This would be a LARGE cumulative 

impact for both D and New Haven Roads. Traffic on I-90 would be similarly increased during 

this period. However, the Interstate highway has been designed to provide sufficient capacity to 

accomodate this increase (as discussed in SEIS Section 4.3). Thus, the transportation impacts 

on the Interstate-highway system of the U.S. would be SMALL. 

All of the indirect impacts identified for the proposed Ross Project, including increased wear and 

tear on existing roads, additional air emissions and fugitive dusts, greater noise, and an 

increased risk of vehicle collisions with livestock, wildlife, and other vehicles, would occur as a 

result of this increased traffic volume on the local county roads. This increased local traffic 

would yield MODERATE to LARGE impacts for the local roads, depending upon the sequencing 

of project development.

The NRC staff has concluded that the cumulative impacts within the overall transportation study 

area resulting from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as energyrelated projects (e.g., CBM, oil, and gas projects as well as uranium recovery and coal mining) 

would be MODERATE. The proposed Ross Project would have a SMALL to MODERATE 

incremental effect on transportation when added to the MODERATE cumulative transportation 

impacts due primarily to significantly increased traffic.

5.6 Geology and Soils

The geographic area for the evaluation of geology and soils cumulative impacts (“geology and 

soils cumulative-impacts study area”) is defined as the approximately 9,000-ha [22,200-ac] 

Lance District shown on Figure 2.2 in SEIS Section 2.1.1. This limitation of the cumulativeimpacts assessment for soils to this area is appropriate since geology and soil impacts are 

constrained to the area in which they occur (i.e., they don’t spread). The Ross Project itself 

would result in the disturbance of 114 ha [282 ac] of surface soil, a very small fraction of the 

total study area (i.e., approximately 0.013 percent). 

Previous ISR activities at the Ross Project site include research and development activities 

conducted by Nubeth in the late 1970s. These activities included construction and operation of 

a small 5-spot wellfield for one year that likely resulted in some soil disturbance to a small area 

of land (Strata, 2011a). Regulatory approval of Nubeth’s decommissioning was granted by 

1986. The Nubeth area was approved as restored and reclaimed; thus, this past action is 

consequently no longer relevant for the geology and soils cumulative-impacts analysis.

As noted in SEIS Section 5.3.2, the proposed schedule for the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning phases as well as the restoration of the aquifer(s) at the Ross Project has 

these activities taking place over an approximate nine-year period from the time the Project 

would be licensed by the NRC (Strata, 2012a). Other Lance District wellfield-development 

activities (i.e., satellite areas) could extend the processing of uranium-bearing IX resin at the 

Ross Project’s CPP by another five years or more, to 2027 (see Figure 2.6 in Section 2.1.1) 

(Strata, 2012a). However, the geology and soils impacts within the Ross Project area, where 

the soils would have been disturbed, would need time after the cessation of uranium recovery to 

recover. These impacts would dissipate once site restoration is complete, within five years or 

less according to the professional judgment of soils scientists; therefore, the time period for this 
Cumulative Impacts

5-19

geology and soils cumulative-impacts evaluation is a conservative 19 years from the licensing of 

the Ross Project, or the year 2032.

During the lifecycle of the Ross Project, as discussed in SEIS Section 4.4, potential impacts to 

Ross Project area geology would be predominantly associated with drillholes, wells, and 

wellfields. At the conclusion of the Ross Project, an average density of approximately 4.3 

wells/ha [1.7 wells/ac], each properly plugged and abandoned, would remain. The Applicant’s 

proper plugging and abandoning of these holes would mitigate their impact to the local geology. 

Also, the records required by the Applicant’s permits for well plugging and abandonment would 

allow a final assessment of any impacts on the geology after the Ross Project has been 

decommissioned, if necessary. 

The most significant impacts for soils would be soil loss and compaction, soil-productivity loss, 

and potential soil contamination. There would also be soil disturbance associated with the 

construction of the CPP, surface impoundments, and access roads as well as pipeline and 

wellfield installation. Accidental spills or other releases of drilling fluids and muds, process 

solutions, and other liquids could cause soil contamination throughout the Project’s lifecycle. As 

noted in SEIS Section 4.4, facility- and wellfield-design features, best management practices 

(BMPs), and permit requirements, such as the requirements of the Applicant’s Permit to Mine, 

UIC Permit, and Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WYPDES) Permit would 

minimize these potential impacts during the Ross Project’s construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning. The Project’s decommissioning would include reclamation of 

soils and the restoration of the area to current conditions. Current conditions have been 

documented by soils and vegetation pre-licensing, site-characterization surveys of the Ross 

Project area as described in SEIS Section 3.4.. These surveys have established the conditions 

against which soils impacts at the Ross Project could be measured (see Figure 3.10). Thus, the 

geology and soil impacts of the Ross Project would be SMALL in the geology and soils 

cumulative-impact study area.

To assess cumulative impacts to soils, the area of soil disturbances needs to be quantified. The 

Applicant has identified four potential satellite areas within the Lance District (see Figure 2.2 in 

SEIS Section 2.1.1) (Strata, 2012a). The NRC assumed that each of these satellite areas 

would require the same area of soil disturbance as the Ross Project; consequently, their 

development would result in 450 ha [1,120 ac] of soil disturbance. The density of wells at the 

satellite facilities is also assumed to be similar to the well density at the Ross Project area. In 

addition, the impacts to geology and soils would be mitigated as those at the Ross Project 

would, including complete site reclamation at the end of the Project’s lifecycle. If the density of 

drillholes and wells at these areas would be the same as the Ross Project, and the 

requirements for the plugging and abandonment of the drillholes and wells would be the same, 

then the potential impacts to geology and soils at each satellite facility would be generally 

equivalent to those of the Ross Project; thus, they would be SMALL.

As shown on Figure 5.1, there are numerous oil and gas fields that are located within the area 

of the Lance District, as noted earlier in this section. However, there are no publicly announced 

plans for further oil and gas development in the Lance District itself. The impacts to local 

geology would then be the depletion of the oil and gas mineral resources and the remaining, 

plugged wells after gas and oil extraction. For soils, the current wells and any future wells 

would cause soil impacts due to the drilling of the wells, the construction of new access roads, 

and the conduct of other operating activities. These soil impacts would also be required to be 
Cumulative Impacts

5-20

mitigated with site-specific BMPs as well as site-restoration and site-reclamation permit 

requirements. 

The NRC staff has determined that the cumulative impacts to geology and soils in the geology 

and soils cumulative-impacts study area would be SMALL. The soil disturbance associated with 

the Ross Project area and the other satellite projects in the Lance District would be limited to 

approximately 5 percent of the approximately 9,000-ha [22,200-ac] Lance District with 95 

percent of the area remaining undisturbed. This disturbance to geology and soils would be 

dispersed throughout the Lance District and site restoration and reclamation would be required 

of the Applicant. The proposed Ross Project would have a SMALL incremental impact on the 

SMALL cumulative impacts to geology and soils in the geology and soils cumulative-impacts 

study area. 

5.7 Water Resources

The analysis of the cumulative impacts to both surface and ground waters are described below.

5.7.1 Surface Water

The geographic area for the evaluation of surface-water cumulative impacts has been defined 

by the NRC staff as Little Missouri River Basin, from the Ross Project downstream to the 

Wyoming/Montana border (see Figure 3.10 in SEIS Section 3.4.2). Within this stretch of the 

Little Missouri River, which begins in the Ross Project area, the mean flow increases from an 

average of less than 0.05 m3

/s [1.7 ft3/s] at SW-1, near the downstream Ross Project boundary, 

to an average of 2 m3

/s [77 ft3/s] just downstream of the Wyoming/Montana border. The 45-fold 

increase in flow within 80 km [50 mi] indicates that cumulative impacts associated with the Ross 

Project could only be measured in the upper reaches of the Little Missouri River Basin, which is 

why this geographic area was selected for cumulative-impacts analysis. As the River’s flow 

substantially increases downstream of the Ross Project, any cumulative impacts would be 

greatly diminished by the additional volume of water.

As discussed in SEIS Section 5.3.2, the timeframe defined for the cumulative-impact analysis is 

14 years after license issuance. The schedule shown in Figure 2.6 in SEIS Section 2.1.1 

indicates that the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the Ross 

Project facility and wellfields as well as other potential Lance District satellite areas would take 

place during this time period. Since the impacts of the Ross Project on surface-water flows and 

surface-water quality would dissipate quickly upon completion of the decommissioning phase, 

this cumulative-impact analysis for surface water ends at 2027 after final Ross Project 

decommissioning is complete.

As described in the SEIS Section 3.5, the Ross Project would use surface water from the 

Oshoto Reservoir for dust control and construction-related activities at rates far less than the 

permitted water right. The Applicant has already obtained a WYPDES Permit (No. 

WYR104738) to manage storm-water runoff into the Little Missouri River (see SEIS Section 

1.7). In addition, a temporary WYPDES Permit would continue to be required for the Applicant’s 

discharge to the ground surface of all waters pumped from each new well during Strata’s 

development of all injection, recovery, and montitoring wells (currently WYPDES Permit No. 

WYG720229). Water from the development of UIC Class I wells would also discharged 

according to a WYPDES permit. As described in SEIS Section 4.5.1, the impacts to surface-
Cumulative Impacts

5-21

water quantity would be minimal, and the potential water-quality impacts would be mitigated by 

standard operating procedures (SOPs), BMPs, and permit requirements. The potential impacts 

of erosion in the small area of temporary land disturbance as well as from accidental processsolution and other liquid spills, leaks, and other releases would be localized and short-term 

because of the SOPs and BMPs the Applicant would adopt. The potential impacts to the 

surface-water quantity and quality from the Ross Project would be SMALL. 

With respect to wetlands, the Ross Project’s construction would have the potential to impact up 

to 0.8 ha [2 ac] of wetlands. A USACE-required permit would oblige the Applicant to provide a 

site-specific mitigation plan for all Project-related disturbance of jurisdictional wetlands. This 

plan would ensure that appropriate mitigation measures would be in place so that there is no net 

loss of wetlands. As described in SEIS Section 4.5.1, the Ross Project’s potential impacts to 

wetlands would be SMALL.

Measurements of pre-licensing, site-characterization surface-water flows and water-quality 

parameters provide the basis for an assessment of the cumulative impacts to surface-water 

quantity and quality (Strata, 2011a). The monitoring program that the Applicant would 

implement during all phases of the Ross Project would ensure that the Applicant meets all 

Conditions of its Source and Byproduct Materials License as well as WDEQ/Land Quality 

Division’s (LQD’s) Permit to Mine requirements (NRC, 2014b; WDEQ/LQD, 2011). This 

monitoring program is discussed in SEIS Section 6.

The cumulative impacts for surface water would be related to water quantity and water quality. 

All streams within the upper reaches of the Little Missouri River and for 67 km [40 mi] 

downstream of the Ross Project are classified by WDEQ/Water Quality Division (WQD) as 3B 

streams (i.e., intermittent or ephemeral streams incapable of supporting fish populations or 

providing drinking water). At the confluence with Government Canyon Creek (approximately 67 

km [40 mi] downstream of the Ross Project area), the River’s flow increases to the point that the 

stream classification changes to 2ABWW (i.e., it is protected as a drinking-water source and can 

support warm-water fisheries). Surface-water quality in the upper reaches of the Little Missouri 

River currently meet Wyoming’s surface-water criteria for a Class 3B stream (Strata, 2011a). 

Current surface-water flows would define the conditions against which impacts to Project 

surface-water can be measured over time. Data on surface-water flows are available from three 

monitoring stations within the Ross Project area for 2010 and 2011 (see SEIS Figure 3.12) 

(Strata, 2012a). These data, combined with flow data from the Wyoming/Montana border, 

would provide a data set against which changes in surface-water flow could be evaluated. 

Surface-Water Quantity

Strata’s potential uranium-recovery satellite areas in the Lance District, as described in SEIS 

Section 5.2, could impact the Little Missouri River (Strata, 2012a). Of the four identified 

potential satellite areas, only the Ross Amendment Area 1 lies within the Little Missouri River 

Basin, however. The others are located within the drainage basin of the Belle Fourche River. 

Because process-solution blending would continue to occur at the Ross Project’s CPP as well 

as yellowcake production, all of these areas were considered in the NRC staff’s evaluation of 

surface-water-quality cumulative impacts.

Crop irrigation and stock watering are the primary uses of surface water in the Wyoming portion 

of the Little Missouri River Basin (WWDC, 2002a). Irrigation use is estimated to range from 
Cumulative Impacts

5-22

1,200 ha-m [9,700 ac-ft] to 1,400 ha-m/yr [11,600 ac-ft/yr] and evaporative loss from stock 

reservoirs is less than approximately 120 ha-m/yr [1,000 ac-ft/yr] (WWDC, 2002a). There are 

no other significant uses of surface water in the Wyoming portion of the Little Missouri River. 

The high estimate of current surface-water use is approximately 22 percent of the mean annual 

flow in the Little Missouri River at the Wyoming/Montana border (6,900 ha-m/yr [55,800 acft/yr]). Agricultural uses of surface water in the northeastern portion of Wyoming are estimated 

to grow between 0 – 9 percent, or an increase up to 140 ha-m/yr [1,130 ac-ft/yr], over the next 

30 years (WWDC, 2002a). The predicted future increase to 140 ha-m/yr [1,130 ac-ft/yr] would 

represent approximately 24 percent of the mean annual flow in the Little Missouri River at the 

Wyoming/Montana border. 

During the lifecycle of the Ross Project, the annual surface-water use for construction and dust 

control is estimated to range from 0.71 – 4.6 ha-m/yr [5.8 – 37 ac-ft/yr]. If the Ross Amendment 

Area 1 were to be permitted and developed concurrently with the Ross Project, and if it were to 

use a similar quantity of water for construction and dust control, surface-water use would 

double. However, the potential for increasing water-quantity impacts would continue to be 

mitigated by SOPs, BMPs, and permit requirements. The remaining Lance District potential 

satelllite areas are expected to rely upon surface water from outside the Little Missouri River 

Basin. 

Other projects that could potentially affect surface-water use within the surface-water 

cumulative-impacts study area (i.e., the Little Missouri Basin within Wyoming) are described as 

follows.

■ Oshoto Mine: Bentonite mining typically does not use surface water. Water quality 

could be impacted by increased sediment due to erosion and runoff (see Surface-Water 

Quality below) (BLM, 2011).

The two uranium-recovery projects that have been identified for potential development within 

the Little Missouri River Basin are the Hauber and Elkhorn Projects. Because there are no 

concrete plans available for these Projects, the amount of surface-water use is unknown. 

However, the quantity of uranium targeted by each Project has been used to scale and calculate 

the approximate water use by each, based upon the quantity of uranium reported to occur at 

each site. 

■ Hauber Uranium Project: This Project targets approximately 1.5 million pounds of 

U3O8, approximately 12 – 25 percent of the 3 – 6 million pounds targeted by the Ross 

Project. Thus, this Project could use between 12 – 25 percent of the surface water that 

the Ross Project would use. 

■ Elkhorn Uranium Project: This Project targets approximately 1.2 million pounds of 

U3O8, approximately 10 – 20 percent of the 3 – 6 million pounds targeted by the Ross 

Project. Thus, this Project could use between 10 – 20 percent of the surface water that 

the Ross Project would use. 

The numerous oil- and gas-extraction operations identified in Figure 5.1 have been assumed to 

rely upon ground water for water supply and are not expected to impact surface-water quantity. 

As discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.1, if water from the Oshoto Resorvoir were to be used to 

replace ground water pumped by the Merit Oil Company (Merit) from wells within the Project 

area and used for EOR, the requirement for surface water would be far less than the permitted 
Cumulative Impacts

5-23

water right from the Oshoto Reservoir. In addition, the projected changes in agricultural and 

industrial uses of surface water over the next 14 years are predicted to increase 

surface-water use of the Little Missouri River from 22 – 24 percent of the total flow in the Little 

Missouri River. 

Agriculture would account for about 1.8 percentage-point increase. The two areas that the 

Applicant could develop (i.e., the Ross Project and the Ross Amendment Area 1) and the two 

other planned uranium-recovery projects, the Hauber and Elkhorn Projects, all in the Little 

Missouri Basin, would account for a 0.2 percentage-point increase over the current use. Thus, 

the cumulative impact, a two-percent decline in the flow of the Little Missouri at the 

Wyoming/Montana border, due primarily to an increase of agricultural withdrawals over the next 

14 years, is SMALL. In addition, the reduction in flow due to uranium-recovery projects would 

be short-term and minor compared to agricultural use. Thus, surface-water cumulative-impacts 

related to water quantity would be SMALL.

Surface-Water Quality 

Water-quality impacts at the Ross Amendment Area 1 and the Hauber and Elkhorn Projects 

described above would also be mitigated by SOPs, BMPs, and permit requirements. Increases 

in sediment and other water-quality parameters from uranium-recovery projects and other 

mining (e.g., bentonite) activities would be mitigated by the owner’s/operator’s implementing 

SOPs and BMPs as well as complying with respective WYPDES permits, WDEQ/LQD permits 

to mine, and the NRC’s conditions in amended or new licenses. Increases in the impacts to 

water quality from agriculture would be mitigated through compliance with Wyoming’s 

Watershed Protection Program. Thus, the cumulative impacts to surface-water quality in the 

Little Missouri River Basin would be SMALL. Also, the proposed Ross Project would contribute 

SMALL incremental impacts to the SMALL cumulative impacts. 

5.7.2 Ground Water

The geographic area for the cumulative-impact analysis of ground-water impacts was based 

upon the hydrogeology of the Lance and Fox Hills Formations within the Powder River Basin, 

the practical maximum depth for water-supply wells, and the availability of ground-water sources 

as alternatives to the Lance and Fox Hills Formations. As described in SEIS Section 3.5.3, the 

ore zone at the Ross Project area is within the lower interval of the Lance Formation and upper 

interval of the Fox Hills Formation, which are separated from the aquifers above and below by 

confining units. The NRC’s evaluation of cumulative impacts is therefore limited to only the 

stratigraphic horizon targeted by the Ross Project, because the ore-zone aquifer is not in 

contact with aquifers above and below it. 

The Black Hills Monocline east of the Ross Project area brings the Lance and Fox Hills 

Formations to outcrop. Recharge occurs primarily in the area of outcrop and where the 

Formations are directly below alluvium-filled drainages. The geographic extent for the “groundwater cumulative-impacts analysis study area” is therefore delimited by the outside edge of the 

outcrop of the Fox Hills Formation, which is less than 300 m [1,000 ft] east of the Ross Project 

area, and by the 0 m [0 ft] elevation contour of the top of the Fox Hills Formation, which is 

located approximately 60 km [40 mi] west of the Project area. At this point, the Fox Hills aquifer 

is approximately 1,200 – 1,500 m [4,000 – 5,000 ft] deep. Along the other Ross Project 
Cumulative Impacts

5-24

boundaries, the geographic extent is defined by the 80-km [50-mi] radius of a circle whose 

center is the Ross Project boundaries.

As described in SEIS Section 3.5, the ground-water flow within the Ross Project area is to the 

west northwest, into the Powder River Basin. The top of the Fox Hills Formation is at an 

elevation of approximately 1,100 m [3,600 ft] in the area of the Ross Project. A review of 

ground-water resources in the Powder River Basin indicated that ground-water quality and 

drilling economics generally limit the maximum depth of drinking-water wells to less than 300 m 

[1,000 ft] (WWDC, 2002b). However, wells operated by the City of Gillette are approximately 

1,050 – 1,350 m [3,500 – 4,500 ft] deep; these tap the Fox Hills Formation, where the top of the 

Fox Hills Formation is at an elevation of 150 m [500 feet]. The quality of the ground water taken 

from these wells is poor (WSGS, 2012). The high total dissolved solids (TDS) found in this 

ground water requires it to be mixed with waters from other, deeper wells, which are located 

near Moorcroft; these wells are drilled into the Madison Formation, where lower TDS 

concentrations are present. Because both the depth to the Fox Hills Formation and the fact that 

TDS concentrations increase as one travels farther into the Powder River Basin, the municipal 

water-supply wells for Gillette mark the practical westernmost limit for extraction of potable 

water from the Ross Project’s ore-zone aquifer. Therefore, the western edge of the groundwater area defined for cumulative-impact analysis is the 0 m [0 ft] structural contour, on the top 

of the Fox Hills Formation. 

The schedule for construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning at the Ross 

Project indicates a period of 14 years, from the licensing of the Ross Project to its complete 

decommissioning if Strata’s potential satellite areas within the Lance District are developed (see 

Figure 2.6 in SEIS Section 2.1.1) (Strata, 2012a). Site-specific ground-water modeling 

demonstrates that ten years after aquifer restoration is complete, ground-water levels would 

have nearly recovered to a pre-uranium-recovery state (Strata, 2011b). Thus, the time period of 

24 years from the start of the Ross Project was defined for this cumulative-impacts evaluation of 

ground water (i.e., the year 2037). 

Data on ground-water levels and water-quality data are available for a number of wells within 

the Ross Project area from early 2010 (Strata, 2011a; Strata, 2011b; Strata, 2012a). These 

data, together with individual wellfield post-licensing, pre-operational hydrologic and waterquality data that would be required by the Source and Byproduct Materials License, would 

provide a data set against which changes in ground-water quality and quantity could be 

evaluated. Long-term observations of ground-water levels and ground-water monitoring within 

the hydrostratigraphic ore-zone unit would provide a metric for the assessment of the 

cumulative ground-water impacts. The aquifer-monitoring program proposed by the Applicant to 

meet NRC requirements as well as those requirements in its WDEQ/LQD Permit to Mine are 

discussed in SEIS Section 6.3.2.

Cumulative impacts to ground-water resources could be related to both water quantity and 

water quality, and these are evaluated below.

Ground-Water Quantity

During uranium-recovery operations at the Ross Project, there would be a net withdrawal of 

water from the ore-zone aquifer. This withdrawal would produce decreases in ground-water 

levels in Ross Project wellfields. Other ground-water users that operate wells completed in the 
Cumulative Impacts

5-25

same hydrostratigraphic unit would also affect water levels in the vicinity of their wells. 

Extraction of ground water in excess of the rate of recharge to the aquifer in the same 

hydrostratigraphic unit would result in the decline in ground-water levels with time. Upon 

termination of ground-water extraction, however, recharge of the ore-zone aquifer would then 

begin to increase ground-water levels. The Applicant estimates that recharge to the Lance 

Formation would be between 0.03 – 0.09 cm/yr [0.07 – 0.22 in/yr] (Strata, 2011b). Because of 

the limited Lance and Fox Hills Formations’ recharge areas and the low recharge rates, small 

residual drawdowns in the vicinity of the Lance District would likely be present for tens of years 

after cessation of uranium-recovery activities. However, this small residual drawdown would not 

affect the water available for use in the aquifer because the projected drawdown would be a 

minor reduction of the total thickness of water in the ore-zone aquifer. As described in SEIS 

Section 4.5.1, the potential impacts to the ground-water quantity outside the Ross Project would 

be SMALL and mitigated by alternative water supplies as necessary.

The schedule for the potential development of the Ross Project and the Lance District, which is 

shown in Figure 2.6 of SEIS Section 2.1.1, suggests that other uranium-recovery satellite areas 

in the Lance District could overlap temporally with the Ross Project. Extrapolation of the 

ground-water model constructed for the Ross Project indicates the potential for overlap of 

ground-water drawdowns from wellfield development (Strata, 2011b). 

During the operation and aquifer-restoration phases of the Ross Project, the weighted average 

ground-water consumption has been estimated to be 7.7 L/s [122 gal/min] over a period of 6 

years (Strata, 2011a). The Ross Project area has a predicted U3O8 production of 340,000 kg/yr 

[750,000 lb/yr] over 4 – 8 years, and the Ross Amendment Area 1 would extend this rate of 

production for several years (Strata, 2012a). Production would rise to 993,000 kg/yr [2.2 million 

lb/yr] U3O8 (i.e., yellowcake) with the Kendrick, Richards, and Barber satellite areas. If 

consumptive water use is assumed to be proportional to U3O8 production, then ground-water 

consumption would increase to an average of 22.5 L/s [356 gal/min] spread across the Lance 

District for the period of maximum yellowcake production within the Lance District. 

The NRC recognizes that it would be in the Applicant's operating interest to minimize overlap of 

ground-water drawdowns produced by future potential satellite operations. Thus, Strata would 

minimize the overlap to prevent interference between wellfields during operations as well as 

wellfields undergoing aquifer restoration in order to effectively recover uranium and to restore 

ground-water resources.

As noted earlier, the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (SEO) maintains a database of groundwater rights, including water use, well yield, well location, and well depth; however, the geologic 

interval from which the ground water is extracted is not recorded. Furthermore, data on the 

yield might not be representative of the actual volumes pumped. Thus, the current rate of 

ground-water withdrawal from the Lance and Fox Hills Formations, and in particular the orezone aquifer, cannot be estimated. The Applicant reviewed the Wyoming SEO’s database and 

concluded that most of the permitted stock and domestic wells within the region of the Ross 

Project were completed within the Lance Formation’s sandstones—above the ore zone—and 

are not in hydrologic communication with the ore-zone aquifer (see SEIS Section 3.5 3). The 

depth of the ore zone, typically greater than 120 m [400 feet], and the fact that there are other 
Cumulative Impacts

5-26

aquifers above the ore-zone aquifer, would make the ore-zone aquifer unattractive as a groundwater source (Strata, 2011b). In addition, any future ground-water development of the Lance 

and Fox Hills aquifers would be localized and limited, due to poor water quality (WWDC, 

2002a). 

In addition to the potential for future ISR development in the Lance District, there are a number 

of existing or potential resource-extraction projects within the ground-water cumulative-impacts 

study area that have water demands. These are:

■ Uranium Recovery: Other existing or planned uranium-recovery projects are outside 

the specific geographic area selected for ground-water-related cumulative-impact 

analysis, and would utilize a different stratigraphic horizon than the Ross Project would 

(Strata, 2012a). The planned uranium-recovery Aladdin, Elkhorn, Hauber, and Alzada 

Projects, if they come to fruition, would target uranium in the Fall River and Lakota 

Formations. These Formations are of Lower Cretaceous age, located several thousand 

feet below the Lance and Fox Hills Formations, and are separated by the thick Pierre 

Shale. Thus, uranium-recovery activities in those Formations would not impact the 

same ground water at the Ross Project.

■ Oil Extraction: In the mature oil fields of northeast Wyoming, water is used for EOR 

and is described as “water flooding” (De Bruin, 2007). A planning report prepared for the 

Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) concluded that traditional oil and 

gas production in northeast Wyoming is in decline. Ground-water use by the oil-and-gas 

industry might cause localized aquifer depression, but it would be generally spread over 

a large geographic area and would not typically impact other ground-water resources 

(WWDC, 2002a). At the Ross Project area, the Lance and Fox Hills aquifers show 

approximately 46 m [150 ft] of drawdown due to withdrawals from the three industrial 

water-supply wells that have been used since 1980 for oil extraction (see SEIS Section 

4.5.1) (Strata, 2011b). The Applicant could not develop wellfields south of the Little 

Missouri River until the three water-supply wells cease operation or the water volume 

removed through the three wells diminishes to an acceptable level (NRC, 2014b, 

License Condition 10.19). Only a portion of the water requirements for EOR is provided 

by the Lance and Fox Hills Formations, as stratigraphically higher aquifers are available 

in the western portion of the Project area. 

■ Coal Mining and CBM Extraction: The mining of coal and extraction of CBM occur 

within the western portion of the ground-water cumulative-impacts geographic study 

area (see Figure 5.1). The principal coal seams are in Tongue River Member of the Fort 

Union Formation, which is above the Lance and Fox Hills Formations and which is 

separated by several thousand feet of the Upper Hell Creek (Upper Lance Formation) 

and Lebo (Lower Fort Union Formation) confining units (Hinaman, 2005). Ground-water 

pumping associated with CBM production, coal mining and processing, and mine-mouth 

power generation would therefore not impact ground water within the Lance and Fox 

Hills Formations.
Cumulative Impacts

5-27

■ Bentonite Mining: Bentonite-mining operations take place in the shale horizons 

stratigraphically below the Lance and Fox Hills Formations and are, therefore, outside 

the geographic area for the analysis of ground-water cumulative impacts. 

■ Other Mining: Other potential mining projects, for example, the Bear Lodge Rare Earth 

Project, are also outside the geographic area defined for ground-water cumulative 

impacts.

■ Domestic Use: Ground water extracted for domestic use within northwest Wyoming, 

which includes the ground-water cumulative-impacts study area, is expected to increase 

approximately 24 percent between 2002 – 2030 which includes the underlying 

assumption that population growth will be moderate (WWDC, 2002a). The water 

satisfying this increased need will be meet by pumping the Wasatch and Fort Union 

aquifers, Lance and Fox Hills aquifers, and other, deeper aquifers, all of which possess 

better water quality.

The NRC staff has determined that the cumulative impacts to ground-water quantity in the 

ground-water cumulative-impacts study area would be SMALL. There would be no expected 

increases in water consumption as a result of continued oil and gas extraction and/or 

agriculture, although the possibility of small increases from the Lance and Fox Hills Formations 

as a result of domestic-use requirements exists. The impacts on ground-water quantity from 

uranium recovery in the Lance District would be essentially recovered within 24 years after the 

issuance of the Source and Byproduct Materials License to the Applicant. As described in 

Section 4.5.1.2, the impacts from drawdown during the operation and aquifer-restoration 

phases, and the time it takes for the aquifer to recover to pre-licensing, site-characerization 

conditions, would be SMALL because the drawdown would be only be a small portion of the 

total water in wells. Similar levels and durations of drawdowns would be expected in localized 

areas around wellfields throughout the Lance District if the potential satellite areas were to be 

developed by the Applicant. Therefore, cumulative impacts to ground-water quantity in the 

Lance and Fox Hills Formations would be SMALL. 

Ground-Water Quality

Impacts from previous uranium-recovery activities at Nubeth are part of the cumulative impacts 

to the Ross Project area. Past impacts can be evaluated by comparing Nubeth’s preoperational water-quality data to Nubeth’s post-aquifer-restoration data, as summarized in Table 

5.4 (Nuclear Dynamics, 1980; ND Resources, 1982) and to Strata’s pre-licensing, sitecharacterization data as described in SEIS Section 3.5.1.2. The data in Table 5.4 show that 

aquifer-restoration efforts by Nubeth returned TDS to levels below pre-operational conditions, 

except for the Injection Well 20X, which also contained levels of radiological parameters above 

pre-operational values obtained at the completion of Nubeth’s aquifer-restoration efforts. Of the 

six buffer and monitoring wells in the ore zone, pre-operational mean values for gross alpha, 

radium-226 (Ra-226), and total uranium were achieved by aquifer restoration in three, four, and 

two wells, respectively. In the other wells, concentrations of radiological constituents exceeded 

the average pre-operational levels by 5 – 243 percent at the close of aquifer restoration; the 

concentrations of radiological constituents in the Recovery Well 19X and Injection Well 20X 

exceeded the average pre-operational levels at the close of aquifer restoration. The monitoring 

well in the shallow-monitoring (SM) zone (Well 7X) did not show excursions of TDS and 
Cumulative Impacts

5-28

Table 5.4

Comparison of Pre-Operational† and Post-Restoration†† 

Water Quality at Nubeth Joint Venture

Well in 

Zone Well Use Sample Date

TDS

(mg/L)

Gross 

Alpha

(pCi/L)

Ra-226

(pCi/L)

Uranium

(mg/L)

3X in OZ Buffer Mean Baseline 

1978 1674 209 76 0.07

Restoration 

10/1981 1500 130 22 0.24

4X in OZ Buffer Mean Baseline 

1978 1660 145 16 0.09

Restoration 

10/1981 1510 180 26 0.22

5X in OZ Monitoring Mean Baseline 

1978 1562 88 0.3 0.08

Restoration 4/1980 1550 37 0.5 0.04

6X in OZ Monitoring Mean Baseline 

1978 1746 98 0.4 0.09

Restoration 4/1980 1650 66 0.1 0.095

7X in SM Observation Mean Baseline 

1978 1498 1.4 0.3 0.004

Restoration 4/1980 1400 180 0.6 < 0.001

11X in 

OZ Monitoring Mean Baseline 

1978 1764 78 1.3 0.08

Restoration 4/1980 1730 116 1 0.08

12X in 

OZ Monitoring Mean Baseline 

1978 1596 67 2.2 0.06

Restoration 4/1980 1520 111 1.6 0.08

19X in 

OZ Recovery Mean Baseline 

1978 1672 178 85 0.12

Restoration 

10/1981 1510 300 31 0.48

Industrial 

Supply 2009 – 2011††† 1703 234 39 0.08

20X in 

OZ Injection Mean Baseline 

1978 1284 4.4 1.5 0.003

Restoration 

10/1981 1520 85 20 0.07

Sources: Nuclear Dynamics, 1980; ND Resources, 1982.

Notes: 

 † “Pre-operational” values calculated as the average of five samples collected from April – June 1978 

before Nubeth operations began (Nuclear Dynamics, 1978). These values were identified as “baseline,” though 

that term is not used in this document. †† Restoration data from Nuclear Dynamics, 1980, and ND Resources, 1982.

††† The reported values for Well 19XX18 during 2009 – 2011 are average concentrations from Strata’s pre-licensing, 

site-characterization environmental monitoring (Strata, 2011a; Strata, 2012a). Well 19XX18 is Nubeth’s Recovery 

Well 19X that was converted to a water-supply for oil- and gas-extraction operations in the 1980s.

 *“<” = “Less than,” where the value following the “<” is the detection limit.
Cumulative Impacts

5-29

uranium. The measurements of Ra-226 in Well 7X before and after Nubeth activities were 

equivalent (i.e., within the analytical error of the measurement). The gross-alpha measurement 

of 180 pCi/L [6.7 Bq/L] in Well 7X in April 1980 indicated an excursion of radioactivity into the 

aquifer above the ore zone (see Table 5.4). However, gross-alpha measurements in Well 7X 

during the 1979 aquifer-restoration period were much lower than 180 pCi/L [6.7 Bq/L], ranging 

from 1.4 – 4.7 pCi/L [0.1 – 0.2 Bq/L] which suggests that the measurement in April 1980 may be 

an outlier (Nuclear Dynamics, 1980).

Evaluation of the restoration conditions in Nubeth’s wells provides a short-term assessment of 

past impacts. The longer-term impacts from Nubeth can be determined by a comparison of 

Nubeth’s pre-operational water-quality data with Strata’s pre-licensing, site-characterization 

water-quality data, as described in SEIS Section 3.5.3. The data presented in Tables 3.6 and 

3.7 in SEIS Section 3.5.3 suggest that the current water quality in the ore zone and the SM 

aquifers are the same as each were at the time of Nubeth’s pre-operational sampling. 

For example, the maximum values of TDS, total uranium, Ra-226, and gross alpha determined 

by Strata (see Table 3.6) are less than the maximum values of those parameters measured in 

1978 (see Table 3.7). Specifically, Strata's pre-licensing, site-characterization water quality in 

Well19X (Strata's sample location = 19XX18) can be compared with Nubeth's pre-operational 

data to evaluate longer-term impacts from that past action. The average values as a result of 

the monitoring efforts in 2009, 2010, and 2011 (0.08 mg/L uranium and 1.4 Bq/L [39 pCi/L] Ra226) are less than the values measured in Well 19X in 1978. The current TDS concentrations 

range from 1,650 – 1,790 mg/L, which includes the average concentration of 1,672 mg/L 

measured in 1978. The current gross-alpha measurements range from 6.2 – 12 Bq/L [168 – 

324 pCi/L]; this range encompasses the average concentration of 6.6 Bq/L [180 pCi/L] 

measured in 1978. Thus, these two aquifers (i.e., ore zone and SM zone) are not currently 

impacted by the past uranium-recovery activities by Nubeth. 

As described in SEIS Section 4.5.1, water quality at the Ross Project could be impacted during 

operations by excursions of lixiviant (i.e., process solutions) from the ore-zone aquifer into 

surrounding aquifers. The lixiviant injected into the ore zone causes metals such as uranium, 

vanadium, arsenic, selenium, and molybdenum, as well as other constituents such as radium, to 

dissolve into the ground water. Despite the design of the wellfields and the pumping methods, 

which would contain the uranium-recovery process within the exempted aquifer (see SEIS 

Section 2.1.1), short-term impacts from excursions do occur. As described in SEIS Sections 

2.1.1 and 4.5.1, a network of monitoring wells around the perimeter of each wellfield would

provide the capability for early detection, control, and reversal of such excursions. As Draft 

Source and Byproduct Materials License Condition No. 11.5 indicates, the Applicant would

recover any excursions into aquifers surrounding the ore-zone aquifer (NRC, 2014b). Groundwater restoration would return the exempted aquifer to the ground-water protection standards 

that would be established in accordance with the License. As described in SEIS Section 4.5.1, 

therefore, the potential impacts to the ground-water quality from the Ross Project would be 

SMALL. The same set of potential impacts to short-term ground-water quality, mitigating 

actions, and license requirements would be incorporated into any license that the Applicant 

would be required to obtain for the potential Lance District satellite areas; these would ensure 

that the potential impacts of each satellite area would be SMALL. 

Because the water quality of the exempted aquifer for each potential uranium-recovery project 

would be returned to the ground-water protection standards of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, and 
Cumulative Impacts

5-30

every NRC license would require all excursions to be recovered, the cumulative impacts of the 

all potential uranium-recovery projects would also be SMALL. In the unlikely event that 

increased concentrations of metals mobilized by the lixiviant at the Ross Project or other 

satellite areas in the Lance District migrate downgradient, outside the area affected by lixiviant, 

the geochemical conditions of the ore-zone aquifer in that area would promote lower dissolved 

metal concentrations (i.e., would cause the dissolved metals to precipitate) (NRC, 2007). That 

is, as the dissolved metals enter portions of the aquifer that had not been subjected to the 

oxidizing lixiviant, the naturally occurring, oxygen-deficient conditions would cause chemical 

reactions that would precipitate the dissolved metals into minerals on the rock of the impacted 

aquifer. Thus, cumulative impacts to ground-water quality would be SMALL. Therefore, the 

incremental impacts of the proposed Ross Project in terms of both ground-water quantity and 

quality would be SMALL when added to the SMALL ground-water quantity and quality 

cumulative impacts in the ground-water cumulative-impacts study area.

5.8 Ecology

The geographic area employed by the NRC staff in the analysis of cumulative impacts to 

ecological resources is the entire Powder River Basin (i.e., the “ecology cumulative-impacts 

study area”) because grassland and sagebrush-shrubland habitats are important features of the 

Basin’s entire landscape, and these habitats occur on the Ross Project area as well. The 

Powder River Basin includes approximately 1,801,401 ha [4,451,360 ac] of land (BLM, 2009e). 

Approximately 222,568 acres, or 5 percent, of the Powder River Basin land area has been 

disturbed by past development activities. Of this amount, approximately one-half of the 

disturbed area has been reclaimed (BLM, 2009e). 

The timeframe for the ecology cumulative-impacts analysis is 2013 – 2032. This timeframe was 

chosen to allow impacts to the ecology of the Ross Project area and its vicinity to mature. It 

would take some time for the flora and fauna to fully recover after site restoration; the NRC has 

assumed five years in this cumulative-impacts analysis. 

5.8.1 Terrestrial Ecology

Activities occurring in the vicinity of the Ross Project include livestock and wildlife grazing, 

agricultural production, and mineral extraction. These activities take place over a larger area of 

the Powder River Basin as well. As discussed in SEIS Section 4.6, potential impacts to 

ecological resources, both flora and fauna, include reduction in wildlife habitat and forage 

productivity, modification of existing vegetative communities, and potential spread of invasivespecies and noxious-weed populations. Impacts to wildlife could involve loss, alteration, and 

incremental habitat fragmentation; displacement of and stresses on wildlife; and direct and 

indirect mortalities. 

5.8.1.1 Vegetation

Vegetation at the Ross Project area is primarily sagebrush shrubland and upland grasslands, 

which are typical of the Powder River Basin. As discussed in Section 4.6, the Ross Project’s 

impacts to vegetation at Project area would be SMALL. 

There are no licensed or operating uranium-recovery projects within 80 km [50 mi] of the Ross 

Project area, although there is a potential for development of satellite areas as part of the 
Cumulative Impacts

5-31

Applicant’s development of the entire Lance District. There are also four potential uraniumrecovery projects in the very early stages of development as described earlier (i.e., Aladdin, 

Elkhorn, Hauber and Alzada) (see SEIS Section 5.3). To assess the extent of impacted 

vegetation as a result of the development of these areas and projects, the NRC staff assumed 

that approximately the same area affected by the Ross Project (114 ha [282 ac] ) would also be 

affected by these other uranium-recovery activities. With this assumption, the four Lance 

District satellite areas and the four other potential uranium-recovery projects would impact 

approximately 904 ha [2,240 ac], for a total area of vegetation impacts in the study area of 1,017 

ha [2,520 ac]. This area would be approximately 0.05 percent of the total ecology cumulativeimpacts study area. Therefore, these ISR projects would have a SMALL impact on vegetation. 

Other mineral-development activities described in Section 5.2, including coal-, oil-, and gasextraction developments, occur within the Powder River Basin. Currently, 53,680 ha [132,645 

ac] of land is disturbed by these activities (BLM, 2009e). Land restoration and reclamation 

would be required for these operations within the Powder River Basin in their respective 

permits. It has been estimated that all but approximately 0.8 percent of the disturbed vegetation 

would be reclaimed (BLM, 2009e). The remaining areas would be associated with permanent 

infrastructure components. Therefore, the impact to vegetation within the Powder River Basin 

due to past and present actions as well as RFFAs would be SMALL to MODERATE, and the 

Ross Project’s incremental contribution to vegetation impacts would be SMALL.

5.8.1.2 Wildlife

Loss and degradation of native sagebrush-shrubland habitats has affected much of this 

ecosystem type as well as sagebrush-obligate species including the Greater sage-grouse. Most 

of the sagebrush shrublands in the Powder River Basin have already been significantly 

impacted by land uses such as livestock grazing, crop agriculture, or resource extraction. 

These uses can influence habitats either directly or indirectly; for example, an indirect effect 

would be the alteration of the natural regime, which could change the frequency of land-clearing 

fires (Naugle et al., 2009). As another example of a direct impact, the long-term viability of the 

Greater 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 production are regarded as 

playing a major role in the decline of this species in the eastern portion of its range (Becker, et 

al. 2009). Therefore, there are currently MODERATE cumulative impacts to the Greater sagegrouse. As of the time the NRC’s cumulative-impacts analysis was conducted, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) had designated the Greater sage-grouse as a “candidate 

species” under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and will continue to consider the bird 

on an annual basis for listing as a threatened or endangered species.

However, the impact to sagebrush-shrubland communities at the proposed Ross Project would 

be SMALL because only 114 ha [282 ac] , 16 percent of the total Project area, would be 

disturbed. Additionally, only 21 percent of the Ross Project area consists of sagebrushshrubland habitat. Most of the habitat disturbance at the Project would be a result of scattered 

drilling sites for uranium-recovery and monitoring wells; these would not result in large expanses 

of habitat being dramatically transformed from its original character, as do other surface-mining 

operations; no substantial long-term impact would be expected. No leks or wintering areas 

have been identified on the Ross Project area, and the area is not located within a designated 

core area for the Greater sage-grouse.
Cumulative Impacts

5-32

Potential impacts (e.g., habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and noise disturbance) would also 

likely occur at mines as well as oil- and gas-extraction sites throughout the ecology geographic 

cumulative-impacts study area, and these impacts would potentially affect localized wildlife 

populations in the same manner as the Ross Project. These impacts to other species would be 

similar; therefore, impacts as a result of the other Lance-District satellites and uranium-recovery 

projects would be SMALL. Other past, present, and RFFAs discussed in the Powder River 

Basin could result in the disturbance of tens of thousands of acres. However, site-reclamation 

requirements of required permits as well as SOPs and BMPs would mitigate these impacts. 

Thus, the cumulative impacts on terrestrial ecology would be SMALL within the Powder River 

Basin. Cumulative impacts to the Greater sage-grouse would continue to be MODERATE, 

however. The Ross Project’s incremental impacts to cumulative impacts on ecology in the 

Powder River Basin would also be SMALL.

5.8.2 Aquatic Ecology

Three amphibians and five reptiles designated as Wyoming Species of Greatest Conservation 

Need (SGCN) have been observed on the Ross Project area. However, because the Applicant 

has committed to avoiding aquatic areas during Project construction and operation as much as 

possible (Strata, 2011a), the proposed Ross Project would have a SMALL impact on aquatic 

resources. Similarly, due to the amount of surface disturbance in the Powder River Basin (i.e., 

5 percent), and the mitigation requirements associated with the required regulatory permits and 

licenses, the cumulative impacts on aquatic ecology anticipated from the other past or present 

actions as well as RFFAs within the Powder River Basin would be SMALL (BLM, 2009e).

5.8.3 Protected Species

No Federal- or State-listed protected plant species or designated critical habitats occur within 

the proposed Ross Project area. With regard to Federal or State protected species, the Ross 

Project has the potential to impact 18 avian species known to be present on the Ross Project 

area (see SEIS Section 4.6). The limited footprint of the actual buildings and other structures 

across the entire Ross Project area would serve to reduce the impacts to protected species. In 

addition, the Applicant’s proposed mitigation measures described in SEIS Section 4.6 would 

further diminish the respective impacts. These Impacts would be SMALL.

There are Federally listed protected plant and wildlife species within the Powder River Basin, 

however, including the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid, the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, the 

boreal toad, and the mountain plover (BLM, 2003). In addition, the range of bald eagles is 

throughout the Powder River Basin. On the lists of sensitive species maintained by the BLM, 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and the U.S. Forest Service, there are 3 plants, 

3 amphibians, 1 snake, 10 fish, 25 birds, and 8 mammals that are known to occur within the 

Powder River Basin. For the majority of these species, the BLM has determined that there 

could be impacts on these species due to development within the Basin (BLM, 2003); however, 

given the location of development activities as compared with the geographical occurrence of 

many of these species, and with mitigating permit requirements in place, the cumulative impacts 

to all but one species would be SMALL. Potential impacts to the Greater sage-grouse were 

identified by the BLM to be of particular concern.

The USFWS had designated the Greater sage-grouse as a “candidate species” under the ESA. 

However, after implementation of Wyoming EO 2011-5, the USFWS has endorsed the State’s 
Cumulative Impacts

5-33

conservation strategy that, if fully supported and implemented, would be a means to prevent a

listing decision. Within the Power River Basin, potential impacts to the sage-grouse were 

identified due to loss of habitat and connectivity, construction of disposal impoundments for 

produced waters generated during oil and gas production, and disturbance related to increased 

vehicular traffic (BLM, 2003). Because of these factors, the BLM concluded that the cumulative 

impacts would likely result in a downward trend for the sage-grouse population, and they may 

lead to its federal listing. 

The USFWS has completed a 90-day finding for the eastern population of the boreal toad, and it 

determined that there is substantial information that the eastern population might qualify as a 

distinct population segment and that listing may be warranted under 50 CFR Part 167. The 

USFWS is moving forward with a 12-month finding, but at this time the boreal toad is not 

Federally listed (USFWS, 2013).

Therefore, the NRC staff determined that the cumulative impacts on protected species within the

ecology study area resulting from all past and present actions and RFFAs is SMALL to 

MODERATE. Thus, the proposed Ross Project would have a SMALL incremental impact when 

added to the SMALL to MODERATE cumulative impacts on the ecology of the Powder River 

Basin.

5.9 Air Quality

The geographic area for the air-quality cumulative-impacts analysis was based upon the NRC 

staff’s consideration of other regional air-pollutant-modeling studies that address larger-scale 

emissions sources applicable to oil and gas production as well as a general understanding of 

the effect of source-emission strength on the spatial extent and magnitude of downwind air 

impacts (i.e., larger plumes transport air emissions farther distances downwind before 

diminishing to insignificant levels). The “air-quality cumulative impacts study area” was 

therefore defined for air emissions as the circular area formed by an 80-km [50-mi] radius 

around the Ross Project area. However, significant air-pollution contributors and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) sensitive areas up to approximately160 km [100 mi] were 

included, as appropriate, in this analysis. As shown on Figure 5.1, an 80-km [50-mile] radius 

area encompasses the northeast corner of Wyoming, including the city of Gillette and numerous 

small towns, and extends into South Dakota and Montana. 

Any immediate air-quality impacts of the Ross Project would dissipate quickly once wellfield 

closure and facility decommissioning is complete and as vegetation is re-established in the 

areas where there was soil disturbance. The generally windy conditions present at the Ross 

Project readily disperse airborne pollutants, and the suspended particulates under the influence 

of gravity, fall out of suspension. As described in Section 5.3.2, the timeframe considered in this 

assessment of air-quality cumulative impacts begins in 2013, when it was estimated the 

Applicant could be issued a Source and Byproduct Materials License by the NRC, and ends in 

2027 when the Source and Byproduct Materials License would be projected to be terminated 

(see Figure 2.6). After license termination, there would be no impacts on air quality by the Ross 

Project as all sources of air pollution would be no longer operative.

As noted in SEIS Section 4.7, the potential impacts to air quality from the Ross Project would be 

SMALL during each phase of the Project. Air-quality impacts primarily involve combustionengine emissions from both the equipment that would be used predominantly during the 
Cumulative Impacts

5-34

construction and decommissioning phases of the Ross Project as well as the combustionengine emissions associated with the commute of Project workers and Project deliveries and 

shipments during all phases. In addition, there would be measurable fugitive-dust emissions 

from roads traveled by vehicles used for commuting, deliveries, and shipments to and from the 

Ross Project facility as well as from the land-disturbing activities during, especially, the 

construction and decommissioning phases. 

Very small emissions are also possible from processes at the CPP and/or the storage of waste 

liquids in the surface impoundments at the Ross Project facility. These could include minor 

chemical-vapor emissions during tank and vessel refilling, chemical delivery, or waste 

shipments. Windblown emissions from the surface impoundments are also possible. However, 

SOPs, BMPs, and other air-quality-related management actions such as the monitoring plans 

that the Applicant would adhere to, would help mitigate air emissions and air-quality impacts. 

Other facility-design attributes, such as exhaust-point filters, would help to reduce these 

potential air-quality impacts to even lesser proportions. 

The Ross Project could contribute to air-quality cumulative impacts when its environmental 

impacts overlap with those of other present actions or RFFAs. As described in SEIS Section 

5.2, other present and future actions in the air-quality cumulative-impacts study area could 

include additional in situ uranium-recovery activities, both those by the Applicant in the Lance 

District and the four other potential ISR projects in the study area; coal, bentonite, and rareearth element mining; oil and gas production; electricity generation by a wind farm; and the 

current uses of cattle and sheep grazing. The Ross Project would ultimately disturb 114 ha [282 

ac] of ground surface; there are, however, no other existing, present ISR projects within the airquality cumulative-impacts study area to generate impacts to air quality. In addition, air-quality 

impacts from past operations in the study area have been resolved and are no longer relevant 

as noted above and as discussed in SEIS Section 3.7. 

Three of the most important metrics in the estimate of the cumulative impacts of combustionengine and fugitive-dust emissions are the amount of soil that is disturbed during a project’s 

construction, road installation, and wellfield drilling as well as the types of roads used to access 

a given project (e.g., gravel or dirt roads), their maintenance, and the number of vehicles on the 

roads (see SEIS Section 4.7). In general, undisturbed surfaces produce much less dust than 

disturbed surfaces, because the undisturbed surfaces usually require considerably higher wind 

speeds to pick up and suspend particulates that then could become an emission source 

(Countess et al., 2001). Further, in general, fugitive dusts are usually generated by ground-level 

activities. 

Studies have been performed to better understand the characteristics of the windblown fugitive 

dust and mechanically re-suspended road dust that contribute to regional haze (i.e., visible air 

pollutants such as fugitive dust). These studies are summarized in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1 and 

indicate that the majority of fugitive-dust-related air-quality impacts caused by the Ross Project 

would not be expected to extend beyond the 80-km [50-mi] radius around the proposed Ross 

Project area during its entire lifecycle.

However, as described in SEIS Section 5.2, four satellite areas within the Lance District could 

be developed for uranium recovery by the Applicant (Strata, 2012a). The NRC staff has made 

the assumption that each of these satellite areas would involve the same amount of soil 

disturbance as the Ross Project. (This is a conservative approach, as the satellite areas would 
Cumulative Impacts

5-35

not include a CPP and surface impoundments and, thus, such construction would not occur.) 

Thus, the satellite areas could result in approximately 450 ha [1,120 ac] of soil disturbance. It 

was further assumed that any air-quality impacts of these satellite areas would be mitigated with 

the same measures identified in SEIS Section 4.7 for the Ross Project itself. These dust-control 

measures would include the Applicant’s minimizing the area of soil that would be disturbed at 

any one time, spraying water to suppress dust, and promptly revegetating disturbed areas. 

Further, the Applicant’s enforcement of speed limits, treatment of roads to minimize dust, and 

restriction of equipment-operation hours would further mitigate fugitive-dust impacts.

Although no other nuclear-fuel-cycle or ISR projects are currently operated within 80 km [50 mi] 

of the Ross Project, within that area there are four other, potential uranium-recovery projects in 

the early planning stages as noted in Section 5.2. These include the Aladdin Project (7,100 ha 

[17,550 ac]), the Elkhorn Project (2,110 ha [5,215 ac]), the Hauber Project (2,090 ha [5,160 ac]), 

and the Alzada Project (10,000 ha [25,000 ac]) (Strata, 2012a). 

It has been assumed that these projects would be developed similarly to the Ross Project and 

that 16 percent of the total area of each would be disturbed during these Projects’ lifecycles. 

This would result in approximately 3,150 ha (7,840 ac) of soil disturbance. Because ISR 

uranium-recovery commonly employs a phased approach to well drilling and wellfield 

construction, and because the four Projects would not begin construction simultaneously (as 

each must go through an average two-year licensing process), the degree of overlap for 

activities associated with these four Projects would likely occur predominantly during the 

wellfield-installation phase, not during the construction phases. Thus, the surface disturbances 

likely would not occur simultaneously and would not be additive. Once fugitive dust was 

suspended in the air, the dust would settle out within the distances described earlier (not 

exceeding 80 km [50 mi]. In this assessment of air-quality cumulative impacts, it has been 

further assumed that combustion-engine and fugitive-dust emissions as well as any processingplant emissions would be managed and mitigated in a manner similar to the Ross Project. 

Therefore, the relative contribution of reasonably foreseeable future uranium-recovery projects 

to any regional air-quality impacts would be SMALL.

Ten current bentonite-mining operations are within 80 km [50 mi] of the Ross Project area (see 

Figure 5.1). The straight-line distances to the ten active bentonite mines from the Ross Project 

range from 5 – 88 km [3 – 55 mi]. The Oshoto bentonite mine is approximately 5 km [3 mi] from 

the Ross Project area; the next closest bentonite mine is approximately 56 km [35 mi] distant 

(Strata, 2012a). Surface mining of bentonite can result in significant removal and disturbance of 

soils during operation, resulting in both combustion-engine and fugitive-dust emissions. 

However, bentonite mines must apply the same types of SOPs, BMPs, and other air-qualitymanagement tools as would the Ross Project, including spraying exposed soils to ensure that 

fugitive particulates are not generated. Consequently, bentonite mining has a SMALL impact on 

air quality. 

Numerous oil fields are located within 80 km [50 mi] of the Ross Project area. In general, future 

development of these resources would include well-installation and operation activities which 

would cause combustion-engine emissions and some soil disturbance, generating fugitive dust. 

However, it has been assumed that combustion-engine and fugitive-dust emissions would be 

managed and mitigated in a manner similar to the Ross Project. Both the potential rare-earth 

minerals extraction and wind-power projects have also been assumed to be required to manage 

and minimize each project’s respective soil disturbance and combustion emissions during 
Cumulative Impacts

5-36

construction and operation. Thus, the air-quality impacts of local oil and gas production would 

be SMALL. As shown on Figure 5.1, 9 coal mines are located within 80 km [50 mi] of the Ross 

Project area, southwest of the Project (Strata, 2012a). The straight-line distances to the nine 

active coal mines within 80 km [50 mi] range from 45 – 72 km [28 – 45 mi]. Five surface coal 

mines are within approximately 48 km [30 mi] of the proposed Ross Project. This distance is 

sufficient to ensure that any fugitive dusts that would be generated at the coal mines would not 

be additive and that the particulates, whether mechanically suspended or windblown, would 

settle out prior to traveling great distances. 

At least six power plants are currently operating within the 80-km (50-mile) radius of the circular 

air-quality cumulative-impacts study area. Of these, the coal-fired Wyodak plant near Gillette, 

Wyoming, is a significant emitter of CO2 (greater than 3 million t/yr [3.3 million T/yr]) and other 

hazardous air pollutants. Wyodak is one of the four coal-fired power plants in Wyoming that are 

the subject of recent EPA actions to compel upgrades to their pollution-control systems (to the 

“best available control technology [BACT]) in order to reduce CO2 and other emissions. The 

other coal-fired power plants within the air-quality cumulative-impacts study area emit much less 

pollution due to advanced BACT controls. 

The newest power plant, Dry Fork Station, seven miles north of Gillette, is a natural-gas fired 

plant with advanced pollution controls. Two other plants, Neil Simpson near Gillette, Wyoming, 

and Ben French near Rapid City, South Dakota, generate power by burning both natural gas 

and coal. In addition, the Black Hills Corporation has announced its closure of the 22-megawatt 

Neil Simpson 1 unit in March 2014 (Wyoming Star Tribune, 8/8/2012). Two Elk, a waste-coal 

power plant proposed in the mid-1990s for northeast Wyoming has yet to be financed or built. 

The future development of coal-fired power plants in the air-quality study area would be subject 

to stringent pollution controls, if any were to be built. Ms. Marion Loomis, the Executive Director 

of the Wyoming Mining Association, has predicted that many older power plants will be shut 

down in the next ten years in the U.S. and that some might be converted to natural gas 

(Wyoming Star Tribune, 8/8/2012). Therefore, it is unlikely that any new power plants without 

BACT would be developed within the air-quality cumulative-impacts study area. Given the large 

area that encompasses the emissions from these plants, as well as the moves toward BACT 

performance, the regional air-quality impacts would be SMALL.

These conclusions are consistent with a previous evaluation by BLM of potential air-quality 

impacts from future coal and CBM mining as well as oil and gas production in the Powder River 

Basin (BLM, 2003; BLM, 2006; BLM, 2009b; BLM, 2009e; BLM, 2010; ENSR, 2006; BLM, 

2009e). This recent BLM cumulative-impacts analysis of air quality in the Powder River Basin 

was conducted to support the development of increased coal production (BLM, 2009e). 

Emissions data were acquired for the base year of 2004 for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) , and particular matter less than 

10 microns (PM10); these were then modeled to 2020. The estimated impacts of the modeled 

emissions indicated that air-pollutant concentrations were compliant with (i.e., below) the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), except for the 2020 estimates when shortterm and annual PM2.5 and PM10 standards were exceeded in localized areas. Therefore, 

although future coal-mine expansion and development of other projects could result in some 

increase in emissions in the Powder River Basin and downwind areas during the cumulativeimpacts study’s timeframe, such impacts would be SMALL. 
Cumulative Impacts

5-37

Further, as noted in SEIS Section 3.7.3, no violations of the ozone standard have occurred in 

the area. The levels reported by the nearby air-quality monitoring stations described earlier, 

however, are close to the respective ozone standard (see Table 3.17 in SEIS Section 4.7.1). 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions, if conducted concurrently with the Ross Project, could 

result in occasional exceedances of the ozone standard because of the cumulative number of 

vehicles associated with all of the activities. However, because of the distance to these mines 

and the pollutant mixing afforded by the winds in Wyoming, air-quality impacts related to ozone 

would also be SMALL.

Thus, all contributors to air-quality cumulative impacts related to these actions would be SMALL. 

Because the impacts of gaseous and particulate emissions associated with uranium recovery 

would be SMALL, as described in SEIS Section 4.7.1, the NRC staff has concluded that the 

incremental air-quality impacts of the Ross Project would be a SMALL contribution to the 

SMALL cumulative impacts to air quality resulting from past, present, and future actions.

5.10 Global Climate Change and Greenhouse-Gas Emissions

5.10.1 Global Climate Change

While there is general agreement in the scientific community that some change in climate is 

occurring, considerable uncertainty remains in the magnitude and direction of some of these 

changes, especially during the prediction of trends in a specific geographic location. To predict 

the effect on climate change of the proposed Ross Project (and vice-versa), temperature and 

precipitation data for Wyoming were evaluated. Data have been collected over the period of 

1895 – 2010. On average, the temperature in Wyoming has increased approximately 0.09 °C 

[0.16 °F] per decade during this time period (NCDC, 2011a). In its report, the U.S. Global 

Change Research Team (USGCRT) indicated that the temperatures in the past 15 years have 

risen faster (i.e., 0.83 °C [1.5 °F] for the Great Plains), most of which is attributed to warmer 

winters (GCRP, 2009). The projected change in temperature over the period from 2000 – 2020, 

which encompasses the period that the Ross Project would be licensed and operated, ranges 

from a decrease of approximately 0.28 °C [0.5 °F] to an increase of approximately 1.1 °C [2 °F] 

(GCRP, 2009).

For the same period (i.e., 1895 – 2010), a slight downward trend in precipitation (0.30 cm [0.12 

in] per decade) has been measured (NCDC, 2011b). Nevertheless, the USGCRT has predicted 

that the Great Plains region would receive increased precipitation in future decades. Most of 

the precipitation is expected to fall in the colder months (i.e., winter and spring), and the 

summer and fall are predicted to become drier. In addition, with the colder months expected to 

warm over the next several decades, more precipitation would fall in liquid form, resulting in less 

snow pack in the higher elevations (GCRP, 2009). 

The small predicted increases in temperatures and precipitation over the next decade would 

have no effect on any of the phases of the Ross Project. Because the most significant activities 

at the Ross Project would be belowground, the effects of the surficial and atmospheric 

environments are not expected to impact significantly uranium recovery. There could be an 

increase in recharge to aquifers underlying the Ross Project area in future years, which would 

result from the predicted increased precipitation (i.e., higher precipitation would consequently 

increase infiltration into the ground-water regime). This could affect the Ross Project by 

increasing the volume of ground water in the ore-zone and improving the effectiveness of the 
Cumulative Impacts

5-38

aquifer-restoration process. Similarly, while potential changes to the Ross Project area’s 

environment and resources, such as ecology, are plausible, the small magnitude of the 

predicted climate change during the period when the uranium recovery would be conducted 

would not be sufficient to alter the environmental conditions at the Ross Project area in a 

manner that would significantly change the environmental impacts from those that have been 

evaluated in this SEIS. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed Ross Project would have 

a SMALL incremental impact to predicted climate change. 

5.10.2 Greenhouse-Gas Emissions

The evaluation of cumulative impacts of greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions requires the use of a 

global-climate model. A comparison of annual carbon dioxide emissions by source is provided 

below as Table 5.5. A U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP) report provided a 

synthesis of the results of numerous climate-modeling studies (GCRP, 2009). The NRC staff 

has concluded that the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions around the world, as presented in 

the GCRP report, are an appropriate basis for its evaluation of cumulative impacts. 

Table 5.5

Comparison of Annual Mass of Carbon-Dioxide Emissions by Source

Source

Annual CO2 Emissions

(tonnes [T])

Percent of World 

Emissions

Percent of U.S. 

Emissions

Global Emissions 

(EPA, 2009)

28,000,000,000 

[30,884,000,000] 100% 500%

United States

(EPA, 2009)

6,000,000,000 

[6,618,000,000] 21% 100%

Current/Proposed 

ISR Facilities

(NRC, 2011b)

7,380 

[8,140] 0.000026% 0.00012%

Average U.S. 

Passenger Vehicles

(FHWA, 2006)

4.5

[5] Negligible Negligible

Estimated Proposed 

Ross Project 

(Strata, 2011c)

11,872

[13,087] 0.000042% 0.0002%

Notes: t = Tonnes, or Metric tons.

 T = Short tons, or U.S. tons.

Based upon the impacts identified in the GCRP report, the national and worldwide cumulative 

impacts of GHG emissions are noticeable, but they are not destabilizing (refer to SEIS Section 

5.3 which defines the impact magnitudes that the NRC uses). Consequently, a meaningful 

approach to address the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions, including carbon dioxide, is to 

recognize that such emissions contribute to climate change and that the carbon footprint is a 

relevant factor in the evaluation of potential impacts of alternatives.
Cumulative Impacts

5-39

The Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) prepared a report for the WDEQ that provides an 

inventory and forecast of Wyoming’s GHG emissions (CCS, 2007). These emissions data were 

based upon projections from electricity generation, fuel use, and other GHG-emitting activities. 

Emissions are reported as carbon-dioxide equivalents (CO2e); this conversion renders all of the 

various gases emitted (i.e., methane or nitrogen oxides) during an operation or activity into an 

equivalent-GHG effect compared to carbon dioxide. Gross CO2e emissions in 2005 for 

Wyoming were 56 million t [62 million T]; these account for less than 1 percent (i.e., 0.8 percent) 

of the total U.S. gross GHG emissions. This total is reduced to 36 million t [40 million T] CO2e 

as a result of annual sequestration (i.e., removal) due to forestry and other land uses (CCS, 

2007).

Wyoming has a higher per-capita emission rate than the national average (i.e., greater than 4 

times the national average), due primarily to the State’s fossil-fuel-extraction industry, industries 

that consume great amounts of fossil fuels, a large agricultural industry, great distances 

between Wyoming cities, and a small population (EPA, 2008). The report shows that the 

Wyoming GHG emissions would continue to grow as demand for electricity is projected to 

increase, followed by emissions associated with transportation. It is estimated that Wyoming 

gross GHG emissions will be 69 million t [76 million T] by 2020 (EPA, 2008).

According to the WOGCC, Wyoming contains over 33,000 active gas and oil wells, 45 

operational gas-processing plants, 5 oil refineries, and over 14,484 km [9,000 mi] of gas 

pipelines (CCS, 2007). Because there is no regulatory requirement to track carbon dioxide or 

methane emissions, there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with the estimated 

Wyoming GHG emissions from oil- and gas-production operations . However, the CCS 

estimated that approximately 13.5 million t [14.9 million T] of CO2e was emitted by fossil-fuel 

industries (CCS, 2007). Of this amount, 80 percent was due to the natural-gas industry. This 

amount is expected to grow an additional 8 – 10 percent in the next decade (CCS, 2007). No 

data currently exists for the non-fossil-fuel industries, including the uranium-recovery industry.

In response to current concerns related to GHG emissions, the Applicant evaluated carbondioxide emissions for the lifecycle of the Ross Project and then compared them with other forms 

of resource extraction. Annual and cumulative carbon-dioxide emissions from the Ross Project 

during the construction and decommissioning phases were estimated by the Applicant during 

the air-permitting process for the WDEQ (Strata, 2011c). Combustion-engine exhaust 

calculations performed for the Ross Project were based upon a combination of Project-specific 

and representative information appropriate to support a conservative emissions-screening 

analysis. The primary source of carbon-dioxide emissions at the Ross Project would result from 

combustion-engine emissions from construction equipment, including drill rigs (see Table 5.6). 

The GHG inventory was calculated for the maximum yellowcake production rate of 1,360 t/yr 

[1,500 T/yr]. Construction equipment is used most frequently during initial facility construction 

and wellfield installation, but also later during the decommissioning phase to demolish buildings, 

dismantle equipment, and reclaim the land.

The Applicant found that minor amounts of methane and nitrogen oxides, both of which are 

considered GHG, would be emitted during natural-gas combustion. The GHG potential or CO2e 

of these emissions is a fraction of one percent of the carbon-dioxide emissions, and they were 

therefore omitted from the calculations. The maximum GHG emissions per year coincide with 

the year where some wellfield installation, facility and wellfield operation, and aquifer restoration 

would occur concurrently (i.e., Year 4).
Cumulative Impacts

5-40

Table 5.6

Maximum Annual Greenhouse-Gas Emissions 

(CO2 in t [T])

Activity Carbon Dioxide 

(t [T])

Uranyl Tricarbonate Breakdown 640 [705]

Sodium Bicarbonate in Eluate 776 [855]

Product Drying 871 [960]

Space Heaters 1,049 [1,156]

Diesel Powered Equipment 8,433 [9,296]

Diesel Generators 104 [115]

TOTAL 11,872 [13,087]

Source: Strata, 2011c.

As described above, the total gross amount of GHGs produced in Wyoming in 2005 was 56 

million t [61.7 million T], without the reducing effects of sequestration (EPA, 2008). If the 36 

million t [39.7 million T] of GHGs sequestration is taken into account (EPA, 2008), the net total 

of GHGs produced annually in Wyoming is 20 million t [22 million T]. The Ross Project would 

conservatively produce a maximum annual GHG total of 11,872 t [13,087 T] (as carbon dioxide). 

This figure equates to approximately 0.06 percent of the net total GHGs produced in Wyoming 

in 2005. If there has been an increase in GHG emissions, or a decrease in sequestration since 

2005, the effect of the Ross Project would be even less. 

The Applicant’s use of BMPs and other mitigation measures could minimize the emission of 

GHGs at the Ross Project. These mitigation measures could include, but are not limited to, the 

Applicant’s performing the following:

■ Using fossil-fuel vehicles that meet latest emission standards. 

■ Ensuring that diesel-powered construction equipment and drill rigs are properly tuned 

and maintained. 

■ Using low-sulfur diesel fuel. 

■ Using newer, cleaner-running equipment. 

■ Avoiding equipment idling or equipment running unnecessarily. 

■ Minimizing the number of trips to drilling pads and wells. 

Therefore, the potential impact of GHGs from the Ross Project would be SMALL and the 

cumulative impacts of GHG within the cumulative-impacts study area would be SMALL.
Cumulative Impacts

5-41

5.11 Noise

Cumulative noise impacts were assessed within a rectangular area, a 300-m [1,000-ft] distance 

from all points on the sides of the Lance District, so as to include the potential development by 

the Applicant of satellite areas within the Lance District (the “noise cumulative-impacts study 

area”) (see SEIS Section 5.2). Although some noises would be detectable beyond the Lance 

District, this distance was considered appropriate because noise dissipates a short distance 

from the source. 

As described in SEIS Section 5.3.2, the timeframe considered in the assessment of potential 

noise cumulative impacts begins in 2013, when it was estimated the Applicant could be issued a 

Source and Byproduct Materials License by the NRC, and it ends in 2027, when all facility 

decommissioning and other disturbed-areas reclamation has been completed (see Figure 2.6 in 

Section 2.1.1). All Ross Project-related noise of any type would cease at the end of the 

decommissioning phase. There would be no more activities taking place at the Project area that 

would generate noise, nor would there be any workers commutes to and from the Project area, 

supply deliveries to the area, and yellowcake shipments from the area.

As discussed in SEIS Section 4.8, the potential impacts as a result of noise at the Ross Project 

result from both activities taking place at the Project itself as well as automobiles and trucks 

coming and going from the Project area. The noise generated at the Ross Project area would 

be the greatest during its construction phase and second greatest during the decommissioning 

phase. Vehicular noise would be generated during all phases, however, as workers commute; 

as supplies, materials, and uranium-loaded resin are delivered to the Project; and as yellowcake 

and wastes are taken away from the Project. All of these sources of noise would generate 

SMALL to MODERATE noise impacts during the lifecycle of the Ross Project.

As shown in Figure 2.6 in SEIS Section 2.1.1, the potential development of the Lance District 

would occur in significantly overlapping phases. Each of the phases (i.e., construction, 

operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning) at each of the satellite areas would 

produce the same noise as discussed in SEIS Section 4.8.1 for each phase of the Ross Project. 

At the Ross Project itself, the sources of noise are primarily associated with the operation of 

construction and drilling equipment during facility construction and wellfield installation as well 

as vehicular noise. In general, the noise generated during the Project would occur during only 

Ross Project facility construction, not at any of the satellite areas because the satellite areas 

would be predominantly only additional wellfields. However, the Applicant has indicated it could 

construct an IX facility at the Barber satellite area to treat pregnant lixiviant by IX. Thus, some 

construction noise can be expected there while that smaller facility is built.

As Figure 2.6 depicts, wellfield installation at the Ross Project would begin within a few months 

of the Project’s start (after licensing). Other wellfields in the Lance District would begin 

approximately one year following that time. Over the following years, other wellfields would 

begin to enter the aquifer-restoration phase and even decommissioning. This noise cumulativeimpacts analysis has assumed that the noise generated within the Lance District would be the 

same as that generated during the four phases of the Project’s lifecycle. Thus, this noise—the 

maximum of which would occur during the CPP’s and surface impoundments’ construction 

during the same time the first wellfields are being installed—would be SMALL.
Cumulative Impacts

5-42

The phases when the Ross Project is being operated—60 operations workers—overlap with the 

installation of wells in two new satellite areas—70 well-installation workers—and continuing 

uranium recovery at one satellite area—20 wellfield operators—would result in 440 passenger 

vehicles and approximately 24 heavy truck trips per day, which would be the highest traffic 

volume anticipated for the Ross Project. During the initial construction phase of the Ross 

Project, when the CPP would be constructed, there would be approximately 400 passenger 

vehicles and 24 heavy truck trips per day. Thus, the maximum estimated impacts of vehicular

noise during any point in time would not differ much from the noise evaluated in SEIS Section 

4.8, and, therefore, these impacts would be short-term and SMALL to MODERATE (for the 

nearest residences). The transportation of process chemicals and supplies to the Ross Project, 

and yellowcake and waste shipments from the Ross Project, were predicated on the maximum 

yellowcake production rate of 1.4 million kg/yr [3 million lb/yr], which would include the truck 

delivery of uranium-loaded IX resin from the Barber satellite area to the Ross Project’s CPP. 

Consequently, vehicular noise would not appreciably increase with the additional Lance District 

satellite areas, even during overlapping phases, because the approximate number of vehicles—

400—has already been considered in SEIS Section 4.8. 

There are no past or present actions nor additional RFFAs within the noise cumulative-impacts 

study area than those in the Lance District itself; all of the ISR facilities in the preplanning stage 

near the Ross Project are over ten miles away from the Project area. Similarly, all other present 

and future actions are greater than 300 m [1,000 ft] away, and no cumulative noise impacts 

would occur. (And, all noise ceases when an action is completed, so no past actions are 

relevant to this analysis.) This cumulative-impacts analysis included a search for any planned 

oil- and gas-extraction projects that would take place in the Lance District; however, none were 

identified. Because the Applicant is also unaware of any such plans, this analysis did not 

include any noise related to future oil and gas wells in the Lance District. Thus, constructionnoise cumulative impacts would be SMALL.

Some of the present and future actions that could be constructed near the Ross Project area as 

described in SEIS Section 5.2, however, could produce noise cumulative impacts related to 

vehicular traffic. For example, the primary access route to and from the Ross Project and the 

Lance District would be along D Road (County Road [CR] 68) for 18.3 miles, then the New 

Haven Road (CR 164) for 3.0 miles to the appropriate access roads onto the Ross Project area 

itself (see Figure 2.1 in SEIS Section 2.1) (Strata, 2011a). Virtually all traffic associated with the 

Ross Project would use this access route (Strata, 2012a). Of the present and potential projects 

identified during the noise cumulative-impacts analysis, the only potential projects that would 

share the route on D and New Haven Roads would be the Elkhorn and Hauber ISR Projects. 

Because of the uncertainty of uranium-recovery and processing methods that would be used, no 

estimate of the number of employees or truck traffic is possible at this time (Strata, 2012). 

However, if it is assumed that the same workforce would be required for those two 

developments (as was assumed in the transportation cumulative-impact analysis in SEIS 

Section 5.5), then there would be SMALL to MODERATE cumulative impacts with regard to 

vehicular noise along D and New Haven Roads. 

In addition, the existing bentonite mine northeast of the Ross Project area would contribute to 

noise along some of the routes potentially taken by the Applicant’s personnel at the Ross 

Project (see Figure 5.1). Highway-legal trucks (as opposed to heavy mine-haul trucks) transport 

bentonite from the Oshoto Mine to a processing and packaging plant in Upton (see Figure 5.1). 

The transportation route between the Oshoto Mine and Upton includes portions of D and New 
Cumulative Impacts

5-43

Haven Roads, which are adjacent to the Ross Project area and the Lance District. The 

bentonite-truck routes also include roads north and east of the Ross Project that would not be 

used by Ross Project-related traffic. The degree to which the increased traffic would contribute 

to potential cumulative noise impacts would depend on hiring and production at Oshoto. The 

daily Oshoto Mine traffic is estimated at eight commuter trips and ten truck trips. This traffic was 

already included in the analysis of both transportation and noise impacts in SEIS Sections 4.3 

and 4.8 (see also Table 3.2 in SEIS Section 3.8). Thus, the noise associated with the present 

operation of the nearby bentonite mine has already been considered in the noise impacts found 

to be SMALL to MODERATE during the Ross Project’s lifecycle.

All of the sources of noise described above would be short-term and dissipate quickly with 

distance. For noise levels typical of drilling and construction, including multiple simultaneous 

noise sources in close proximity, calculations show that at the residences nearest to the Ross 

Project, the average noise from equipment would be significantly less than 55 dBA based upon 

the noise data collected by the Applicant (EPA, 1978; Strata, 2011a). Given the distance 

between potential and existing projects, the Ross Project and Lance District areas would only 

contribute SMALL incremental impacts. However, given the potential noise from increased 

traffic on local roads as a result of present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, there 

would be MODERATE noise cumulative impacts to the residents living nearest the roads 

traversed by traffic associated with these projects. These MODERATE impacts would continue 

insofar as the two potential Projects (i.e., the Elkhorn and Hauber Projects) would also use the 

CRs utilized for Ross Project access, such as D or New Haven Roads. 

5.12 Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources

The assessment of cumulative impacts on historical, cultural, and paleontological resources has 

been geographically defined as the area of potential effect (APE) that has been established 

through the Section 106 process. The Ross Project’s APE is discussed in SEIS Section 3.9. 

The APE is defined as the Ross Project site and its immediate environs, which may be impacted 

by activities associated with the construction and operation of the proposed facility. These 

activities would include construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning 

activities. The direct APE is comprised of the areas within the Ross Project boundary that may 

be directly affected by physical ground disturbance and construction of the Ross Project, and 

the indirect APE is comprised of the area within three miles of the Ross Project boundary 

wherein potential visual and audible effects to historic properties may occur. In relationship to 

other proposed undertakings with the potential to affect these resources, the regional cultural 

sub-area constituted by the headwaters of the Little Missouri River and the Cretaceous-era 

Lance Formation provide vectors for analysis of cumulative effects to the archaeological and 

paleontological record.

The cumulative-impacts analysis timeframe begins in 2013, the earliest estimated year in which 

the Applicant could have received a Source and Byproduct Materials License from the NRC and 

could have begun major construction, and concludes in 2027, the estimated year the license 

would be terminated after the decommissioning and site restoration of the Ross Project and all 

satellites in Lance District.

The description of the affected environment in Section 3.9 serves as the basis for this 

cumulative-impacts assessment. Table 3.18 lists the current National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) eligibility status of the 42 historic and cultural properties identified within the 
Cumulative Impacts

5-44

Ross Project area. As indicated in Table 3.18, two sites, 48CK1603 and 48CK2083, are NRHPeligible per consensus determinations between the NRC and the Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office (WYSHPO), and eight sites have consensus determinations of non-eligible. 

Of the remaining 32 properties, 18 are Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) sites. The NRC has 

determined that 13 of the TCP sites are NRHP-eligible, three are not eligible, and two are 

unevaluated. The remaining archaeological sites are unevaluated. The final determinations of 

the NRHP eligibility of these 32 sites, as well as the evaluation of potential adverse effects to 

historic properties and measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those effects, will be be 

completed in accordance with the Ross Project Programmatic Agreement (PA) (see Appendix E 

for the draft PA, which has been issued to the PA participants for comment). As described in 

Section 4.9, the NRC staff concluded that construction impacts from the Ross Project would be 

SMALL to LARGE, while impacts from project operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning would each be SMALL. 

At present, there is already some disturbance at all site types as a result of past livestock 

grazing and agricultural activities as well as some encroachment due to road construction and 

oil production, but other impacts of human activities are minimal. Erosion is currently causing 

some site damage as archeological and paleontological materials erode out of cut banks. In 

some portions of the APE where alluvium is present, some sites as yet unidentified likely remain 

protected by intact terraces, and they may be deeply buried.

Archaeological investigations for the Ross Project and other undertakings in the vicinity show 

that humans have occupied the area for at least 12,000 years (Ferguson, 2010). The Ross 

Project area is situated in a known culturally-sensitive area at the headwaters of the Little 

Missouri River, where there is potential for deeply buried archaeological material that could 

provide information on earlier periods of regional culture. Ground disturbance during 

construction activities would be the greatest threat to archaeological sites. This includes the 

impacts of excavation as well as from construction of access roads. There is a risk of damaging 

Native American archaeological sites that may be eligible for the NRHP, depending upon the 

depth and location of such ground disturbances. 

Ground disturbances could also have an adverse impact on TCPs by damaging landforms or 

other organic relationships that create or enhance a TCP’s setting. A TCP could also be 

damaged by compromising of the very qualities that make it significant to a community and help 

it to maintain and perpetuate cultural identity and values. Significant qualities could include 

integrity of visual setting, a sense of privacy, silence, and other factors that support the general 

ambiance of a natural setting.

The Project could also damage paleontological resources, as the APE is situated within the Late 

Cretaceous Lance Formation, which is known for its potential to contain a variety of fossil types. 

Paleontological remains in two of the prehistoric sites recorded during the Class I survey were 

brought to the site from elsewhere, but, as in the case of the potential for buried sites, 

paleontological material of varying ages could be encountered wherever the Lance Formation is 

penetrated or otherwise disturbed.

To determine cumulative effects, other proposed projects in the nearby Powder River Basin 

were reviewed for activities that have the potential to impact historical, cultural, and 

paleontological resources. Other ongoing developments include activities related to energy 

development, including other potential ISR uranium-recovery projects, coal mines, and oil- and 
Cumulative Impacts

5-45

gas-recovery operations. The potential projects related to changing population demographics 

and public-service needs throughout the general vicinity include wind-power facilities; utility 

transmission and distribution lines; transportation infrastructure; reservoir development; 

agricultural activities; livestock grazing; and other economic endeavors. Activities related to all 

of these pursuits—in addition to natural effects, particularly erosion—have the potential to 

amplify the impacts of the Ross Project. These impacts taken cumulatively can lead to 

incremental damage to the archaeological, TCP, and paleontological record by the elimination 

of potential data points from the cumulative record of the entire vicinity, which potentially 

encompasses the Powder River Basin, Black Hills, and Big Horn Mountains.

The Applicant expects to develop subsequent areas of the Lance District for uranium-recovery 

satellite operations (see Figure 2.2 in SEIS Section 2.1.1). Similarities in landscape and 

existing conditions as well as potential construction activities make it likely that the impacts to 

historical, cultural, and paleontological resources would be similar to those resulting from Ross 

Project.

Cumulative-impacts analysis for the Moore Ranch Project indicated that the potential impacts of 

its construction and operation would be small, because the Moore Ranch Project is not 

expected to directly impact eligible archaeological sites when added to the moderate cumulative 

impacts to the resources from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

(NRC, 2010). The Nichols Ranch ISR facility, approximately the same distance from the Ross 

Project area as the Moore Ranch Project, identified numerous “pre-contact” sites (i.e., the 

period of time prior to the arrival of Euro-Americans) and deemed the impacts from that Project 

to be small to moderate, and cumulative effects to be moderate. 

The BLM has identified proposed coal-mining operations in the Powder Basin as well as 

continuing development trends. Impacts arising from development of mines, access roads, and 

related transportation infrastructure, such as extensions of railways, could have a varying effect 

on historical, cultural, and paleontological resources, depending upon where they are sited, but 

such development is projected to increase at least over the next few years in the Powder River 

Basin. The same is true of quarries for sand, gravel, and scoria, all of which are used in road 

construction and maintenance.

CBM and oil and gas exploration and delivery are also expected to continue increasing with 

population growth and its attendant energy demands. These increases, however, are tempered 

by economic and regulatory factors. Development of these projects would also be similar to 

uranium-recovery projects, potentially involving the construction of access roads, pipelines, 

utility transmission lines, and support facilities of various types as well as ground-water-well 

installation and facility decommissioning activities.

Mitigation measures can reduce or minimize some impacts to historical, cultural, and 

paleontological resources. Sites could be deliberately avoided during construction, by flagging 

them or protecting them with a barrier. Careful monitoring during construction and the 

implementation of an inadvertent discovery plan can also provide a measure of avoidance or 

minimize impacts to sites as well as to paleontological discoveries. When impacts are 

unavoidable, data recovery is often proposed as mitigation measure. A Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA), a Programmatic Agreement (PA), or another type of formal agreement 

between the cognizant Federal agency(ies), the WYSHPO, the Applicant, project proponent, 

and/or the respective Tribes could stipulate the management and treatment of identified sites. 
Cumulative Impacts

5-46

The agreement could also support ongoing consultation with Tribes designed to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to archaeological sites, TCPs, and other cultural 

resources. Activities which are on Federally-managed lands, or that would be subject to 

Federal licenses and permits, would be expected to generate fewer impacts, as the Federal 

agency would be required to identify historic properties and assess and avoid or resolve 

potential adverse effects on them in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 

Some impacts, however, can be greater on lands, including private or even State, that are not 

Federally administered. These would include impacts to physical remains as well as the 

integrity of their settings. The NHPA provides regulatory thresholds for the assessment of 

impacts to historic properties, which would include the identification of the loss of characteristics 

that make the properties eligible for the NRHP as well as loss of integrity. For archaeological 

sites, these impacts could entail an incremental loss of data. For TCPs, these impacts could 

entail a gradual decline of the very qualities that make a property a functioning element, 

important for its role in maintaining a living culture. 

While data recovery is a mitigation option that is often included in a treatment plan, 

archaeological sites are nonrenewable resources, and loss of any data contributes to the net 

loss of information on local and regional cultural history. Whether sites are removed by 

inadvertent destruction or intended data collection, this loss of these properties precludes any 

additional investigation in the future, when advances in the field could change interpretations or

allow new methodologies to be applied. Paleontological resources are also non-renewable, and 

they are subject to the same cumulative risks.

Due to urbanization, population growth, and its attendant development, Tribal peoples are 

experiencing an ongoing loss of TCPs, places that play a vital role in maintaining and 

perpetuating cultural identity and values. Along with other threats to their life ways, the loss of 

any culturally empowering resource has a cumulative impact on a group’s ability to maintain its 

cultural identity.

The NRC staff has concluded that the cumulative impacts on historical, cultural, and 

paleontological resources in the study area resulting from past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions is MODERATE to LARGE. The Ross Project would have a SMALL 

to LARGE incremental effect on historical, cultural, and paleontological resources when added 

to the MODERATE to LARGE cumulative impacts of the facilities and operations described 

above. 

5.13 Visual and Scenic Resources

The geographic area used in this analysis of visual and scenic cumulative impacts (the “visualresources cumulative-impacts study area”) is a circular area with a 30-km [20-mi] radius around 

the Ross Project area. This area was established as the geographic boundary because it 

includes the recreational destinations in the immediate vicinity of the Ross Project (described in 

SEIS Section 3.10), and it addresses the highest (i.e., most sensitive) visual-classification areas 

in the vicinity of the Ross Project as well. Devils Tower National Monument, Thunder Basin 

National Grassland, Keyhole Reservoir State Park, and the Black Hills National Forest all fall 

within this visual-resources cumulative-impacts study area. As discussed in SEIS Section 5.3.2, 

the timeframe evaluated for the cumulative-impacts analysis is 14 years, to the year 2027.
Cumulative Impacts

5-47

As described in SEIS Section 4.10, the potential impacts on visual and scenic resources from 

the Ross Project include the contrast of surface infrastructure (e.g., drill rigs, the CPP, access 

roads, and utility lines) with the existing visual inventory. These types of visual impacts are 

consistent with the management objectives of the VRM Class III area in which the Ross Project 

area is located. Thus, the potential impacts to visual and scenic resources from the surface 

structures and equipment of the Ross Project would be SMALL during all phases, except during 

construction phase. The short-term impacts to visual and scenic resources from construction 

activities would be MODERATE. 

Many of the construction and operation activities (e.g., drilling, pipeline and wellfield installation, 

and surface infrastructure, such as access-road, utility-corridor, and lighting-system 

construction) at present actions and RFFAs identified in SEIS Section 5.2, both uranium 

recovery as well as oil production, are very similar to those described in SEIS Section 4.10. In 

addition, the bentonite mine has already become a fixture of the landscape in the cumulativeimpacts area. There are no coal mines within the 30-km [20-mi] radius of the visual-resources 

cumulative-impacts study area. Thus, the same types of impacts to visual resources described 

in SEIS Section 4.10 would be associated with these other mineral-extraction and energyproduction activities that occur or could occur within the 30-km [20-mi] radius of the Ross 

Project.

All of these developments, however, would take place in the existing classifications of VRM 

Class III or IV, where change to an environment can be moderate or even undergo significant 

modification. In addition, many of the mitigation measures that would be used to reduce the 

contrast of the Ross Project structures with the existing visual inventory would also be required 

of new areas and projects. The lower profile and smaller footprint associated with the Ross 

Project, and presumably with the other satellite areas and the potential ISR Projects, would 

diminish visual impacts as well. 

Thus, the NRC staff has concluded that the cumulative impacts to the viewshed within the 30-

km [20-mi] visual-resources cumulative-impacts study area as a result past or present actions 

and RFFAs would be MODERATE. The Ross Project would contribute a SMALL incremental 

impact and a MODERATE short-term incremental impact to the MODERATE potential 

cumulative impacts to the viewshed within the 30 km [20 mi] visual-resources cumulativeimpacts study area. 

5.14 Socioeconomics

The geographic study area for this analysis of socioeconomic cumulative impacts is the six 

counties of Crook, Campbell, Weston, Sheridan, Johnson, and Converse, consistent with the 

geographic scope of the BLM’s Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Cumulative 

Social and Economic Effects (BLM, 2005b). Thus, the “socioeconomics cumulative-impacts 

study area” is this six-County region, also known as the “region of interest” (ROI). The 

timeframe for this analysis is 2013 through 2027, as the socioeconomic effects of the Ross 

Project end when the Project is finally decommissioned and the site reclaimed.

The potential socioeconomic impacts of the Ross Project range from SMALL to MODERATE, 

with the MODERATE impacts associated with the benefits of the additional tax revenues 

projected to accrue to Crook County. Because the size and scope of the Ross Project relative 

to existing employment levels in the six-County study area are small (see SEIS Section 4.11), 
Cumulative Impacts

5-48

and the Applicant would be committed to hiring locally, the population impacts and the change 

in demand for public and private services would be SMALL. 

There have been, however, a number of energy-related developments recently completed in the 

socioeconomic study area as well as those proposed future projects in the vicinity of the Ross 

Project discussed earlier in SEIS Section 5.2. These projects all have the potential to cause 

additional impacts to local socioeconomics. The projects considered in the BLM report cited 

above include two additional coal mines over the 2003 – 2010 period; 9,519 additional 

conventional oil and gas wells, with over one-half of these in place over the 2003 – 2010 period; 

62,868 additional CBM wells, with about 40 percent of these in place over the 2003 – 2010 

period; and 3 – 4 new coal-fired power plants, with three in place over the 2003 – 2010 period 

and 1 additional plant planned in the 2016 – 2020 period.

Socioeconomic impacts have been projected over both a low-production scenario and a highproduction scenario. Under the low-production scenario, the 2020 population in the six-County 

cumulative-impacts study area is projected to increase by 24,100 persons over 2003 levels, 

reflecting an increase of 25.1 percent, with 55.8 percent of the increase attributed to projects 

already in place by 2010 (BLM, 2005b). Under the high-production scenario, the 2020 

population in the six-County area is projected to increase by 28,625 persons over 2003 levels, 

reflecting an increase of 29.8 percent, with 54.0 percent of the increase attributed to projects 

already in place by 2010. Under both scenarios the large majority (over 70 percent) of the 

increase is projected in Campbell County, the regional commercial and services center for the 

area.

The population increases through 2010 are already evident in the U.S. Census Bureau’s data 

for 2010. Population over the 2000 – 2010 period in Campbell County increased 36.9 percent 

and increased 20.3 percent in Crook County (see Section 3.11). In contrast, population growth 

in Wyoming was 14.1 percent per year over the same period.

Population increases associated with the four potential four ISR Projects in the study area would 

be in addition to those discussed above. Other additional potential uranium-recovery areas 

could also be operated by the Applicant at Lance-District satellite areas. However, in this 

cumulative-impacts analysis, the NRC staff assumed that the other planned ISR Projects in the 

80-km [50-mi] vicinity have the same construction and operating characteristics as the Ross 

Project, meaning that, at peak construction employment, including the employment associated 

with the Ross Project, all ISR areas and projects within 80 km [50 mi] would create 

approximately 2,080 jobs. If these additional projects were online and operating through 2027, 

operation-phase employment levels would total approximately 540 jobs. If these other projects 

follow the Applicant’s local hiring and purchasing patterns, peak construction-population 

increases would amount to an additional 436 residents in two Counties (i.e., Crook and 

Campbell Counties), while the operation-phase population increases by 2027 would total an 

additional 248 residents. The additional operation-phase population would increase the 

projected six-County population in 2027 to 24,348 residents, or a 25.4 percent increase over 

2003 levels under the low-production scenario, and to 28,873 residents under the highproduction scenario, or a 30.1 percent increase over 2003 levels.

Campbell County and local jurisdictions throughout the Powder River Basin have shown their 

ability to respond to these periods of rapid growth. As an example, in response to Campbell 

County population increases of 36.9 percent over the 2000 – 2010 period, new housing 
Cumulative Impacts

5-49

construction increased 42.5 percent over the same period (USCB, 2002; USCB, 2012a). 

Similarly, new housing construction in Crook County increased 22.5 percent compared to 

population growth of 20.3 percent over the same period. 

Periods of rapid growth can stress other public and private service delivery systems. Over the 

2010 – 2027 period, population in the six-County area, including the additional residents 

associated with operation-phase activities of the four potential ISR Projects, is projected to 

increase by another 10,900 persons, a 10.0 percent increase, under the low-production 

scenario, and another 13,419 persons, a 12.2 percent increase, under the high-production 

scenario. Under the low-production scenario, BLM (2005b) also projected enrollment in 

Campbell County School District No. 1 to increase by 1,587 additional students by 2020, 

reflecting a 22 percent increase over recent levels; this could cause short-term capacity 

shortfall. Under the high-production scenario, enrollments could increase another 10 percent. 

Water and waste-water systems in all communities in the six-County study area would have the 

capacity to accommodate the projected increases in demand through 2020. However, if 

ongoing and planned improvements are not completed (BLM, 2005b), short-term peak demands 

might result in the need for some conservation. Because the potential short-term peak 

demands would be temporary, this would be a MODERATE impact. 

While county jurisdictions would benefit from the increased tax revenues from these various 

projects, some directly from increased property taxes and others indirectly from worker 

spending and local purchases of goods and services by the projects’ proponents, this benefit 

would be offset by additional demands for public services. Additional street and highway 

improvements would likely be required in response to the increasing population as well (see 

SEIS Section 5.5) (BLM, 2009a). Increased traffic levels would also result in increased demand 

for law-enforcement and emergency-response services, and similar increases in the demand for 

health services would be expected. 

Although the incremental socioeconomic impacts of the Ross Project would be SMALL (with 

impacts to finance—tax revenues—MODERATE), as the cumulative population increases and 

their consequent impact on the demand for other public and private community services rises as 

well, there would be MODERATE socioeconomic cumulative impacts in the study area and 

during the respective timeframe.

5.15 Environmental Justice

Because no minority or low-income populations, as defined by Federal EO 12898 have been 

identified in the Ross Project area, no disproportionate human-health and environmental 

impacts were determined. Therefore, there are no cumulative impacts expected in minority and 

low income populations near the Ross Project.

5.16 Public and Occupational Health and Safety

Cumulative impacts to public and occupational health and safety were assessed along the 

roads of the circular area defined by an 80-km [50-mi] radius around the Ross Project area (the 

“public and occupational health and safety cumulative-impacts study area”). This area includes 

the potential development of satellite areas within the Lance District by the Applicant, the four 

other potential ISR Projects identified in Section 5.2, and the other past, present, and other 

reasonably foreseeable future projects described in SEIS Section 5.2. As described in SEIS 
Cumulative Impacts

5-50

Section 5.3, the timeframe for this cumulative-impacts analysis is 2013 – 2027, the expected 

lifecycle of the Ross Project, including potential uranium-recovery activities in the Lance District. 

There would be no potential impacts on public or occupational health and safety from the Ross 

Project following its license termination. 

The public and occupational health and safety impacts from the proposed Ross Project would 

be SMALL and are discussed in detail in Section 4.13 of this SEIS. During normal activities 

associated with all phases of the Project lifecycle, radiological and nonradiological worker and 

public health and safety impacts would be SMALL. Annual radiological doses to the population 

within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed Project (i.e., in the “public health and safety cumulativeimpacts study area”) would be far below the applicable regulations. For accidents, radiological 

and nonradiological impacts to workers could be MODERATE if the appropriate mitigation

measures and other procedures 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, would be required as part of the Applicant’s NRC-approved radiation 

protection program (RPP) (Strata, 2011a). These procedures and plans would reduce the 

overall radiological and nonradiological impacts to workers from accidents to SMALL. 

As shown in Figure 5.1 and discussed in SEIS Section 5.2, in addition to the Ross Project, four 

satellite areas could be developed by the Applicant and four other ISR projects could be brought 

to construction and operation during the timeframe of this cumulative-impacts analysis. If 

constructed and operated, all of these facilities would have similar radiological and 

nonradiological impacts on the public and occupational health and safety to those at the Ross 

Project site. Potential radiological cumulative impacts from these facilities would result from 

incremental increases in annual radiological doses to the population when combined with the 

impacts of the proposed Ross Project. As stated in Section 4.13, for normal operations, Rn-222 

and its progeny would be the most prevalent radionuclides, by dose contribution, anticipated to 

be released during normal operations at the proposed Ross Project. As further described in 

SEIS Section 4.13, the maximum expected exposure to a member of the public is estimated to 

be 0.008 mSv/yr [0.799 mrem/yr] and is consistent with estimates of exposure levels at other 

operating ISR facilities in the United States (NRC, 2009b). This exposure, combined with 

exposures from other potential ISR facilities in the study area, would remain 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, both worker and public radiological exposures are 

addressed in NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 20. Licensees are required to implement an 

NRC-approved RPP to protect workers and ensure that radiological doses are “as low as 

reasonably achievable” (ALARA). The Applicant’s RPP includes commitments for implementing 

management controls, engineering controls, radiation safety training, radon monitoring and 

sampling, and audit programs (Strata, 2011a). Measured and calculated doses for workers and 

the public are often only a fraction of regulatory limits. Analyses of various radiological accident 

scenarios, described in SEIS Section 4.13, also estimate that the dose to the public would be a 

fraction of the applicable regulatory limits. 

Other developments in the 80-km [50-mi] area include existing and potential coal, oil, gas, and 

bentonite projects. The concomitant major nonradiological occupational hazards of all of these 

existing or future facilities would be similar to those at the Ross Project; that is, they would 
Cumulative Impacts

5-51

include slips, trips, and falls, which could then result in musculoskeletal injuries; potential 

exposures to excessive noise; potential inhalation of particulates, gasses, or vapors; and skin 

contact with corrosive materials. These impacts would only be present at the actual facilities 

where occupational risks are located; the distance between the facilities and operations in the 

public and occupational health and safety cumulative-impacts analysis study area suggests that, 

if an occupational hazard were to be experienced, such as a chemical release into the air, the 

distance itself would mitigate the resulting impacts and would limit impacts to the onsite 

workers. 

All of the facilities and operations identified above would be required to implement the same or 

similar mitigation measures as at the Ross Project. For example, all such facilities would be 

required to have spill-response plans, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-

compliant SOPs, and health and safety plans as a matter of course because all such facilities 

are subject to State and Federal occupational health and safety requirements. Thus, 

nonradiological cumulative impacts to occupational workers would be SMALL, since there would 

be no cumulative-effects between facilities or projects. However, in the unlikely event that an 

accident or spill is not mitigated, the impacts to workers could be MODERATE.

The cumulative impacts to the public from nonradiological normal operations would be SMALL, 

because the public would not have access to the facilities included in this cumulative-impacts 

analysis. Concurrent generation of fugitive dusts at various operations could occur, if they were 

closely located to each other, but these facilities would implement the same or similar BMPs for 

fugitive-dust and combustion-emissions control as described in SEIS Section 4.7. (See also 

SEIS Section 5.9 regarding air-quality cumulative impacts.) The very distance from the Ross 

Project to the other potential ISR, coal, gas, oil, and bentonite facilities preclude fugitive-dust 

cumulative impacts due to not only similar BMPs, SOPs, and other mitigation measures, but 

also due the significant winds in the study area which would disperse the fugitive dust rapidly.

Potential accidents and chemical releases could affect the public, depending upon the location 

of the release and the nearest receptors, the closest of which is 0.21 km [690 ft] from the Ross 

Project’s boundary. Accidents could include bulk chemical spills during transport, during 

operations or maintenance, or during product or waste shipment. Spill prevention and response 

mitigation measures would include training of all personnel as well as standard spill-response 

plans. Coordination between both present and future ISR projects, especially the two that 

would use the same county roads as are adjacent to the Ross Project area (the Hauber and 

Elkhorn uranium-recovery projects), could optimize emergency-response activities and efficient 

response. Thus public impacts could range from SMALL to MODERATE, if accidents are not 

appropriately managed. 

Because Strata would implement preventative and mitigation measures, the incremental 

impacts on public and occupational health and safety of the proposed Ross Project would be 

SMALL when added to the SMALL cumulative impacts of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions.

5.17 Waste Management

The cumulative impacts of waste management at the Ross Site were evaluated for both liquid 

and solid waste streams.
Cumulative Impacts

5-52

5.17.1 Liquid Wastes

There are two types of potential liquid-waste-disposal techniques that would be used at the 

Ross Project. One type employs the injection of liquid wastes into deep, UIC Class I wells, 

which is discussed below. Then, liquid wastes that are disposed of by other methods are 

described next.

The Applicant estimates the completion of Ross Project’s (i.e., CPP’s) decommissioning and 

that of the Lance District satellite areas to be approximately 14 years after the Source and 

Byproduct Materials License would be issued. Since the UIC Class I Permit issued by 

WDEQ/WQD for the injection wells requires that the wells are plugged and abandoned within six 

months after waste injection ceases, the timeframe for evaluation of impacts from deep-well 

injection is the period from 2013 through final decommissioning of the Ross Project (2027). 

Except for domestic sewage and used oil, which would be managed only for the lifecycle of the 

Lance District satellite areas, the generation of other liquid wastes, such as excess permeate as 

well as ground water taken from monitoring wells, would cease during Ross Project operation 

and aquifer restoration, respectively. 

5.17.1.1 Disposal by Deep-Well Injection

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1, the liquid wastes generated by the Ross Project would 

include byproduct material, predominantly brine from the RO process and other process waters. 

These wastes would be stored in lined surface impoundments and then disposed of into the UIC 

Class I deep-injection wells, into the Deadwood and Flathead Formations (WDEQ/WQD, 2011). 

As noted earlier in SEIS Section 4.14, impacts of the management and disposal of liquid 

byproduct wastes into the UIC-permitted deep-injection wells at the Ross Project would be 

mitigated by the Applicant’s adherence to permit requirements and would be SMALL. Since the 

CPP at the Ross Project would process uranium for the satellite areas that could be developed 

by the Applicant within the Lance District, there would be no need for additional UIC Class I 

deep-disposal wells, except in the event that a remote IX-only plant were to be constructed at 

the Barber satellite area. A remote IX-only plant could possibly require nearby, additional deepwell injection capacity. 

The geographic area selected for cumulative-impacts analysis for the management of byproduct 

material into the UIC Class I deep-injection wells is similar to the area defined as the groundwater cumulative-impacts study area in SEIS Section 5.7. This area extends westward into the 

Powder River Basin, approximately 60 km [37 mi] west of the Ross Project. At this location, the 

Cambrian aquifers (i.e., the Deadwood and Flathead Formations) that are the target for liquidwaste injection at the Ross Project are over 3,700 m [12,000 ft] below the ground surface. This 

depth to the Cambrian aquifers makes it impractical to drill UIC Class I wells into these aquifers; 

thus, the aquifers accessed at the Ross Project would not likely be used for Class I disposal 

wells at that western location. At this western edge of the cumulative-impacts study area, the 

existing UIC Class I injection wells make use of the Upper-Cretaceous aquifers at depths of 

1,200 – 2,900 m [4,000 – 9,500 ft] which are about 750 m [2,500 ft] above the Cambrian 

aquifers. Similarly, the Upper-Cretaceous aquifers are used for UIC Class I injection wells at 

existing uranium-recovery operations in Campbell, Johnson, and Converse Counties (NRC, 

2010; NRC, 2011; WDEQ/WQD, 1999; WDEQ/WQD, 2010). These Upper-Cretaceous aquifers 

are: Tecla, Teapot, and Parkman members of the sandy units within the Lewis and Mesaverde 
Cumulative Impacts

5-53

Shale Formations; the Lance and Fox Hills Formations; and the Tullock member of the Fort 

Union Formation above the Lance Formation. 

The other boundaries of the “waste-management cumulative-impacts study area” for deep-well 

liquid-waste injection would be the 80-m [50-mi] radius to the north, east and south that is 

shown in Figure 5.1. Four potential uranium-recovery projects outside of the Lance District, but 

within 80 km [50 mi] of the Ross Project have been identified and were described earlier, in 

SEIS Section 5.2. These projects are located east and northeast of the Ross Project and would 

recover uranium from the Lower Cretaceous Fall River and Lakota sandstones. They range 

from 23 – 66 km [14 – 41 mi] from the Ross Project. The projected estimated amounts of 

uranium production at each of these potential ISR uranium-recovery projects, as reported by the 

Applicant, are expected to be less than the Ross Project (Strata, 2012a). The area 

encompassing the Ross Project and future potential projects is approximately 0.5 million ha [1.3 

million ac].

The operators’ use of UIC Class I deep-injection wells for the disposal of liquid byproduct

material has been assumed by the NRC staff at the potential uranium-recovery projects. It 

appears likely, given the stratigraphy, that the same aquifers targeted by the Class I deepinjection wells at the Ross Project would be used for disposal at these future projects. For 

example, the Dewey-Burdock uranium-recovery project in the eastern portion of the 

NSDWUMR, is stratigraphically similar to the future projects near the Ross Project. The DeweyBurdock Project, located in the Edgemont uranium district in South Dakota, would recover 

uranium from the Fall River and Lakota sandstones and has proposed Class V deep-injection 

wells in the Deadwood and Flathead Formations, the same Formations that would be used for 

the Ross Project (NRC, 2009; Powertech, 2010). 

The deep-well injection of liquid wastes within the geographic area selected for this cumulativeimpacts analysis would not impact development of mineral resources due to the fact that the oil, 

gas, CBM, and coal resources are located in rock units above the Deadwood and Flathead 

Formations, which are targeted for deep-well liquid-waste injection. For example, conventional 

oil-and gas-extraction efforts generally target the Minnelusa Formation, a unit which is greater 

than 300 m [1,000 ft] above the depth of the permitted Class I deep-injection wells (in the 

Deadwood and Flathead Formations). Similarly, coal and CMB resources are located in rock 

units many thousands of meters (feet) above the permitted depth of the Class I deep-injection 

wells.

The EPA has defined an “area of review” for a Class I well as the zone of endangering influence 

around the well, or the radius at which pressure due to injection may cause the migration of the 

injected wastes and/or poor-quality water in the target formation into an underground source of 

drinking water (EPA, 2001). The EPA allows the area of review to be determined by either a 

fixed radius or mathematical computation. When a fixed radius is used in an analysis, the 

area of review for Class I nonhazardous wells must be, at a minimum, 0.4 km [0.25 mi] 

unless specified as greater by State regulations. Although the Applicant used 0.4 km [0.25 mi] 

as the area of its review, the estimated area of influence calculated by Strata in its application to 

the WDEQ for a UIC Class I Permit was less than 0.4 km [0.25 mi] (Strata, 2011b).

In addition, earthquakes induced by underground waste disposal have been rare, because 

typically large, porous aquifers are targeted and injection pressures are sufficiently low so that 

seismic activity is avoided (Nicholson and Wesson, 1990). Nicholson and Wesson documented 
Cumulative Impacts

5-54

only two instances in which waste disposal triggered significant adjacent seismicity. If 

earthquakes were to be induced by fluid-injection activities, they would be located within a few 

miles from the point of injection.

The WDEQ/WQD’s UIC Class I Permit prescribes well design, injection rates, permitted wastes, 

and injection pressures. Careful monitoring is required to characterize post-licensing, preoperational water quality of the targeted aquifer and pressures of the lowermost drinking-water 

aquifer for a new well. Operational monitoring is required to record continuously the rate, 

volume, and pressure of injection. Every two years, the deep-injection wells must be tested to 

determine the radius of influence and to compare the results with historical and expected future 

responses. These required data would provide the information necessary for an assessment of 

cumulative impacts.

During this analysis, the NRC assumed that all five UIC Class I wells that are already permitted 

for the Ross Project would be installed and that an average of three UIC Class I wells would be 

installed at each of the four potential future projects outside the Lance District but within the 

study area; thus, there would be 17 deep-injection wells within the approximately 0.5 million-ha 

[1.3 million-ac] area. The overall density of deep-injection wells would consequently be very low 

and the potential impacts from deep-well liquid-waste injection would be localized, within the 

minimum area of review of 0.4-km [0.25-mi] radius around each well. Also, because the UIC 

Class I deep wells would have no impact on mineral development in the area, the cumulative 

impacts of disposal of liquid byproduct material and other appropriate liquid wastes would be 

SMALL, to which the Ross Project would contribute only a SMALL incremental impact.

5.17.1.2 Disposal by Other Methods

The geographic area for cumulative impacts from disposal of liquid wastes by methods other 

than deep-well injection is the circular area with an 80-km- [50-mi]-radius around the Ross 

Project area as shown in Figure 5.1. Liquid non-byproduct wastes would include drilling fluids 

and muds from the installation of injection, recovery, and monitoring wells; small amounts of 

used oil; and domestic sewage. In addition, lined surface impoundments may be used for the 

management of fluids and the evaporation of liquid wastes. BMPs, management plans, and 

WDEQ permit requirements would be implemented to mitigate impacts from such wastemanagement and disposal techniques. 

For drilling fluids and muds, the respective management technique would be their evaporation 

and disposal in mud pits near each drillhole. As noted in Section 2.1.1.1, the proposed 

wellfields would consist of 1,400 – 2,200 recovery and injection wells in addition to 34 to 140 – 

250 monitoring wells. A mud pit would be constructed for the drilling of each well. This would 

represent a maximum average density of approximately 3.6 mud pits/ha [1.4 mud pits/ac]. The 

density of these mud pits at potential, future ISR projects within the 80-km [50-mi] radius around 

the Ross Project are estimated to be similar to the density of the mud pits in the Ross wellfields. 

Impacts to soils during construction of the mud pits at the drilling pads and the lined surface 

impoundments would be mitigated by the Applicant’s removing and then stockpiling topsoil 

before construction, followed by grading and spreading topsoil as soon as the mud pits and 

impoundments are dry, and reseeding disturbed areas as quickly as possible to achieve the 

reclamation standards required by WDEQ/LQD. The reclaimed mud pits and surface 

impoundments would be included in the final radiation surveys that would be accomplished 
Cumulative Impacts

5-55

during the Proposed Action’s decommissioning, so that no potential long-term impacts from 

radioactivity are present (Strata, 2011a)

All non-byproduct used oils would be taken offsite to a properly permitted oil recycler. Finally, 

the domestic-sewage system installed onsite would follow the required industry standards and 

practices as well as all permitting requirements. 

Thus, as described in SEIS Section 4.14, the impacts of the management and disposal of liquid 

non-byproduct wastes at the Ross Project would be SMALL. Given that the potential impacts 

from mud pits and surface impoundments are short-term and localized, the cumulative impacts 

of disposal of liquid non-byproduct material would be SMALL, to which the Ross Project would 

contribute only a SMALL incremental impact.

5.17.2 Solid Wastes

The geographic area selected for solid waste-management cumulative-impacts analysis is the 

Ross Project area itself and, though disconnected, the areas that would be impacted by the 

actual disposal of each type of solid-phase waste that would be generated at the Ross Project 

(the “solid-waste-management cumulative-impacts study area”). Because most of the wastedisposal facilities that would accept the Ross Project’s wastes would be open through 2027, the 

NRC’s waste-management cumulative-impacts analysis assumed that the cumulative impacts of 

waste management would occur through 2027. 

The waste-management impacts of the Ross Project were determined to be SMALL in SEIS 

Section 4.14 through all of the Project phases. This impact magnitude is primarily a result of the 

relatively small solid-waste volumes that would be generated at the Ross Project. Even during 

the decommissioning of the Ross Project, the volumes of the different types of solid wastes, 

would be relatively small due to the decontamination efforts anticipated by the Applicant as well 

as the fact that the Ross Project would not generate substantial quantities of waste when 

dismantled and/or demolished (uncontaminated equipment would be re-used).

For the waste-management cumulative-impacts analysis, the NRC assumed that all of the 

waste-disposal facilities that would accept and dispose of Ross Project wastes would have been 

properly licensed or permitted. (And that all Ross Project waste shipments would be managed 

as required in the pre-operational agreements the Applicant must set up with the respective 

waste-disposal facilities prior to uranium-recovery.) Every waste-disposal facility must undergo 

significant pre-operational planning and design. This is especially true for the disposal facilities 

that could accept the Ross Project’s byproduct material. These facilities would have been 

licensed by the NRC or by an Agreement State; the other, non-radioactive facilities would have 

been permitted on the county- or State-level. Also, licensed or permitted facilities that generate 

solid byproduct material would be required to demonstrate that they have a valid agreement 

with a solid byproduct material disposal facility in order to continue to operate. This requirement 

would help to ensure that the byproduct disposal facilities have sufficient capacity to accept 

incoming material. 

Consequently, the incremental impact of the Ross Project’s waste management would be 

SMALL when considered with the SMALL cumulative impacts of waste management over the 

solid waste management cumulative-impacts study area.
Cumulative Impacts

5-56

5.18 References

40 CFR Part 1500 to 40 CFR Part 1508. Title 40, “Protection of the Environment,” Code of 

Federal Regulations, Part 1500, “Purpose Policy and Mandate,” through Part 1508, 

“Terminology and Index.” Washington, DC: Government Printing Office (GPO). 1978, as 

amended.

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 and Hydropower 

Technologies Program. Contract DE–AC05–76RL018302009. At http://www.pnl.gov/main/ 

publications/external/technical_reports/pnnl-18567.pdf (as of December 8, 2012). . 

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. 

ML13011A248.

(US)BLM (U.S. Bureau of Land Management). Final Environmental Impact Statement and 

Proposed Plan Amendment for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project. Volumes 1 – 4. 

WY-072-02-065. Buffalo, WY: USBLM. January 2003.

 

(US)BLM. Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review, Past and Present and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State 

Office, BLM Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office. Fort Collins, 

CO: ENSR Corporation. July 2005a (Revised 2009e). ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13014A657.

(US)BLM. Task 1A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review, Current Air Quality 

Conditions. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Casper Field Office, and BLM 

Montana Miles City Field Office. Fort Collins, CO: ENSR Corporation. September 2005b. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML13014A730. 

(US)BLM. Task 1D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review, Current 

Environmental Conditions. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Casper 

Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office. Fort Collins, CO: ENSR 

Corporation. June 2005c.

(US)BLM. Task 3D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review, Cumulative 

Environmental Effects. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Casper Field 

Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office. Fort Collins, CO: ENSR Corporation. 

December 2005d. ADAMS Accession No. ML13016A456.

(US)BLM. Task 3C Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Cumulative Social 

and Economic Effects. Prepared for the Wyoming State Office and BLM Casper Field 

Office. Fort Collins, CO: ENSR Corporation. December 2005e. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13011A392. 

(US)BLM. Task 3A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Cumulative Air Quality 

Effects. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Casper Field Office, and BLM 

Montana Miles City Field Office. Fort Collins, CO: ENSR Corporation. February 2006.
Cumulative Impacts

5-57

(US)BLM. Visual Resource Management. Manual 8400. Washington, DC: USBLM. 2007. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML 101790184.

(US)BLM. Update of Task 3A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review, Cumulative Air 

Quality Effects for 2015. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Casper Field Office, 

and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office. Fort Collins, CO: ENSR Corporation. October 

2008a. ADAMS Accession No. ML13016A474.

(US)BLM. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the West Antelope II Coal Lease 

Application WYW163340. Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, DC: USBLM. December 

2008b, 2008c. ADAMS Accession No. ML13016A478.

(US)BLM. Update of Task 3A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review, 

Cumulative Air Quality Effects for 2020. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, 

BLM Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office. Fort Collins, CO: 

ENSR Corporation. December 2009a.

(US)BLM. Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation Buffalo Resource 

Management Plan Revision. Buffalo, WY: USBLM. March 2009b.

(US)BLM. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease 

Applications WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, WYW161248. Volumes 1 and 2. 

2009c and 2009d. 

(US)BLM. Update of the Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Past and 

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities. Prepared for BLM High Plains 

District Office and Wyoming State Office. Fort Collins, CO: AECOM. December 2009e. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML13014A657.

(US)BLM. “Available [GIS] Data, Wyoming.” 2010. At 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/resources/public_room/gis/datagis.html (as of April 24, 

2012). ADAMS Accession No. ML13029A247.

(US)BLM Environmental Assessment Bentonite Mine Plan of Operation Update to Wyoming 

Mining Permit 321C WYW-165212. DOI-BLM-WY-010-EA11-24, BLM Worland Field 

Office/Wind River/Bighorn Basin District. Washington, DC: USBLM. June 2011. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13014A670.

 

(US)BLM. “Hydraulic Fracturing White Paper,” Appendix G of BLM Environmental Assessment, 

High Plains District Portion of the February 2014 Lease Sale. WY-070-EA-13-180. 2013. At 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/og-ea/2014/febr.html.

(US)CB (U.S. Census Bureau). “Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000, 

Summary File 1.” 2002. At 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml (as of December 

8, 2012). ADAMS Accession No. ML13014A719.
Cumulative Impacts

5-58

(US)CB. “State and County QuickFacts, Wyoming, Crook County, Campbell County.” 2012. At 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/56000.html (as of December 8, 2012).

CCS (Center for Climate Strategies). Wyoming Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference 

Case Projections 1990 – 2020. ML13011A261. Washington DC: Center for Climate 

Strategies. Spring 2007.

CEQ (Council of Environmental Quality). Environmental Justice, Guidance under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Prepared for The Executive Office of the President. Washington, 

DC: GPO. December 1997. ADAMS Accession No. ML13022A298.

Countess, R., W. Barnard, C. Claiborn, D. Gillette, D. Latimer, T. Pace, and J. Watson. 

“Methodology for Estimating Fugitive Windblown and Mechanically Resuspended Road Dust 

Emissions Applicable for Regional Air Quality Modeling” in 10th International Emission Inventory 

Conference Proceedings.” Westlake Village, CA: Countess Environmental. May 2001. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML13022A448.

De Bruin, R. H. Oil and Gas Map of the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. MS-51. Laramie, WY: 

Wyoming State Geological Survey. 2007. Accession No. ML13024A167.

(US)EMC (U.S. Energy Metals Corporation). Application for USNRC Source Material License, 

Moore Ranch Uranium Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, Environmental Report. Casper, 

WY: Uranium One Americas Corporation. 2007a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML072851222, 

ML072851229, ML072851239, ML07285249, ML07285253, and ML07285255.

(US)EMC. Application for USNRC Source Material License, Moore Ranch Uranium Project, 

Campbell County, Wyoming, Technical Report. Casper, WY: Uranium 1 Americas Corporation. 

2007b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML072851222, ML072851258, ML072851259, ML072851260, 

ML072851268, ML072851350, and ML072900446.

(US)EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). U.S. EPA Region 8 Climate Change 

Strategic Plan, Appendix B, “Summary of State Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories in EPA 

Region 8, Draft.” Washington, DC: EPA. 2008. ADAMS Accession No. ML13015A528.

 

(US)EPA. Class I Underground Injection Control Program: Study of the Risks Associated with 

Class I Underground Injection Wells. EPA 816-R-01-007. Washington, DC: EPA, Office of 

Water. March 2001. ADAMS Accession No. ML13015A557.

(US)EPA. Protective Noise Levels. Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document. EPA 550/9-

79-100. Washington, DC: USEPA. November 1978. ADAMS Accession No. ML13015A552.

Ferguson, D. A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of Strata Energy’s Proposed Ross ISR 

Uranium Project, Crook County, Wyoming (Redacted Version). Prepared for Strata Energy, 

Inc., Gillette, Wyoming. Butte, MT: GCM Services, Inc. 2010.

 

(US)GCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 2009. At 

http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment/previous-assessments/global-climatechange-impacts-in-the-us-2009.html. 
Cumulative Impacts

5-59

(US)GS (U.S. Geological Survey). Geodatabase of Wyoming Statewide Oil and Gas Activity to 

2010, Version 1, No. DS-625. Denver, CO: USGS. 2011.

Hinaman, Kurt. Hydrogeologic Framework and Estimates of Ground-Water Volumes in Tertiary 

and Upper Cretaceous Hydrogeologic Units in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. U S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5008. Prepared in 

Cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management. Reston, VA: USGS. 2005. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13011A278.

Langford, Russell H. “The Chemical Quality of the Ground Water” in Harold A. Whitcomb and 

Donald A. Morris, Ground-Water Resources and Geology of Northern and Western Crook 

County, Wyoming. USGS Water-Supply Paper 1698. Prepared in Cooperation with the State 

Engineer of Wyoming. Washington, DC: GPO. 1964. ADAMS Accession No. ML13024A154.

Naugle, D.E, K.E. Doherty, B. Walker, M.J. Holloran, and H.E. Copeland. “Energy Development 

and Greater Sage-Grouse.” Chapter 21, under “Ecology and Conservation of Greater SageGrouse: A Landscape Species and Its Habitats.” Washington, DC: Studies in Avian Biology. 

2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML13024A344.

National Climate Data Center (NCDC). “Wyoming Climate Summary, Temperature.” 2011a. At 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/wy.html (as of November 9, 2011). 

ADAMS Accession No. ML13029A254.

NCDC. “Wyoming Climate Summary, Precipitation.” 2011b. At 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/wy.html (as of December 8, 2012). 

ADAMS Accession No. ML13029A270.

ND Resources. Assessment Restoration Activities, Sundance Project. 1982. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13037A140.

Nuclear Dynamics. Quarterly Report/Summary of Water Quality Program. Source Material 

License No. SUA-1331, Docket No. 40-8663. 1978. ADAMS Accession No. ML12135A358.

Nicholson, C. and Robert L. Wesson. Earthquake Hazard Associated with Deep Well Injection 

– A Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. USGS Bulletin 1951. Denver, CO: 

USGS. 1990. ADAMS Accession No. ML13011A329.

(US)NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). NUREG–1748. Environmental Review 

Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs. Washington, DC: USNRC. 

2003b. ADAMS Accession No. ML032450279.

(US)NRC. “Consideration of Geochemical Issues in Groundwater Restoration at Uranium InSitu Leach Mining Facilities.” NUREG–6870. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2007. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML070600405.

(US)NRC. NUREG–1910. “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach 

Uranium Milling Facilities. Volumes 1 and 2.” Washington, DC: USNRC. 2009b. ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML091480244 and ML091480188.
Cumulative Impacts

5-60

(US)NRC. NUREG–1910, Supplement 1. Environmental Impact Statement for the Moore 

Ranch ISR Project in Campbell County, Wyoming, Supplement to Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities, Final Report. Washington, DC: 

USNRC. August 2010. ADAMS Accession No. ML102290470.

(US)NRC. NUREG–1910, Supplement 2. Environmental Impact Statement for the Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming, Supplement to Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities, Final Report. 

Washington, DC: USNRC. January 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML103440120.

(US)NRC. NUREG–1910, Supplement 3. “Environmental Impact Statement for the Lost Creek 

ISR Project in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for In-Situ Uranium Leach Milling Facilities.” Washington, DC: USNRC. 2011b. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML11125A006.

(US)NRC. “Expected New Uranium Recovery Facility Applications/Restarts/Expansions: 

Updated February 1, 2013.” 2013a. http://www.nrc.gov/materials/uranium-recovery/licenseapps/ur-projects-list-public.pdf (February 25, 2013).

(US)NRC. “Safety Evaluation Report for the Strata Energy, Inc. Ross ISR Project, Crook 

County, Wyoming, Materials License No. SUA-1601, Docket No. 040-09091, Strata Energy, 

Inc.” Washington, DC: USNRC. 2014a. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A107.

(US)NRC. “Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, No. SUA-1601.” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2014b. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A111.

Nuclear Dynamics. 1980 Activity and Restoration Report on In Situ Solution Mining Test Site, 

Sundance Project Crook County, Wyoming. Source Material License No. SUA-1331, Docket 

No. 40-8663. Casper, WY: Nuclear Dynamics. 1980. ADAMS Accession No. ML13038A113.

Powertech (Powertech, Inc.). UIC Permit Application Draft, Class V Injection Wells, DeweyBurdock Disposal Wells, Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota. Greenwood Village, 

CO: Powertech, Inc. March 2010. ADAMS Accession No. ML102380514.

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Environmental Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130342, ML110130344, and 

ML110130348.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, Technical 

Report, Volumes 1 through 6 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 

2011b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130333, ML110130335, ML110130314, ML110130316, 

ML110130320, and ML110130327.

Strata. Air Quality Permit Application for Ross In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project. Prepared for 

Strata Energy, Inc. Sheridan, WY: Inter-Mountain Laboratories, IML Air Science. 2011c. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML11222A060.
Cumulative Impacts

5-61

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, RAI Question 

and Answer Responses, Environmental Report, Volume 1 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-

09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2012a. ADAMS Accession No. ML121030465.

Wyoming (State of Wyoming, Office of the Governor). Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area 

Protection. EO No. 2011-5. Cheyenne, WY: State of Wyoming Executive Department. 2011. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML13015A702.

WDEQ/LQD (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division). “Noncoal 

Mine Environmental Protection Performance Standards.” Rules and Regulations, Chapter 3.

Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/LQD. April 2006.

WDEQ/LQD. Cumulative Hydrological Impact Assessment of Coal Mining in the Northern 

Powder River Basin, Wyoming. WDEQ-CHIA-25. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/LQD. April 2010. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML13015A591.

WDEQ/LQD. Cumulative Hydrological Impact Assessment of Coal Mining in the Middle Powder 

River Basin, Wyoming. WDEQ-CHIA-27. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/LQD. 2011a. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13015A660.

WDEQ/LQD. “Coal Permit Application Requirements.” Rules and Regulations , Chapter 2. 

Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/LQD. 2011b.

WDEQ/LQD. 2011. “Environmental Protection Performance Standards for Surface Coal Mining 

Operations,” Rules and Regulations,Chapter 4. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/LQD. 2011c.

WDEQ/WQD (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division). Rio 

Algom Mining Company. Amendment to Wyoming Underground Injection Control Permit UIC 

99-347 for Class I Non-Hazardous Injection Wells Smith Ranch Facility. Cheyenne, WY: 

WDEQ/WQD. October 1999. ADAMS Accession No. ML102380514.

WDEQ/WQD. Uranium One USA, Inc. Christensen Ranch UIC Class I Injection Well Permit 

Number: 10-219. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/WQD. November 2010. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML103140475.

WDEQ/WQD. Strata Energy, Inc. – Ross Disposal Injection Wellfield, Final Permit 10-263,

Class I Non-hazardous, Crook County, Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/WQD. April 2011. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML111380015.

WOGCC (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission). “Statistics by County.” At 

http://wogcc.state.wy.us/StatsForCounty2.cfm?oops=1 (as of August 23, 2013).

Wyoming Star Tribune. August 8, 2012. At http://trib.com (as of September 11, 2013). 

WSGS (Wyoming State Geological Survey). Powder River Basin Interactive Map. 2012. At 

http://ims.wsgs.uwyo.edu/PRB/ (as of December 8, 2012). ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13024A347.
Cumulative Impacts

5-62

WWDC (Wyoming Water Development Commission). Northeast Wyoming River Basin Plan, 

Final Report. Prepared for WWDC. Butte, MT: HKM Engineering Inc., Lord Consulting, and 

Watts and Associates. 2002a. ADAMS Accession No. ML13024A156.

WWDC. Powder/Tongue River Basin Plan, Final Report. Prepared for WWDC. Butte, MT: 

HKM Engineering, Lord Consulting, and Watts and Associates. February 2002b. 
Environmental Monitoring

6-1 

6 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING 

6.1 Introduction

As described in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities (GEIS), NUREG–1910, monitoring programs are developed for in situ uraniumrecovery (ISR) facilities to verify compliance with the applicable standards and requirements for 

the protection of worker health and safety in active uranium-recovery areas (i.e., both the facility 

and the wellfields) and for the protection of the public and the environment beyond the licensed 

facility’s boundary (NRC, 2009b). Monitoring programs provide data on operating and 

environmental conditions so that prompt corrective actions can be implemented when adverse 

conditions are detected. It is important to note that the management of spills and leaks is not 

considered part of a routine environmental monitoring program (NRC, 2009b). Potential spills 

and leaks are described Section 2.1.1 in this Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (SEIS, or FSEIS if the respective section, figure, or table did not appear in the Draft 

SEIS [DSEIS]), including the design components and management techniques that are intended 

to detect and to minimize the impacts of spills and leaks.

This section of the SEIS discusses the types of environmental-monitoring activities that the 

Applicant would undertake throughout the Ross Project. These include radiological, 

physiochemical, meteorological, and ecological monitoring activities. 

6.2 Radiological Monitoring

Radiological-effluent and environmental-monitoring programs are required in United States 

(U.S.) Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) source and byproduct materials licenses. The 

purpose of the monitoring programs is to: 1) characterize existing levels of radioactive materials 

in environmental media; 2) provide data on measurable levels of radiation and radioactivity in 

effluents and environmental media during the operational life of a facility; and 3) evaluate the 

principal pathways of radiation exposure to the public. This section describes Strata Energy 

Inc.’s (Strata’s) (also referred to herein as the “Applicant”) proposed radiological-monitoring 

programs for the Ross Project as described in its license application as well as in supporting 

documents and its subsequent Responses to the NRC staff’s Requests for Additional 

Information (RAIs). 

In accordance with Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 7, 

a license applicant is required to submit pre-licensing, site-characterization data as well as, in 

some cases (i.e., uranium-recovery wellfields), post-licensing, pre-operational ground-water 

data to provide site conditions prior to licensing and prior to operation, respectively (see Section 

2.1.1). The results of Strata’s pre-licensing radiological-monitoring program are presented in 

SEIS Section 3.12.1. After establishing initial conditions, a uranium-recovery facility operator 

must conduct a monitoring program during all uranium-recovery operation to evaluate both the 

facility’s compliance with applicable standards and the performance of its control systems as 

well as to measure the environmental impacts of the uranium-recovery facility under operating 

conditions and to detect potential long-term effects. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 40.65, a 

licensee must also submit to the NRC a semi-annual effluent- and environmental-monitoring 

report, as would be required by its license. In addition, the facility operator could employ NRC’s 

Regulatory Guide 4.14, Revision 1 (NRC, 1980); this Guide suggests the appropriate values for 

the quantity of each of principal radionuclides released in effluents from radiological facilities 
Environmental Monitoring

6-2 

and/or the respective levels within various environmental media in all unrestricted areas during 

the previous six months of operation. The report required of an operator would also provide 

other NRC-required information so that the potential maximum annual radiation doses to the 

public as a result of a facility’s effluents could be estimated.

The following sections briefly describe the Applicant’s proposed operational monitoring program. 

The NRC’s Regulatory Guide 4.14, Revision 1 provides guidance for establishing radioactiveeffluent and environmental-monitoring programs for uranium mills, which includes ISR facilities 

(NRC, 1980). A summary of the operational radiological-effluent and environmental-monitoring 

program is presented in Table 6.1. 

6.2.1 Airborne Radiation Monitoring

The Applicant has proposed to conduct continuous air-particulate sampling at six locations 

identified in Figure 6.1. The filters from air samplers would be analyzed on a weekly basis, or 

more frequently if required due to dust loading, for lead-210 (Pb-210), natural uranium, radium226 (Ra-226), and thorium-230 (Th-230) in accordance with the NRC’s Regulatory Guide 4.14, 

Revision 1 (Strata, 2011a; NRC, 1980). The air samplers would be calibrated per manufacturer 

recommendations or at least semiannually with a mass-flow meter or other primary calibration 

standard (Strata, 2011a). 

In addition to the air-particulate sampling, passive track-etch detectors and thermo-luminescent 

dosimeters (TLDs) would be deployed at each air-particulate monitoring station (Strata, 2011a). 

The passive track-etch detectors would provide continuous monitoring of radon-222 (Rn-222), 

and the detectors would be exchanged and analyzed on a monthly basis. The TLDs would be 

used to assess gamma-exposure rates continuously at each air-particulate monitoring station. 

The TLDs would be exchanged and analyzed on a quarterly basis.

In addition, during uranium-recovery operation, Strata would passively monitor radon gas and 

gamma radiation by Trak-etch detectors and environmental low-level TLDs, respectively, at 

locations shown in Figure 6.1. In total, radon would be monitored at 18 sampling locations, of 

which 6 locations are co-located with the air-particulate samplers, as recommended in 

Regulatory Guide 4.14, Revision 1 (NRC, 1980).

6.2.2 Soils and Sediment Monitoring

The Applicant has proposed to collect representative soil samples annually at each of the five 

air-particulate monitoring stations shown in Figure 6.1. The soil samples would be collected 

similar to the pre-licensing, site-characterization sample-collection procedure (i.e., two surficial 

samples to a depth of 15 cm [6 in] and two subsurface samples to a depth of 150 cm [60 in]). 

The samples would be analyzed for gross alpha, natural uranium, Pb-210, and Ra-226 (Strata, 

2011a). 

The Applicant has also proposed to collect sediment samples annually at the three surfacewater gaging stations on Little Missouri River and Deadman Creek as well as from the Oshoto 

Reservoir (see Figure 3.12 in SEIS Section 3.5.1). The sediment sampling at the stream gaging 

stations would occur during a runoff event between April and October each year. The sediment 

samples would be analyzed for gross alpha, natural uranium, Pb-210, Ra-226, and Th-230 

(Strata, 2011a). 
6-3 

Table 6.1

Summary of the Major Elements of Ross Project Operational Environmental-Monitoring Pro

Program

Element Location

Radionuclides

Analyzed

Sampling

Frequency

Nu

Ground Water 

Monitoring Wells

 Upgradient and 

downgradient from CPP

Dissolved uranium, 

Ra-226, Th-230, 

Pb-210, Po-210, 

gross alpha, gross beta

Monthly first year and 

quarterly thereafterdo

leas

Ground Water 

Water-Supply 

Wells

 Private wells within 3 km 

[2 mi] of Ross Project 

area and similar to prelicensing, sitecharacterization 

monitoring

Dissolved and 

suspended uranium, 

Ra-226, Th-230, 

Pb-210, Po-210, 

gross alpha, gross beta

Quarterly 

Surface Water  Surface water passing 

through Project area and 

reservoirs subject to 

runoff similar to prelicensing, sitecharacterization 

monitoring

Dissolved and 

suspended uranium, 

Ra-226, Th-230, 

Pb-210, Po-210, 

gross alpha, gross beta

Quarterly 

(as available)mo

1

Air Particulates  Locations with the highest 

predicted concentrations, 

nearest residences, and a 

control location similar to 

pre-licensing, sitecharacterization 

monitoring

Total uranium, 

Th-230, Ra-226, Pb-210

Continuous with 

composites of weekly 

filters analyzed quarterly
6-4 

Table 6.1

Summary of the Major Elements of the Ross Operational Environmental Monitoring Prog

(Continued)

Program

Element Location

Radionuclides

Analyzed

Sampling

Frequency

Nu

Radon in Air  Particulate in air locations 

and other areas of interest 

similar to pre-licensing, 

site-characterization 

monitoring

Rn-222 Continuous 

via Track-Etch units

Quarterly exchange and 

analysis of units

Soils  Particulate in air locations 

and other locations with 

the highest predicted 

concentrations similar to 

pre-licensing, sitecharacterization 

monitoring

Total uranium, 

Ra-226, Pb -210, 

gross alpha

Annually 

Sediment  Surface water passing 

through Project area and 

reservoirs subject to 

runoff—similar to prelicensing, sitecharacterization 

monitoring

Total uranium, 

Ra-226, Pb -210, 

gross alpha

Annually (as available) 

mo

1

Direct Radiation  Particulate in air locations 

and other areas of 

interest—similar to prelicensing, sitecharacterization 

monitoring

Continuous via TLD Quarterly 
6-5 

Table 6.1

Summary of the Major Elements of the Ross Operational Environmental Monitoring Prog

(Continued)

Program

Element Location

Radionuclides

Analyzed

Sampling

Frequency

Nu

Vegetation

(2)

 Animal grazing areas and 

other locations with the 

highest predicted 

concentrations similar to 

pre-licensing, sitecharacterization 

monitoring

Ra-226, Pb-210 Three times during 

grazing season

G

r

di

pred

Animal Tissue  Livestock (cattle) raised 

within 3 km [2 mi] of the 

site and fish from Oshoto 

Reservoir similar to prelicensing, sitecharacterization

monitoring

Ra-226, Pb-210 Once during Project 

decommissioning and 

prior to license 

termination

Thre

(c

Source: Table 5.7-1 (Strata, 2011a).

Notes:

1) Location of particulate samplers used during the pre-licensing, site-characterization air monitoring will be re-evaluated for monitoring 

recovery operations based upon results of the pre-licensing environment-monitoring program and the results of the MILDOS-AREA ana

three locations are selected which are representative of three different sectors that have the highest predicted concentrations of radionu

2) In accordance with the provisions of NRC’s Regulatory Guide 4.14, Footnote (o) to Table 2: “vegetation and forage sampling need b

dose calculations indicate that the ingestion pathway from grazing animals...” is defined as a pathway which would expose an individua

excess of 5 percent of the applicable radiation-protection standard. This pathway was evaluated by MILDOS-AREA. 
Environmental Monitoring

6-6 

Figure 6.1

Ross Project Air-Sampling and Radiation-Monitoring Locations

LICENSE

BOUNDARY

Source: Figure 3 of Addendum 3.6-A (Strata, 2011a).

Ross Project Network
Environmental Monitoring

6-7 

The proposed sampling and analysis protocols are consistent with the recommendations of 

Regulatory Guide 4.14, Revision 1 (NRC, 1980). Similarly, the analytical limits of detection for 

the soil and sediment sampling program are consistent with the recommendations of Regulatory 

Guide 4.14 as well, unless matrix interferences prohibit attainment of the low detection-limit 

goals (NRC, 1980).

6.2.3 Vegetation, Food, and Fish Monitoring

Where a significant pathway to humans is identified, the NRC’s Regulatory Guide 4.14, Revision 

1, suggests analyzing three of each type of crop as well as livestock raised within 3 km [2 mi] of 

a uranium-recovery facility (NRC, 1980). The Regulatory Guide also suggests that vegetation 

samples be collected three times during a grazing season, and food and fish samples be 

collected at the time of harvest or slaughter. Further, the Guide suggests that all samples be 

analyzed for Pb-210 and Ra-226. Note (o) in Regulatory Guide 4.14’s Table 2 clarifies that an 

exposure pathway would be considered important if the predicted dose to an individual would 

exceed 5 percent of the applicable radiation-protection standard (NRC, 1980). Individual 

members of the public would be subject to the dose limits at 10 CFR Part 20.1301, which is 100 

mrem/yr total effective dose equivalent (TEDE). 

The Applicant has collected pre-licensing, site-characterization data by conducting those 

sampling and analysis efforts as suggested by Regulatory Guide 4.14 as well (Strata, 2012a; 

NRC, 1980). Based upon modeling (i.e., MILDOS-Area), the Applicant has calculated that the 

maximum impacts to the public through all pathways would be less than 1 percent of the 

applicable radiation-protection standard (Strata, 2011a). Therefore, because the Applicant has 

determined that a significant pathway to humans does not exist from these sources, the 

Applicant did not propose to perform any vegetation, food, or fish sampling during uraniumrecovery operation (Strata, 2011a). However, the Applicant stated that in the event that such 

monitoring is required, it would propose to follow the protocol used in the pre-licensing, sitecharacterization sampling for three vegetation samples during the grazing season at three 

locations at which the model-predicted concentrations were the highest. The Applicant 

proposed to collect samples of animal and fish tissues from the Oshoto Reservoir during the 

Ross Project’s decommissioning phase. 

The NRC staff will include a Condition in the Source and Byproduct Materials License that will 

require the Applicant to establish a plan for verifying the input values used in the MILDOS-Area 

calculations by monitoring liquid-effluent discharges. Should the effluent discharges invalidate 

the model’s calculations, the Applicant would be required to recalculate the model and/or 

determine the radiological impacts to local vegetation and food sources through routine 

sampling. 

6.2.4 Surface-Water Monitoring

During the construction phase, the Applicant proposed to conduct an operational surface-water 

monitoring program consisting of its sampling at the Oshoto Reservoir and the three gaging 

stations on the Little Missouri River and Deadman Creek (SW-1 and SW -2 on the River, and 

SW-3 on the Creek, as shown in Figure 3.12 in SEIS Section 3.5.1) (Strata, 2011a). The 

Applicant indicated that, based upon pre-licensing, site-characterization monitoring efforts, flows 

in the Creek could be ephemeral primarily during April to October (Strata, 2011a). Surface 

water is found year-around in the Oshoto Reservoir. To avoid frozen conditions, all surfacewater stations would only be operated April through October.
Environmental Monitoring

6-8 

During uranium-recovery operation, the Applicant has proposed to conduct surface-water 

monitoring as was conducted during pre-licensing, site-characterization monitoring efforts. 

These efforts included quarterly sampling at the 3 onsite surface-water gaging stations (see 

Figure 3.12) and also sampling 11 onsite or nearby reservoirs. The analytical parameters to be 

analyzed in the operational surface-water monitoring program are dissolved and suspended 

uranium, gross alpha and beta, Pb-210, polonium-210 (Po-210), Ra-226, and Th-230, unless 

sufficient cause can be demonstrated to measure a parameter less frequently. 

The Applicant also committed to monitoring surface water should monitoring be required for a 

Wyoming storm-water discharge permit through the Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (WYPDES) program (Strata, 2011a). 

6.2.5 Ground-Water Monitoring

The Applicant has proposed to monitor ground-water quality at the domestic, livestock, and 

industrial water-supply wells located within a 3 km [2 mi] radius of the Ross Project boundaries 

during both the construction and operation phases. The Applicant has indicated that its 

monitoring of nearby water-supply wells would be conducted quarterly, and the results would be 

provided to the NRC on an annual basis. The monitoring at a specific water-supply well, 

however, would be contingent upon the landowner’s (well owner’s) consent and, for a variety of 

reasons (e.g., abandoned, non-functioning pump, not winterized), may not be available every 

quarter (Strata, 2011a). The parameters that would be analyzed for are dissolved and 

suspended total uranium, gross alpha and beta, Pb-210, Po-210, Ra-226, and Th-230. 

The Applicant estimates that 29 wells exist within 3 km [2 mi] of the Ross Project (Strata, 

2011a). Based upon information in the license application, the water-supply wells consist of 3 

industrial water-supply wells, 15 livestock water-supply wells, and 12 domestic water-supply 

wells. Four of the livestock water-supply wells and three of the industrial wells are located 

within the Ross Project area itself. (Only two of the three industrial wells, Wells 19XX18 and 

22X-19, were able to be sampled as part of the water-supply well pre-licensing, sitecharacterization ground-water monitoring. A third industrial well (Well 789V) could not be 

accessed.) The proposed ground-water monitoring program would be a continuation of the prelicensing, site-characterization monitoring accomplished earlier by the Applicant, although the 

parameters that would be analyzed during operation would be reduced from those analyzed for 

in the pre-licensing, site-characterization effort.

The Source and Byproduct Materials License would require that nearby water-supply wells 

within 2 km [1 mi] of an active wellfield be sampled in lieu of 2 km [1 mi] of the Project area 

(NRC, 2014b). In addition, the Source and Byproduct Materials License would require an 

annual update on nearby ground-water use (i.e., quantity) as well as monitoring of the onsite 

industrial water-supply wells on a monthly basis as a part of the Applicant’s effluent-monitoring 

program, if operations at the industrial wells have not been terminated. 

6.3 Physiochemical Monitoring

This section describes the operational monitoring program proposed by the Applicant that would 

be conducted in compliance with applicable environmental regulations and with the Conditions 

in the Source and Byproduct Materials License. This monitoring program would allow for an 

evaluation of changes in the chemical and physical environment as a result of the proposed 

Ross Project. The physiochemical monitoring program would include surface water and ground 
Environmental Monitoring

6-9 

water as well as flow and pressure monitoring of wellfields and pipelines as described in this 

section. 

Pre-licensing, site-characterization monitoring of surface water and ground water was 

completed by the Applicant in 2009, 2010, and 2011. The Applicant also provided supplemental 

environmental-monitoring data in 2012 (Strata, 2012a). The acquired data were then used to 

characterize the Ross Project area according to the requirements in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix 

A, Criterion 7 (Strata, 2011a). The Applicant collected samples and contracted laboratory 

analyses for its license application according to the recommendations found in the NRC’s 

Regulatory Guide 4.14, Revision 1 as noted above (Strata, 2011a; NRC, 1980). In addition, the 

Applicant adhered to the specifications in ASTM D449-85a (now superseded by ASTM D4448-

01), Standard Guide for Sampling Groundwater Monitoring Wells. 

The Applicant’s monitoring of the surface-water stations within the Project area (as shown in 

Figure 3.12) would continue throughout the operation of the Ross Project (Strata, 2011a). In 

addition, the private water-supply wells from within 2 km [1 mi] that were sampled during the 

Applicant’s pre-licensing, site-characterization monitoring would also continue to be sampled by 

the Applicant. The ground-water monitoring wells within the Project area that were sampled for 

the Applicant’s site-characterization efforts might also be used to satisfy the requirement of the 

post-licensing, pre-operational ground-water sampling and analysis, depending upon the 

proximity of the existing wells to the wellfields (Strata, 2011a).

6.3.1 Monitoring of Surface-Water Quality 

The Applicant proposes to continue quarterly sampling of the surface-water stations that were 

established for pre-licensing, site-characterization water-quality data during uranium-recovery 

operation (Strata, 2011b). The existing surface-water monitoring stations include one station at 

the Oshoto Reservoir and three stations on the Little Missouri River (SW-1 and SW-2) and 

Deadman Creek (SW-3) (see Figure 3.12 in Section 3.5.1). The Applicant has committed to 

installing any additional stations as necessary to meet any additional conditions in its License 

(see Draft Condition No. 10.9) (NRC, 2014b). Each station is already equipped with a pressure 

transducer, a data-logging system, and a runoff-event-activated sampling mechanism. The 

surface-water sampling stations would be only operated April through October to avoid those 

months when the Project surface waters tend to freeze.

6.3.2 Monitoring of Ground-Water Quality

The Applicant has proposed a ground-water monitoring program to acquire post-licensing, preoperational data in order to establish the constituents and their concentrations that would form 

the basis to detect excursions outside the ore zone during active uranium-recovery operation 

and to observe aquifer-restoration performance as restoration proceeds (Strata, 2011b). The 

post-licensing, pre-operational data would be collected from each individual wellfield as it is 

completed and installed, but prior to the Applicant’s initiating uranium recovery in the respective

wellfield. Each wellfield’s ground-water monitoring data would be used to establish NRCapproved upper control limits (UCLs) in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 

5B(5) (i.e., constituent concentration-based values for excursion detection and for aquiferrestoration performance assessment). (See SEIS Section 2.1.1 for a further explanation of this 

type of monitoring.) Thus, excursion-parameter values and aquifer-restoration target values 

would be wellfield specific.
Environmental Monitoring

6-10

Wells with intended uses for injection, recovery, or monitoring would be completed in the ore 

zone to establish post-licensing, pre-operational water quality for each “mine unit” (“mine units” 

is a phrase found in Strata’s Permit to Mine from the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality [WDEQ]). (See also Figure 2.4 in SEIS Section 2.1.1.) In addition, monitoring wells 

would be installed around the perimeter of each wellfield within the exempted aquifer at a 

minimum density of 1 well per 1 ha [2 ac]. Monitoring wells installed in the overlying and 

underlying aquifers would be spaced at a minimum density of 1 well per 2 ha [4 ac] of wellfield. 

Wells that have been used to collect pre-licensing, site-characterization data could also be used 

to measure aquifer-restoration success and water-quality stabilization within the wellfields 

depending upon their relative proximity. Excursions to adjacent geologic units would be 

detected, and progress toward meeting aquifer-restoration target values would be monitored, by 

the Applicant’s sampling ground water from these monitoring wells during uranium-recovery 

operation and during aquifer restoration. Analytical laboratory analyses of the ground-water 

samples would yield constituent-concentration data.

6.3.2.1 Post-Licensing, Pre-Operational 

Ground-Water Sampling and Water-Quality Analysis 

The post-licensing, pre-operational monitoring of ground water would provide water-quality data 

to establish NRC-approved constituent concentrations in the ore-zone aquifer pursuant to 10 

CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5)(a) and UCL constituent concentrations for perimetermonitoring wells and the wells in the overlying and underlying the ore-zone aquifer, which would

be required in the Source and Byproduct Materials License. The UCLs for the perimeter wells 

and the wells in the overlying and underlying aquifers would be used by the Applicant to identify 

potential horizontal excursions of lixiviant outside of a wellfield and potential vertical excursions 

into the overlying or underlying aquifers (Strata, 2011b). Minimum spacing of the monitoring 

wells would be as noted in Strata’s license application and would required by the License, as 

indicated by Draft License Condition No. 11.3 (NRC, 2014b).

The Applicant also has proposed the installation of one well cluster for every 2 wellfield-hectares 

[4 wellfield-acres] for its post-licensing, pre-operational data-collection monitoring program. This 

density is consistent with the range of 1 well per 0.4 ha [1 ac] to one well per 2 ha [4 ac]

discussed in the GEIS and the NRC’s Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium 

Extraction License Applications, Final Report, NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2009b; NRC, 2003a). This 

well-cluster spacing has also been used historically at existing uranium-recovery facilities. 

The Ross Project would include approximately 45 wells completed in the ore-zone aquifer (30 – 

55-m [100 – 180-ft] thick sand unit) in the Lower Lance and Upper Fox Hills Formations 

(designated as the ore-zone [OZ] unit) to establish wellfield pre-operational data. At 

approximately half of those location (24 locations), an additional well would be completed in the 

underlying aquifer (3 – 9-m [10 – 30-ft]) thick sandy unit in the Fox Hills Formation (designated 

as the deep-monitoring [DM] unit below the ore zone) and the overlying aquifer in the first waterbearing unit above all zones containing uranium mineralization in the Lance Formation 

(designated as the shallow-monitoring [SM] unit), forming a three-well cluster at those locations. 

The wells completed in the SM and DM units would use a fully penetrating completion while the 

ore-zone wells would target specific roll fronts (see Figures 2.8 – 2.10). Beyond the six existing 

well clusters used for pre-licensing, site-characterization monitoring, the Applicant has proposed 

no additional surficial-aquifer (SA) wells in the wellfield (the SA is a shallow aquifer comprised of 

alluvial deposits associated with the recent stream channels). However, for wellfields located in 

an area in which the uppermost aquifer, the “SA aquifer,” is comprised of saturated 
Environmental Monitoring

6-11

unconsolidated alluvium, the Source and Byproduct Materials License would require that the 

Applicant monitor the SA aquifer as part of the excursion monitoring program (see Draft License 

Condition No. 11.5) (NRC, 2014b).

The Applicant has proposed obtaining at least four samples, with a minimum of two weeks 

between sampling events, for all perimeter, SM, OZ, and DM wells during post-licensing, preoperational water-quality monitoring of each newly installed wellfield. In addition, the SA-well 

network would continue to be sampled on a quarterly basis during each wellfield’s postlicensing, pre-operational data-collection efforts. The first and second sampling events would 

include laboratory analyses for the constituents listed in GEIS Table 8.2-1 (NRC, 2009b). 

However, the Applicant has proposed a reduced list of constituents for the third and fourth 

sampling events, the selections of which would be informed by the results of the previous two 

sampling events. Results from all of these sample analyses would be averaged arithmetically to 

obtain an average value as well as a maximum value for use in the NRC’s determination of 

UCLs for excursion detection. The Applicant’s proposed monitoring program will be modified as 

required by the Source and Byproduct Materials License. 

6.3.2.2 Operational Ground-Water Sampling and Water-Quality Analysis

As described in GEIS Section 8.3.1.2 (NRC, 2009b), and as indicated by Condition Nos. 10.13 

and 11.15 of the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License (NRC, 2014b), the placement of 

monitoring wells would occur around the perimeter of wellfields, in the aquifers both overlying 

and underlying the ore zone, for the early detection of potential horizontal and vertical 

excursions of lixiviant. Three configurations of monitoring wells would be constructed to ensure 

detection of horizontal and vertical excursions: 1) wells through the entire targeted ore zone 

(i.e., the ore body or the uranium mineralization) at the perimeters of the wellfields; 2) wells 

completed in the aquifer underlying the ore zone; and 3) wells completed in the aquifer overlying 

the ore zone (Strata, 2011b). The design of a typical monitoring well is described in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1 (see also Figures 2.8 – 2.10 in that section). To detect whether an excursion of 

lixiviant has occurred, the monitoring results would be compared to the NRC-approved UCLs. 

The Applicant proposed well spacing that meets the minimum requirement described in the 

GEIS as necessary to detect excursions (NRC, 2009b). However, the NRC staff has included

Condition No. 11.3 in the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License (NRC, 2014b), which 

would require a minimum density of one well per 0.8 ha [2 ac], a requirement based upon the 

NRC’s evaluation of site-specific geologic and hydrogeologic conditions as well as the 

Applicant’s proposed sequencing and area of individual wellfields. Wells completed in the 

aquifer underlying the ore zone and in the aquifer overlying the ore zone would be installed at a 

density of one well per 1 – 2 ha [3 – 4 ac] of wellfield for detection of vertical migration. The 

Applicant proposed a spacing of the perimeter-monitoring wells of 120 – 180 m [400 – 600 ft] 

apart and at a distance of approximately 120 – 180 m [400 – 600 ft] from the edge of the 

wellfield to detect potential horizontal excursions. The Applicant proposed that samples from 

these monitoring wells would be collected twice monthly to be analyzed for the NRC-approved 

excursion parameters (i.e., constituent concentrations) (Strata, 2011b). 

Simulations by the Applicant have demonstrated that the proposed well spacing successfully 

detects hydraulic anomalies in the form of water-level increases well before lixiviant has actually 

moved beyond the active uranium-recovery areas (i.e., before a horizontal excursion has 

occurred) (Strata, 2011b). Consequently, water levels would be measured in the perimetermonitoring wells to provide early detection of potential excursions or hydraulic anomalies. 
Environmental Monitoring

6-12

Water levels would be routinely measured during well sampling in the perimeter, overlying, and 

underlying monitoring wells in order to provide an early warning for impending wellfield 

problems. An increasing water level in a perimeter-monitoring well has been shown to be an 

indication of a local-flow imbalance within the wellfield, which could result in a lixiviant 

excursion. An increasing water level in an overlying or underlying monitoring well could similarly 

be caused by the migration of lixiviant from the ore-zone aquifer, or it could indicate an injection 

well-casing failure. This monitoring would allow immediate corrective actions, thus reducing the 

likelihood of excursions.

6.3.3 Flow and Pressure Monitoring of Wellfields and Pipelines

GEIS Section 8.3.2 described the conduct of an operator’s monitoring of flow rates and 

pressures of lixiviant pumped to injection wells and from recovery wells. These monitoring data 

would be used by the Applicant to manage the water balance for the entire wellfield and to 

maintain an inward gradient to reduce the likelihood of excursions (NRC, 2009b). To manage 

the water balance at the Ross Project, the Applicant has proposed flow meters and pressure 

transmitters on each of the pipelines to the module building and the respective injection and 

recovery wells. All instrumentation would be monitored at the module building and at the 

Central Processing Plant (CPP). The wellfield flows would be balanced based upon the module 

injection and recovery feeder-line meters. An individual well’s flow target values would be 

determined on a per-well-pattern basis to ensure that local wellfield areas are balanced on at 

least a weekly basis. The maximum injection pressure would always be less than the 

respective geologic formation’s fracture pressure (i.e., fractures in the rock would not occur, 

unlike during “fracking”). 

Each module building would have the capability of being isolated from the pipelines by manually 

operated butterfly valves contained in the manholes exposing the pipelines. The manholes 

would have leak-detection devices that would activate an audible and visible alarm at the CPP 

in the event of a leak. Pressure transmitters on each end of the trunk lines and feeder lines 

would relay pressure readings back to the CPP’s 24-hour control room. In the event of a 

pressure reading that is outside of acceptable operating parameters, an audible and visible 

alarm would also occur at the CPP. Automatic sequential shutdown of the trunk-line pumps 

and/or module-building booster pumps and recovery-well pumps would automatically then occur 

if operating parameters do not return to normal ranges within a specified amount of time. 

6.4 Meteorological Monitoring

The Applicant proposes to continue operating the meteorological monitoring station it installed in 

January 2010 as part of Strata’s pre-licensing, site-characterization efforts (Strata, 2011a). The 

data collected at this station would include continuous measurements of wind speed, wind 

direction, temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, and evaporation.

6.5 Ecological Monitoring

Ecological monitoring would include both vegetation and wildlife surveys.

6.5.1 Vegetation Monitoring

The Applicant has proposed to monitor all disturbed lands on the Ross Project area for the 

presence of undesirable (i.e., noxious or invasive) vegetation species and to use control 
Environmental Monitoring

6-13

measures to prevent their spreading. Vegetation monitoring in reclaimed areas would be 

conducted according to U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requirements and would be in 

accordance with the decommissioning requirements in the Applicant’s Source and Byproduct 

Materials License as well as the reclamation requirements in its WDEQ Permit to Mine (Strata, 

2011a; WWC, 2012). Revegetation success would be monitored by the “extended reference 

area” concept, as defined in WDEQ/Land Quality Division (LQD), Guideline No. 2 (Strata, 

2011a). The extended reference area would include all of the undisturbed portions of any 

vegetation type that has experienced disturbance in any phase of the Ross Project. At the end 

of decommissioning, quantitative vegetation data for extended reference areas representing 

each disturbed vegetation type would be directly compared by statistical analysis to quantitative 

vegetative data from reclaimed vegetation types. The duration of vegetation monitoring, and the 

target goals, would be defined in the to-be-required decommissioning plan (DP), as indicated in 

the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License under Condition No. 10.3, and in the 

Restoration Action Plan presented in Strata’s license application (NRC, 2014b; Strata, 2011b).

6.5.2 Wildlife Monitoring

The Applicant proposed annual wildlife surveys in and near the Ross Project area throughout 

the lifecycle of the Ross Project in order to document key wildlife species, population trends, 

and wildlife habitats (Strata, 2011a).

6.5.2.1 Annual Reporting and Meetings

The Applicant would coordinate its wildlife-monitoring program with the BLM’s Newcastle Field 

Office and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). Consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the BLM, and the WGFD would be conducted prior to the 

Applicant’s initiating a survey and would be documented in a work plan, with BLM and WGFD 

concurrence. The Applicant would prepare an annual monitoring report and submit it to the 

BLM, WGFD, and other interested parties by November 15 of each year. The monitoring report 

would include:

■ Survey methods and results as well as observations of any trends and assessments of 

wildlife-protection measures implemented during the past year. 

■ Recommendations for changes in wildlife-protection measures for the coming year. 

■ Recommendations for modifications to wildlife monitoring or surveying. 

■ Recommendations for additional species to be monitored (e.g., a newly Federal- or 

State-listed species). 

Data and mapping would be formatted to meet BLM requirements (i.e., geographic information 

systems [GIS] data and maps). 

6.5.2.2 Annual Inventory and Monitoring

Wildlife surveying and monitoring would be performed by BLM or WGFD biologists or a qualified 

scientist under contract to the Applicant. All aspects of a regular and/or periodic monitoring 

program would be developed according to current regulatory and permitting guidelines and 

requirements. These would include field-survey and survey-equipment requirements; sample 

collection, storage, and analysis protocols as well as data reporting procedures; regulatory 
Environmental Monitoring

6-14

agency consultations and collaborations; and any other relevant survey- and monitoringprogram components.

6.5.2.3 Wildlife Species

Mammals and certain birds as well as all wildlife on the BLM’s Sensitive Species (BLMSS), 

Wyoming’s Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), and USFWS’s “Birds of 

Conservation Concern” (BCC) lists at the Ross Project area would be monitored in the 

Applicant’s wildlife monitoring program.

Mammals

Opportunistic observations of all wildlife species would be conducted in late spring and summer, 

during the Applicant’s completion of the surveys discussed below for sensitive species. No biggame crucial ranges, habitats, or migration corridors are recognized by the WGFD at the Ross 

Project area or the surrounding 1.6-km [1-mi] perimeter. A “crucial” range or habitat is defined 

as any particular seasonal range or habitat component that has been documented as the 

determining factor in a population's ability to maintain and reproduce itself at a certain level. 

Due to the lack of crucial big-game habitats, the WGFD did not require big-game surveys during 

the Applicant’s pre-licensing, site-characterization monitoring it performed in 2009 and 2010 

(Strata, 2011a). Long-term monitoring for big game is not anticipated and has not been 

proposed by the Applicant.

Protected Species and Other Birds

The Applicant also proposed to monitor protected species, using the following strategy (Strata, 

2011a):

■ Early spring surveys for and monitoring of sage-grouse leks within 2 km [1.2 mi] of the 

Ross Project area. All threatened and endangered species as well as those on the 

BLMSS’s, Wyoming’s SGCN, and USFWS’s “Migratory Bird Species of Management 

Concern in Wyoming” (SMC) lists would be surveyed and monitored on the Ross Project 

area as well.

■ Late spring and summer opportunistic observations of all wildlife species, including 

threatened, endangered, BLMSS, SGCN, SMC, and any other species of concern. 

■ Any other surveys as required by regulatory agencies. 

Raptors

Only one raptor’s nest was previously identified on the Ross Project area, and the opportunity 

for nesting is limited in the area due to a lack of suitable habitat (i.e., lack of trees and cliffs). 

However, the Applicant has committed to completing the following:

■ Early-spring surveys for new and/or occupied raptor territories and/or nests. 

■ Late-spring and summer surveys for raptor reproduction at occupied nests. 

The nearest human disturbance to active and inactive raptor nests, any visual barriers in the line 

of sight of raptor nests, and the prey abundance (e.g., jackrabbits and cottontails) would be 
Environmental Monitoring

6-15

reported in each annual report to allow an assessment of whether any raptor disturbance is 

related to uranium-recovery activities.

Migratory Birds

The Applicant would conduct nesting-bird surveys for nongame species during early summer, 

following recommended WDEQ techniques. All birds, observed or heard, and the vegetation 

and habitat type where they might be found would be recorded. These surveys would 

document all high-interest bird species identified by the BLM, WGFD, and USFWS.

6.6 References

10 CFR Part 20. Title 10, “Energy,” Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20 “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

(US)NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Radiological Effluent and Environmental 

Monitoring at Uranium Mills, Revision 1.” Regulatory Guide 4.14. Washington, DC: USNRC. 

1980. Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. 

ML003739941.

(US)NRC. “Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications, 

Final Report.” NUREG–1569. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2003a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML032250177.

(US)NRC. “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities, Volumes 1 and 2.” NUREG–1910. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2009b.

ADAMS Accession Nos. ML091480244 and ML091480188.

(US)NRC. “Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, No. SUA-1601.” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2014b. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A111.

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Environmental Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130342, ML110130344, and 

ML110130348.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, Technical 

Report, Volumes 1 through 6 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 

2011b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130333, ML110130335, ML110130314, ML110130316, 

ML110130320, and ML110130327.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, RAI Question 

and Answer Responses, Environmental Report, Volume 1 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-

09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2012a. ADAMS Accession No. ML121030465.

WWC Engineering (WWC). Ross ISR Project, Permit to Mine Application, TFN 5 5/217, 

Submittal of Mine Plan Replacement Page per the Joint Stipulation Resolving EQC Docket No. 

12-4803. October 24, 2012. ADAMS Accession No. ML12299A040.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

7-1 

7 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

This section summarizes the costs and benefits associated with the Proposed Action and the 

two Alternatives. This discussion of the Ross Project’s costs and benefits follows the United 

States (U.S.) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) guidance presented in the NRC’s 

Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs, 

NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003b). This discussion includes both the costs of each Alternative and a

qualitative discussion of environmental impacts, as applicable.

7.1 Proposed Action

Benefits of the Proposed Action include the additional employment opportunities available to 

area residents, increased incomes to area residents, and additional tax revenues accruing to 

local jurisdictions and the State of Wyoming (Wyoming). Potential costs include both the 

internal costs of the Ross Project borne by Strata Energy, Inc. (Strata) (also referred to herein 

as the “Applicant”), and the potential external monetary costs that could be required by local 

public-service providers in response to Project activities as well as non-monetary costs 

associated with the potential environmental impacts.

7.1.1 Ross Project Benefits

The economic benefits of the Ross Project would be positive for Crook County and generally 

positive for residents directly or indirectly affected by the Project. The Applicant has committed 

to hiring local personnel and making equipment purchases at local suppliers whenever possible 

(Strata, 2012a), thereby maximizing the economic benefits to Crook County and neighboring 

counties.

7.1.1.1 Employment and Income

The Ross Project is expected to require a peak workforce of approximately 200 workers during 

its construction phase; 60 workers during Project operation; 20 – 30 workers during the aquiferrestoration phase; and 90 workers for facility decommissioning and site reclamation activities 

(see Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement [FSEIS] Section 4.11). This 

employment would be beneficial because it would reduce the local unemployment rate for the 

duration of construction, and some workers would likely continue through the operation phase of 

the Project. It is expected that workers would be paid the regional rates typical of Crook and 

Campbell Counties, where a higher percentage of jobs are in the relatively higher-paying energy 

industry. Based upon a weighted-average annual earnings per job of $61,400 (see FSEIS 

Section 3.11), earnings accruing to area residents would range from $1.2 million to $1.8 million 

during the aquifer-restoration phase to approximately $12.3 million during the Ross Project’s 

construction phase. In addition, existing private-property landowners of the Ross Project area 

would be compensated for the loss of use of their land; however, the specific terms of this 

compensation is confidential. 

7.1.1.2 Tax Revenues

Average annual tax revenues are estimated to be $2,785,000 per year during the Ross Project’s 

operation (see FSEIS Section 4.11.1) and would total approximately $27,850,000 over the 

lifecycle of the Project. The State of Wyoming would benefit from the Ross Project, in part, from 
Cost-Benefit Analysis

7-2 

severance and royalty payments, estimated to be $10.9 million over the Project’s lifecycle, 

whereas Crook County would benefit from gross production and property taxes, totaling $16.9 

million over the lifecycle of the Project. In addition, some portion of Wyoming’s severance and 

royalty payments would be distributed among all Wyoming cities and counties and, thus, all 

jurisdictions within the State are expected to benefit from increased State tax revenues (WLSO, 

2010).

7.1.2 Ross Project Costs

Potential costs include both the internal costs of the Ross Project borne by the Applicant itself 

and the potential external costs potentially borne by local public-service providers in response to 

Project activities (i.e., local fire department costs), as well as non-monetary costs associated 

with the potential environmental impacts.

7.1.2.1 Internal Costs

All internal costs would be borne by the Applicant—that is, the direct financial costs of the 

construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Ross Project

would be paid by Strata. The primary internal costs would include: 

■ Capital costs associated with the Applicant’s obtaining land and mineral rights as well as 

securing regulatory approvals including permits, licenses, and related environmental

studies. 

■ Capital costs of facility construction and wellfield installation. 

■ Costs of facility and wellfield operation and maintenance. 

■ Costs of aquifer restoration. 

■ Costs of facility and wellfield decontamination, dismantling, and decommissioning. 

■ Costs of site restoration and reclamation.

The Applicant has estimated that these internal costs would total approximately $136.7 million 

(Strata, 2011a). The estimated decommissioning costs for the Ross Project would be 

determined prior to uranium-recovery operation, and a surety arrangement equal to the 

estimated decommissioning costs will be a condition of the Source and Byproduct Materials 

License. Each year, the decommissioning cost estimate would be reviewed by the NRC as well 

as the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ), and adjustments would be

made as necessary. 

7.1.2.2 External Costs

Land Use

During the Proposed Action, impacts to local land use would occur. Land-use impacts could 

result from land disturbance during construction, operation, and decommissioning; from wildlifeand livestock-grazing restriction; from land access limitations; and from competition for mineral, 

oil, or gas rights. Land-use impacts during all phases of the Project would be SMALL. Access 

restrictions at the Ross Project area, however, would preclude the economic benefits from 
Cost-Benefit Analysis

7-3 

existing agricultural and grazing activities. If land access were to be assumed to be restricted 

across the entire Ross Project area—696 ha [1,721 ac]—and based upon a market value of 

products sold from crop and livestock sales in Crook County averaging $28 per acre in 2007 

dollars (USDA, 2009), $48,188 in annual lost-agriculture sales could be estimated as the upper 

end of this potential loss, or $481,880 over the lifecycle of the Project. These losses would be 

offset by the compensation paid to the landowners, where the exact terms of the respective 

compensation is confidential. 

Transportation

During the Proposed Action, the highest traffic volume would occur during the construction 

phase because of the relatively large workforce as well as the increased demand for materials 

and equipment at the Ross Project area. The Applicant estimated that the increased traffic 

would be approximately 400 passenger automobiles and 24 trucks per day, which, compared to 

2010 levels, represents a significant traffic volume increase of approximately 400 percent on 

New Haven Road. Thus, construction-phase transportation impacts would be MODERATE to 

LARGE with respect to the traffic levels on local roads and the road surfaces (SMALL to 

MODERATE with mitigation), and SMALL with respect to traffic levels on Interstate highway 

system. All other phases would have less traffic related to commuting workers, but the impacts 

would still range from SMALL to LARGE. The increased traffic could result in more traffic 

accidents as well as significant wear and tear on local road surfaces. Mitigation measures 

would be in place and would reduce the range of these impacts to no more than MODERATE

(on local roads). 

Geology and Soils

Under the Proposed Action, potential impacts to geology and soils would occur due to the 

disturbance of 114 ha [282 ac] of the Ross Project area, or about 16 percent (Strata, 2011a). 

Other soils impacts would include the Applicant’s clearing of vegetation; stripping of topsoils; 

excavating, backfilling, and compacting soils; grading of the land; and trenching for utilities and 

pipelines. There are limited potential impacts to geology because of the minor depth of

disturbance associated with construction of the Ross Project. The potential impacts from soils 

loss would be minimized by proper design and operation of surface-runoff features and 

implementation of best management practices (BMPs). Impacts to geology and soils would be 

SMALL. 

Water Resources

The Ross Project has the potential to impact quantity and quality of surface water and ground 

water during each phase of its lifecycle.

Surface Water

Under the Proposed Action, potential impacts to surface water would include increased 

sediment concentrations from runoff, contamination by a spill or unintended release of process 

solutions, and reduced volumes of water in the Oshoto Reservoirs and the Little Missouri River. 

Implementation of mitigation measures and BMPs would result in SMALL impacts to the quality 

of surface water. The minimal use of surface water during the Proposed Actions would 

potentially cause SMALL impacts to the quantity of surface water.
Cost-Benefit Analysis

7-4 

Ground Water

Under the Proposed Action, potential impacts to ground water are primarily a result of the 

consumptive use of ground water (i.e., removing more ground water than is re-injected in), 

excursions of lixiviant outside of the exempted aquifer, and spills and leaks of fuels and 

lubricants from construction equipment. Impacts to shallow (i.e., near-surface) aquifers would 

be SMALL. Short-term impacts to water quantity in the ore-zone and surrounding aquifers 

would be SMALL to MODERATE during restoration. Short-term impacts to water-quality in the 

ore zone and surrounding aquifers due to excursions could result in SMALL to MODERATE 

impacts during operations. 

Ecology

Under the Proposed Action, potential environmental impacts to ecological resources, both flora 

and fauna, could occur during all phases of the Project; all impacts would be SMALL. 

The impacts to local vegetation could include:

■ Removal of vegetation from the Ross Project area. 

■ Modification of existing vegetative communities. 

■ Loss of sensitive plants and habitats. 

■ Potential spread of invasive-species and noxious-weed populations. 

■ Reduction in wildlife habitat and forage productivity. 

■ Increased risk of soil erosion and weed invasion. 

Impacts to terrestrial wildlife could include:

■ Loss, alteration, or incremental fragmentation of habitat. 

■ Displacement of and stresses on wildlife. 

■ Direct and/or indirect mortalities. 

Aquatic species could be affected by:

■ Disturbances of stream channels. 

■ Increases in suspended sediments. 

■ Pollution from spills and leaks. 

■ Reduction of habitat. 

These impacts would be mitigated by, for example, the Applicant’s implementing the standard 

management practices required or suggested by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department

(WGFD). 
Cost-Benefit Analysis

7-5 

Air Quality

Under the Proposed Action, impacts from nonradiological particulate emissions would primarily 

result from fugitive dust from local roads created by moving vehicles and mobile equipment 

throughout the Ross Project area and, to a far lesser extent, the processes and circuits 

implemented in the Central Processing Plant (CPP). Combustion-engine emissions from dieselequipment operation would occur primarily during the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning phases. In general, however, uranium-recovery activities are not major airemission sources. Air-quality impacts during all phases of the Ross Project would be SMALL. 

Noise

Under the Proposed Action, there would be MODERATE, noise impacts to nearest residences 

near the Ross Project area during construction, operation, and decommissioning. These 

impacts would be the result of construction, operation, and decommissioning activities (e.g., well 

installation and CPP construction, uranium recovery, and CPP decontamination/demolishing 

and well abandonment) and the traffic that would be associated with the Ross Project. For 

example, during high truck-traffic events on New Haven Road during most phases (perhaps not 

during the aquifer-restoration phase) of the Ross Project, residents living on those routes could 

occasionally be annoyed by such noise. At farther offsite residences, communities, or sensitive 

areas that are located more than approximately 300 m [1,000 ft] from specific noise-generating 

activities, however, the impacts would be SMALL because noise levels quickly decrease with 

distance. There are no churches, schools, or community centers located less than 300 m 

[1,000 ft] from the Ross Project’s boundaries. Impacts to workers at the Project also would be 

SMALL because of the Applicant’s compliance with U.S. Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) noise requirements as discussed in its license application (Strata, 

2011a). 

Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources

Under the Proposed Action, the impacts to historical, cultural, and paleontological resources 

within the Ross Project area could range from SMALL to LARGE. This assessment reflects the 

fact that the highest potential for adverse effects to historical and cultural resources would take 

place during the construction phase as well as the fact that efforts to evaluate historic and 

cultural properties and to determine adverse effects and mitigation are incomplete. A 

construction impact beyond MODERATE would not be anticipated because every effort would

be made to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate adverse effects to historical and cultural properties 

in accordance with the Ross Project Programmatic Agreement (PA) that is currently being 

prepared. However, a LARGE impact is not impossible, depending upon the significance and 

integrity of, and the extent of adverse effects on, previously identified historical and cultural

properties or those potentially, inadvertently discovered.

Visual and Scenic Resources

Under the Proposed Action, short-term, but MODERATE, impacts to the visual and scenic 

resources of the Project area during construction would occur, and SMALL longer-term impacts 

for the remainder of the Ross Project would occur (see FSEIS Section 4.10). Potential visual 

and scenic impacts would result from the surface disturbance and construction of the following: 

1) wellfields (including drill rigs, module buildings, wellhead covers, and roads; 2) the CPP; 
Cost-Benefit Analysis

7-6 

3) surface impoundments; 4) the CBW; 5) access roads; 6) power lines; and 7) fencing. The 

nearest protected visual resource to the Ross Project is the Devils Tower National Monument

(Devils Tower or Bear Lodge), which is approximately 16 km [10 mi] east of the Ross Project. 

Although the Project itself would not be visible from the lower park portion of the Tower, even 

after dark, climbers ascending to the top of the Tower might be able to see some of the Project’s 

largest components (e.g., the CPP) as well as, in the night sky, the lights in the Project area. 

The visual impacts from the Ross Project would be consistent with the U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management’s (BLM’s) VRM Class III designation (BLM, 2007).

The degradation of views of the nighttime sky at four national parks (i.e., Yellowstone, Great 

Basin, Mesa Verde, and Chaco Canyon) has been evaluated by Mitchell et al. using the 

contingent valuation method (CVM) during summer surveys in 2007 (Mitchell et al., 2008). 

These surveys were designed to quantify the willingness-to-pay (WTP) to reduce light pollution 

in these areas. Over 50 percent of respondents were willing to pay a positive amount to 

address light pollution. The average amount individuals would be willing to increase their 

Federal tax to reduce light pollution was estimated to be $39.37 per year per person. When the 

self-reported survey characteristics are reviewed, there is a positive correlation between the 

extent individuals are exposed to light pollution and their willingness to pay to reduce it. Hence, 

people in rural areas are generally less willing to pay to reduce light pollution. There are 11 

residences within Ross Project area where visual-resource impacts were evaluated (see FSEIS

Section 4.10). Based upon an average household size of 2.41 persons per household in Crook 

County (USCB, 2012), an estimated 27 persons could be affected by light from the Project; the 

external costs associated with light pollution would be $1,063 per year or $10,630 over the 

lifecycle of the Ross Project.

Socioeconomics

Under the Proposed Action, most of the socioeconomic costs of the Ross Project would be 

SMALL (see SEIS Section 4.11.1.1), even during the phase with the most significant impacts, 

the construction phase. The Applicant has committed to hiring locally and, during peak 

construction-phase activities, only 52 additional residents would be expected to enter the region

(i.e., Crook and Campbell Counties). Less significant impacts would occur in subsequent 

Project phases. Ross Project-related population increases would represent less than 0.1 

percent of the 2010 population in the two-county region and, in general, existing communityservice providers, such as local schools, health-service agencies, and police and fire-protection 

agencies are not expected to be adversely affected by this level of increased demand for public 

services. 

There would be an increased need, however, for emergency-response services. The Applicant

has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Crook County (Strata and Crook 

County, 2011) that states the Applicant will coordinate emergency-management, hazardousmaterials management, and fire-suppression planning with Crook County’s Homeland Security 

Director and Crook County’s Fire Warden and Fire Zone Warden. The Applicant has committed

to maintaining the onsite personnel and equipment necessary to provide emergency services 

when environmental, safety, or health emergencies arise at the Ross Project. As such, these 

services would not represent a cost to local governments (Strata and Crook County, 2011).
Cost-Benefit Analysis

7-7 

The MOU also states the Applicant will: 

■ Provide electronic warning signs that would close county roads into the Ross Project 

area in the case of an emergency. 

■ Provide dust control for existing and increased traffic as a result of the Ross Project, as 

necessary, and as required by the WDEQ. This would include providing dust control 

over each one-quarter-mile segment of the county roads fronting the residences along 

any road designated by the County as an access road to the Ross Project, in order to 

minimize fugitive-dust impacts on nearby residents. 

■ Maintain and repair any damage caused by the Applicant’s trucks or its contracted trucks 

as a result of their road use, as dictated and regulated by Crook County (Strata and 

Crook County, 2011). 

These measures would minimize any costs that would be borne by local jurisdictions and area 

residents.

Environmental Justice

No minority or low-income populations have been identified in the Ross Project area. 

Therefore, there are no disproportionately significant or adverse impacts to minority and lowincome populations by the Ross Project. 

Public and Occupational Health and Safety

Under the Proposed Action, potential nonradiological and radiological impacts to the public’s 

and workers’ health and safety over the course of the Ross Project could result from accidental 

chemical or radiological releases; chemical or byproduct-material liquid spills or releases;

particulate and gaseous emissions; vehicular and equipment accidents; worker injuries and 

illnesses; or fires. The Applicant has proposed to minimize these potential impacts through 

rigorous worker training, careful facility and wellfield design, operational controls, and a series of 

emergency-response protocols.

An important factor in the assessment of risks to public health and safety is the proximity of 

potentially impacted populations. The nearest incorporated community to the Ross Site is 

Moorcroft, Wyoming, with an estimated population of less than 1,000; Moorcroft is located 

approximately 35 km [22 mi] south of the Ross Project area. Unincorporated Oshoto is adjacent 

to the Ross Project area, but it has a population of fewer than 50 persons. In addition, the 

quantities of materials that could be released, even through the air pathway, would be small 

and, as discussed in FSEIS Section 4.7, would be dispersed and diluted. Workers involved in 

the response and cleanup of spills and other releases could receive MODERATE impacts; these 

would be mitigated to SMALL by the Applicant’s establishing standard operating procedures 

(SOPs), employing BMPs, and instituting strict training requirements. Thus, little to no risk 

would be posed to the offsite public, and any impacts would be SMALL. 
Cost-Benefit Analysis

7-8 

Waste Management

Under the Proposed Action, both liquid and solid wastes would be generated during all phases 

of the Ross Project’s lifecycle. Several major waste streams are identified in FSEIS Section 

4.14. At least four of these waste streams have the potential to impact the local communities.

The disposal of liquid byproduct-material waste would be accomplished by injection of this type 

of waste into a confined aquifer. The regulatory permitting process for this type of waste 

disposal would ensure that all mitigation measures to minimize related potential impacts would 

be taken. Ordinary solid waste would include trash, spent materials, and broken equipment. 

Hazardous waste, solid or liquid, would represent a very small volume of spent reagents and 

other items, such as batteries. Solid byproduct-material waste would consist of Ross Project 

equipment, process vessels, building components, and other items that could not be 

decontaminated and released for unrestricted use. All three types of these wastes would be 

disposed of at offsite waste-disposal facilities, and these wastes would have little impact on the 

respective disposal facilities’ ultimate capacity due to the wastes’ small cumulative volume. 

Thus, waste-management impacts during all phases of the Ross Project would be SMALL.

7.1.3 Findings and Conclusions

The Proposed Action would have a SMALL to MODERATE socioeconomic impacts on the twocounty region, with MODERATE impacts associated with the benefits of the additional tax 

revenue that would accrue to Crook County. Regional benefits would include increased 

employment, economic activity, and tax revenues in the region and Wyoming. Because the 

Applicant has committed to hiring personnel locally, population increases and the subsequent 

need for additional public services would be negligible. Access restrictions to the Ross Project 

area would result in the loss of some economic activities (e.g., agriculture), but this loss would

be offset to a degree by the Applicant’s compensation to the affected landowners. A limited 

number of residents would also be affected by dust, noise, and/or light pollution from the Ross 

Project. However, in conclusion, the economic benefits of the Proposed Action would be 

greater than the associated costs.

7.2 Alternative 2: No Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, the NRC would not issue the Applicant a license to construct, 

operate, restore the aquifer, and decommission the proposed Ross Project. Area residents 

could be impacted by or reap benefits from some limited preconstruction activities, but no 

longer-term environmental impacts and/or economic benefits would accrue to area residents, 

local jurisdictions, or the State. Alternatively, there would be no potential costs borne by nearby 

jurisdictions and residents.

7.3 Alternative 3: North Ross Project

Construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the North Ross Project are 

not expected to result in any significant differences in this cost-benefit analysis. Overall landuse impacts would be generally the same as for the Proposed Action, although impacts to 

dryland crop agriculture would be lower, while impacts to grazing activities would be greater. 

Small changes in traffic patterns on roads to and within the Ross Project area could result in a 

reduced traffic volume on New Haven Road that would be offset by increased traffic on other 

roads (e.g., D Road). These changing traffic patterns would very slightly increase noise and air-
Cost-Benefit Analysis

7-9 

quality impacts, but these impacts would be offset by fewer directly affected residents. Impacts 

to other resources areas also are generally the same as for the Proposed Action. Thus, the 

major costs and benefits described for the Proposed Action would accrue similarly were the 

Project facility (i.e., the CPP, surface impoundments, and other structures including those for 

storage and parking) to be constructed and operated at the north site. 

7.4 References

(US)BLM (U.S. Bureau of Land Management). Visual Resource Management. Manual 8400. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 2007. Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML ML101790184.

(US)CB (U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce). “State and County QuickFacts, 

Wyoming, Crook County, Campbell County.” 2012. At http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/

states/56000.html (as of June 25, 2012).

(US)DA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2007 Census of Agriculture, County Profile, Crook 

County, Wyoming. Washington, DC: USDA. 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML13014A730. 

Mitchell, David, Julie Gallaway, and Reed Olsen. “Estimating the Willingness to Pay for Dark 

Skies (Draft)” in 83rd Annual Meetings of the Western Economic Association International. 

Springfield, MO: Missouri State University. 2008. ADAMS Accession No. ML13024A313.

(US)NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Environmental Review Guidance for 

Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.” NUREG–1748. Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2003b. ADAMS Accession No. ML032450279.

(US)NRC. “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities. Volumes 1 and 2.” NUREG–1910. Washington, DC: USNRC. May 2009b. ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML09148024 and ML0911480188.

(US)NRC. “Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, No. SUA-1601.” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2014b. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A111.

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Environmental Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130342, ML110130344, and 

ML110130348. 

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, Technical

Report, Volumes 1 through 6 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 

2011b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130333, ML110130335, ML110130314, ML110130316, 

ML110130320, and ML110130327.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, RAI Question 

and Answer Responses, Environmental Report, Volume 1 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-

09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2012a. ADAMS Accession No. ML121030465. 
Cost-Benefit Analysis

7-10

Strata and Crook County. Memorandum of Understanding for Improvement and Maintenance of 

Crook County Roads Providing Access to the Ross ISR Project. Sundance, WY: Strata and 

Crook County. April 6, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML111170303. 

WLSO (Wyoming Legislative Service Office). Wyoming Severance Taxes and Federal Mineral 

Royalties. Cheyenne, WY: WLSO. 2010. ADAMS Accession No. ML13015A700. 
Environmental Consequences

8-1 

8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The environmental consequences of the Proposed Action, the Ross Project, and Alternative 3, 

the North Ross Project, are summarized next in Table 8.1.
8-2 

Table 8.1

Summary of the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

Unavoidable

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources

Short-Term Impacts

and 

Uses of the 

Environment

a

a

LAND USE

Alternative 1:

Proposed Action

Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.2.1.)

There would be SMALL 

unavoidable adverse impacts on 

land use over the lifecycle of the 

Ross Project because certain areas 

of the Project area would be fenced 

during the Project’s construction, 

operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning. The area 

disturbed, however, is small—114 

hectares (ha) [282 acres (ac)]. At 

the end of the Project, after facility 

decommissioning and site 

restoration have been fully 

accomplished, the former land uses 

of the Ross Project area would be 

restored.

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable impacts to land use 

in the area as a result of the 

Proposed Action. All land would 

be restored to its baseline uses 

post-Ross Project. Access 

roads would be removed, or they 

would be left as desired by the 

respective landowner(s).

There would be short-term landuse impacts during the Proposed 

Action, predominantly due to a 

decrease in the total area 

available for livestock grazing.

The

imp

Ros

wou

lice

land 

afte

Pro

Alternative 3:

North Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.2.3.)

Approximately the same number of 

acres would be taken out from 

service during Alternative 3. The 

area that would be disturbed would 

still be small. However, some 

livestock grazing could be 

diminished during the lifecycle of 

Alternative 3. However, as above, 

after complete facility 

decommissioning and site 

restoration have been 

accomplished, the former land use 

would be restored.

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable impacts to land use 

in the area as a result of 

Alternative 3. All land would be 

restored to its baseline uses.

There would be short-term 

impacts to land use in 

Alternative 3. The total area 

available for livestock grazing 

would be temporarily reduced.

The

imp

are

the 

the 

wou

dec

Alte
8-3 

Table 8.1

Summary of the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

(Continued)

Unavoidable

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources

Short-Term Impacts

and 

Uses of the 

Environment

a

a

TRANSPORTATION

Alternative 1:

Proposed Action

Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.3.1.)

During the four phases of the 

Proposed Action, the unavoidable 

impacts to transportation, which 

would be related specifically to 

traffic volumes, would range from 

SMALL (on Interstate highways) to 

MODERATE (on local roads). 

Because the Ross Project is 

located in a rural area of Wyoming, 

where traffic is sparse, the increase 

in traffic as a result of the Proposed 

Action could create MODERATE 

to LARGE unmitigated impacts on 

local and County roads. With the 

mitigation measures the Applicant

has proposed, during all phases of 

the Ross Project, transportation 

impacts would be SMALL to 

MODERATE.

There would be no long-term 

irreversible or irretrievable 

environmental impacts from 

increases in transportation by 

the Proposed Action. Once the 

Ross Project has been 

decommissioned and the site 

restored, all traffic impacts of the 

Proposed Action would cease as 

all related traffic would be zero.

Transportation impacts to the 

vicinity of the Proposed Action 

would be SMALL to 

MODERATE, with mitigation. 

These impacts would include 

increased traffic counts and a 

slightly higher probability of 

vehicular accidents. All of these 

short-term impacts would cease 

after the decommissioning of the 

Ross Project.

The 

Pro

tran

be 

Dur

App

roa

Pro

ma

ma

pro

cea

is c

roa

bet

cur

Alternative 3:

North Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.3.3.)

The construction and operation of 

the Central Processing Plant (CPP) 

at the north site would, in general, 

have the same transportation 

impacts as the Proposed Action, 

and these impacts would be 

SMALL to LARGE. With mitigation 

measures, the impacts would be 

SMALL to MODERATE.

There would be no irreversible 

impacts to land use in the area 

as a result of Alternative 3. All 

transportation impacts would 

cease at the conclusion of 

Alternative 3. Access roads 

would be removed, or they 

would be left as desired by the 

respective landowner(s).

There would also be short-term 

impacts to transportation in 

Alternative 3, and they would be 

the same as for the Proposed 

Action. 

The 

Alte

as t

whe

by t

imp

afte

dec

res
8-4 

Table 8.1

Summary of the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

(Continued)

Unavoidable

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources

Short-Term Impacts

and 

Uses of the 

Environment

a

a

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

Alternative 1:

Proposed Action

Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.4.1.)

There would be SMALL 

unavoidable adverse potential 

environmental impacts to the 

geology and soils at the Proposed 

Action. Wind and water erosion 

are possible, but the Applicant

would mitigate the potential for 

erosion with best management 

practices (BMPs) specifically 

related to erosion. (Fugitive dust is 

discussed under “Air Quality” in this 

Table.) There would be few 

geology and soils impacts during 

the Proposed Action.

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of 

geology or soil resources during 

the Proposed Action. No 

permanent changes would occur 

to the overall geology and soils 

of the Ross Project.

There would be some short-term 

potential impacts to soils under 

the Proposed Action, such as 

loss due to erosion. With the 

mitigation measures proposed 

by the Applicant, however, these 

potential impacts are unlikely, 

even over the short term.

The

imp

dur

the 

Alternative 3:

North Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.4.3.)

Alternative 3, as in the Proposed 

Action, would have the potential for 

wind or water erosion. With 

mitigation, however, little erosion 

would be expected. Greater soil 

disturbance for construction of the 

surface impoundments for 

Alternative 3 would be expected 

because of the site-specific 

topographic conditions. There 

would be SMALL impacts to the 

geology and soils at the Ross 

Project area.

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable impacts to geology 

or soils during Alternative 3.

There would be small impacts 

related to the potential for 

eroding soils during Alternative 

3; these would be mitigated and, 

consequently, SMALL.

The

imp

Alte
8-5 

Table 8.1

Summary of the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

(Continued)

Unavoidable

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources

Short-Term Impacts

and 

Uses of the 

Environment

a

a

WATER RESOURCES: SURFACE WATER

Alternative 1:

Proposed Action

Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.5.1.)

There would be SMALL 

unavoidable adverse impacts on 

surface water over the lifecycle of 

the Ross Project. Surface water 

would be potentially impacted by 

sediment from storm-water run-off 

and crossing water features with 

roads and pipelines. The moisture 

conditions of wetlands situated 

along the Little Missouri River and 

adjacent to the Oshoto Reservoir 

would potentially be impacted. 

Accidental leaks, spills, and other 

releases of fluids would potentially 

impact surface water quality. With 

mitigation, however, little 

sedimentation would be expected 

and accidental releases would be 

contained. 

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable impacts to surface 

water by the Proposed Action. 

Small amounts of surface water 

would be used for construction 

activities and dust control, but 

this water would be replaced by 

normal precipitation.

There would be some short-term 

potential impacts to surface 

water under the Proposed 

Action, such as increased 

sedimentation. With the 

mitigation measures proposed 

by the Applicant, however, these 

potential impacts are unlikely, 

even over the short term.

The

imp

the 

Pro

Alternative 3:

North Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.5.1.)

The construction and operation of 

the CPP at the north site in 

Alternative 3 would, in general, 

have the same surface water 

impacts as the Proposed Action; 

however the mitigation measures 

required to protect the two 

ephemeral drainages and the 

steeper land slopes at the North 

Ross Project would involve more 

engineering. With mitigation 

measures, the impacts would be 

SMALL.

As with the Proposed Action, 

there would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable impacts to surface 

water during Alternative 3.

The potential short-term impacts 

to surface water during 

Alternative 3 would be the same 

as for the Proposed Action.

The

imp

Nor

Alte
8-6 

Table 8.1

Summary of the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

(Continued)

Unavoidable

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources

Short-Term Impacts

and 

Uses of the 

Environment

a

a

WATER RESOURCES: GROUND WATER

Alternative 1:

Proposed Action

Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.5.1.)

There would be SMALL 

unavoidable adverse impacts to 

water quality and MODERATE 

unavoidable adverse impacts to 

water quantity on ground-water 

resources over the lifecycle of the 

Ross Project. Aquifers would be 

impacted by water withdrawal and 

injection of lixiviant. Lowering of 

water levels would be seen within 

and outside the Project area. The 

water quality of the aquifers outside 

and below the exempted aquifer 

would temporarily be impacted if 

excursions of lixiviant were to 

occur. Ground water above the 

exempted aquifer would potentially 

by impacted by leaks from wells 

and releases at the surface. With 

mitigation, however, little potential 

for excursions, leaks and 

accidental releases would be 

minimized. There would be SMALL 

to MODERATE impacts to the

ground water quantity and SMALL 

impacts to ground water quality at 

the Ross Project area.

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable impacts to ground 

water from the Proposed Action. 

The lower ground water levels in 

the ore-zone aquifer and the 

aquifer overlying the ore zone 

would be replaced by normal 

recharge over time. Excursions 

would be remediated by 

pumping out contaminated 

water. The water quality of the 

exempted aquifer would 

consequently be restored.

Lowering of water levels would 

be a short-term impact to ground 

water from the Proposed Action. 

Based upon historical 

experience with uraniumrecovery projects, excursions of 

lixiviant could occur and create 

short-term impacts to water 

quality. The mitigation 

measures proposed by the 

Applicant and that will be 

required by permits and 

conditions in the Final Source 

and Byproduct Materials 

License, such as watermanagement actions to minimize 

water usage from the aquifers, 

tests to ensure integrity of the 

wells, and early detection of 

excursions would reduce these 

impacts at the Ross Project.

The

imp

Pro

leve

nor

res

the 

res
8-7 

Table 8.1

Summary of the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

(Continued)

Unavoidable

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources

Short-Term Impacts

and 

Uses of the 

Environment

a

a

WATER RESOURCES: GROUND WATER (Continued)

Alternative 3:

North Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.5.3.)

The construction and operation of 

the CPP at the north site would 

have the same mitigated impacts to 

ground water as the Proposed 

Action except, during Alternative 3, 

fewer mitigation measures to 

minimize the potential impacts to 

the shallow, unconfined aquifer 

from spills and leaks of byproduct 

liquid waste from the 

impoundments would be required. 

The greater depth to the shallow 

aquifer below the impoundments at 

the north site would eliminate the 

need for the containment barrier 

wall to prevent ground-water flow in 

the area below the impoundments 

as in the Proposed Action. 

Mitigation of the potential for leaks 

from the impoundments at the 

north site would rely upon leak 

detection and monitoring systems 

as well as remediation if 

contaminants reached the ground 

water.

As described for the Proposed 

Action, there would be no 

irreversible or irretrievable 

impacts to ground water under 

Alternative 3.

The short-term impacts during 

Alternative 3 would be the same 

as described for the Proposed 

Action.

The

imp

Nor

Alte
8-8 

Table 8.1

Summary of the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

(Continued)

Unavoidable

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources

Short-Term Impacts

and 

Uses of the 

Environment

a

a

ECOLOGY 

Alternative 1:

Proposed Action

Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.6.1.)

There would be SMALL 

unavoidable impacts related to the 

ecology of the Proposed Action. 

Some wildlife could be displaced 

during Project activities, especially 

during construction and 

decommissioning. The areas 

where human activities would be 

conducted could interrupt wildlife

and birds, including protected 

species, that presently occur on the 

site. In addition, some vegetative 

impacts could occur as the land is 

used for uranium recovery. 

However, once facility 

decommissioning and site 

restoration have been completed 

all of these impacts would diminish, 

or baseline conditions would be reestablished, and the ecology of the 

Project area would be restored 

over time.

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of 

ecological resources during the 

Proposed Action. There are no 

Greater-sage-grouse leks on the 

Ross Project itself. If one or 

more were to become present, 

the Applicant would be required 

to alter its activities, as 

appropriate, at the Ross Project. 

There would be some short-term 

impacts to the ecology of the 

Proposed Action which would 

include the disruption of some 

species of vegetation as well as 

the potential for wildlife, 

including birds, to move 

elsewhere, away from Ross 

Project activities and noise. 

These impacts would cease 

when the decommissioning and 

reclamation of the Ross Project 

area are complete and the local 

habitat is restored.

The

imp

Pro

clos

wou

wou

Pro

bas

Alternative 3:

North Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.6.3.)

Alternative 3 would have the 

potential for the same impacts to 

the local ecology as the Proposed 

Action. These impacts, however, 

would be SMALL.

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable impacts to the local 

ecology during Alternative 3.

There would be small, short-term 

impacts related to the 

disturbance of native vegetation 

and nearby wildlife during 

Alternative 3; these would be 

SMALL and would be the same 

as the Proposed Action.

The

imp

Alte
8-9 

Table 8.1

Summary of the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

(Continued)

Unavoidable

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources

Short-Term Impacts

and 

Uses of the 

Environment

a

a

AIR QUALITY

Alternative 1:

Proposed Action

Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.7.1.)

There would be unavoidable 

adverse effects to local air quality 

due to the emission of combustion 

gases and fugitive dusts during all 

of the phases of the Proposed 

Action. These impacts would be 

SMALL. Fugitive dusts would 

become airborne during 

construction activities (e.g., road 

construction and site clearing and 

contouring) as well as during 

vehicular use to, from, and on the 

Project area. The Applicant would 

have an Air Quality Permit, 

however, that would require air 

emissions to be mitigated so that 

emissions would be kept to a 

minimum.

No permanent changes would 

occur to the overall quality of air 

at or near the Ross Project.

There would be SMALL shortterm potential impacts to air 

quality under the Proposed 

Action. Gaseous and fugitivedust emissions would be 

generated during all phases of 

the Ross Project. With the 

mitigation measures proposed 

by the Applicant, and those 

required by its Air Quality Permit, 

however, these potential impacts 

would be short term.

The

imp

Pro

Act

dec

are

air-

Alternative 3:

North Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.7.3.)

Under Alternative 3, the same airquality impacts would occur as 

during the Proposed Action. 

Because the CPP would be located 

such that gravel-road surfaces 

would be used slightly more often, 

there could be slightly more fugitive 

dust generated under Alternative 3.

No permanent changes would 

occur to the overall quality of air 

at or near the North Ross 

Project. 

As for the Proposed Action, 

Alternative 3 would generate 

gaseous and fugitive-dust 

emissions throughout its 

lifecycle. But these impacts 

would also be SMALL.

The

imp

of A

the 

dec

are

air-
8-10

Table 8.1

Summary of the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

(Continued)

Unavoidable

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources

Short-Term Impacts

and 

Uses of the 

Environment

a

a

NOISE

Alternative 1:

Proposed Action

Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.8.1.)

There would be would be SMALL 

to MODERATE unavoidable 

adverse noise impacts during the 

Proposed Action. Because the 

Ross Project has several 

residences located near its 

boundaries, the noise generated 

during the Project’s lifecycle would 

be MODERATE to those nearest 

receptors due to increased 

vehicular noise such as supply 

deliveries, commuter traffic, and 

shipments from the Project. The 

four phases of the south Ross 

Project facility, including the CPP, 

surface impoundments, and other 

structures as well as the installation 

of wells would cause noise impacts 

that could not entirely be mitigated 

for nearby residents or eliminated 

completely for onsite workers; 

however, the noise impacts would 

be very short term and intermittent, 

and all noise would quickly diminish 

at greater distances from the Ross 

Project area. 

There would be no long-term 

permanent noise impacts from 

the Proposed Action. Once the 

Ross Project has been 

decommissioned and the site 

restored, all Project-related 

noise would cease.

Short-term noise impacts in the 

vicinity of the Proposed Action 

would be SMALL to 

MODERATE. These impacts 

would include increased 

construction noise as well as 

increased vehicular noise. All 

such impacts, however, would 

cease after facility 

decommissioning and site 

restoration activities are 

complete.

The

imp

with 
8-11

Table 8.1

Summary of the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

(Continued)

Unavoidable

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources

Short-Term Impacts

and 

Uses of the 

Environment

a

a

NOISE (Continued)

Alternative 3:

North Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.8.3.)

During Alternative 3, there would 

be SMALL to MODERATE 

unavoidable adverse impacts with 

respect to noise. These impacts 

would be the same as in the 

Proposed Action, except some 

noise impacts would be diminished 

because construction and 

decommissioning activities at the 

north site would be a greater 

distance to the nearest residence.

There would be no long-term 

permanent noise impacts from 

Alternative 3. Once the north 

Ross Project has been 

decommissioned and the site 

restored, all Project-related 

noise would cease.

Short-term noise impacts in the 

vicinity of Alternative 3 would be 

SMALL to MODERATE. These 

impacts would include increased 

construction noise as well as 

increased vehicular noise. All 

such impacts, however, would 

cease after facility 

decommissioning and site 

restoration activities are 

complete.

The

imp

res
8-12

Table 8.1

Summary of the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

(Continued)

Unavoidable

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources

Short-Term Impacts

and 

Uses of the 

Environment

a

a

HISTORICAL, CULTURAL, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Alternative 1:

Proposed Action

Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.9.1.)

Impacts on historic and cultural 

resources during the ISR 

construction phase would be 

SMALL to LARGE. To mitigate 

the impact, NRC, ACHP, BLM, 

Wyoming SHPO, Tribes, and the 

Applicant will develop and 

execute an agreement that would 

formalize a process for 

addressing adversely impacted 

resources during construction. If 

NRHP- eligible sites cannot be 

avoided then treatment plans 

would be developed. If other 

historic and cultural resources 

are encountered during the ISR 

lifecycle, the Applicant would 

notify the appropriate authorities 

per an unexpected discovery 

plan. 

If archaeological and historic 

sites cannot be avoided, or the 

impacts to these sites cannot be 

mitigated, this could result in an 

irreversible and irretrievable loss 

of cultural resources.

There would be a SMALL to 

LARGE impact on historic and 

cultural resources during the ISR 

construction phase. The 

development of an agreement 

between NRC, ACHP, BLM, 

Wyoming SHPO, Tribes, and the 

Applicant would address adverse 

impacts to cultural and historic 

sites and historic properties of 

traditional religious and cultural 

importance to Native American 

tribes. If any unidentified historic 

or cultural resources are 

encountered, work would stop 

and appropriate authorities would 

be notified per the unexpected 

discovery plan.

If po

imp

actio

long

histo

Alternative 3:

North Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.9.3.)
8-13

Table 8.1

Summary of the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

(Continued)

Unavoidable

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources

Short-Term Impacts

and 

Uses of the 

Environment

a

a

VISUAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES

Alternative 1:

Proposed Action

Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.10.1.)

There would be SMALL 

unavoidable impacts related to the 

visual and scenic resources at the 

Proposed Action. During the 

construction, earth-movement 

activities could be seen by a few of 

the nearby residents, who could 

experience MODERATE impacts. 

The lights of the Project could also 

be seen by some of the nearest 

neighbors. There would be many 

mitigation measures related to the 

lights of the Ross Project which 

would be implemented by the 

Applicant to diminish as much as 

possible the light emanating from 

the Proposed Action. 

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of 

visual or scenic resources 

caused by the Proposed Action. 

All visual-resource impacts 

would be eliminated upon the 

Ross Project’s facility 

decommissioning and site 

restoration activities. These 

activities would include restoring 

the baseline contours of the 

Ross Project area.

There would be some short-term 

impacts to the visual resources 

at the Proposed Action. These 

would include changes to the 

topography of the area; the 

presence of man-made 

structures; and light during 

nighttime hours. These impacts 

would cease when the 

decommissioning and 

reclamation of the Ross Project 

area are complete, when the 

baseline topography is restored 

and all lights are removed.

The

imp

res

are

Pro

dec

imp

wou

the 

bas

Alternative 3:

North Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.10.3.)

Alternative 3 would have the same

potential for visual-resource 

impacts as the Proposed Action. 

These SMALL to MODERATE 

impacts would be even less than 

those of the Ross Project, because 

the natural topography of the north 

area would shield construction and 

operation activities related to the 

uranium-recovery facility. Thus, 

the closest residences’ views would 

be less impacted as would their 

experience of light in the nighttime 

skies.

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable impacts to the visual 

and scenic resources caused by 

Alternative 3.

There would be some short-term 

impacts to visual and scenic 

resources at the Proposed 

Action; these impacts would be 

related to changes to the local 

topography, the presence of 

man-made structures, and the 

occurrence of night-time lighting 

as a result of Alternative 3. 

The

imp

res
8-14

Table 8.1

Summary of the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

(Continued)

Unavoidable

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources

Short-Term Impacts

and 

Uses of the 

Environment

a

a

SOCIOECONOMICS

Alternative 1:

Proposed Action

Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.11.1.)

There would be SMALL 

unavoidable impacts related to the 

socioeconomics at the Proposed 

Action. These impacts, however, 

would be related to the increased

tax revenues that local jurisdictions 

would collect related taxes. Other 

socioeconomic factors such as 

impacts to employment, income, 

demographics, housing, and 

education as well as demand for 

social and health services would be 

SMALL, while the impacts related

to local tax revenues would be 

MODERATE during the 

construction and operation phases 

of the Ross Project.

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of 

socioeconomic resources during 

the Proposed Action. 

Socioeconomic impacts would

be diminished upon the Ross 

Project’s decommissioning. For 

example, the increased need for 

housing, although SMALL, would 

be eliminated after the Ross 

Project terminates. 

There would be some short-term 

impacts to socioeconomic 

resources by the Proposed 

Action. These would include 

SMALL potential changes to 

local employment, income, 

demographics, housing, and 

education as well as demand for 

social and health services. 

However, the potential impacts 

to tax revenues would be 

MODERATE. All tax payments 

would also be eliminated at the 

conclusion of the Ross Project.

The

imp

res

are

dec

tha

em

dem

edu

inte

wou

wis

and 

elim

rev

Alternative 3:

North Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.11.3.)

There would be the same SMALL 

to MODERATE socioeconomic 

impacts to the area surrounding 

Alternative 3. As the 

socioeconomic variables evaluated 

for this SEIS do not depend upon 

the geography of the Ross Project, 

the North Ross Project would 

accrue the same impacts as the 

Proposed Action.

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of 

socioeconomic resources during 

Alternative 3 as for the Proposed 

Action. 

There would be some short-term 

impacts to socioeconomic 

resources caused by Alternative 

3. These would include the 

same SMALL potential changes 

to local employment, income, 

demographics, housing, and 

education as well as demand for 

social and health services and 

MODERATE impacts to revenue

of local jurisdictions. 

The

imp

res

Alte
8-15

Table 8.1

Summary of the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

(Continued)

Unavoidable

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources

Short-Term Impacts

and 

Uses of the 

Environment

a

a

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Alternative 1:

Proposed Action

Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.12.) There are no minority and low-income populations located within 6 km [4 mi] of the Ro

Consequently, an environmental justice-analysis was not performed for this Propo

Alternative 3:

North Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.12.)
8-16

Table 8.1

Summary of the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

(Continued)

Unavoidable

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources

Short-Term Impacts

and 

Uses of the 

Environment

a

a

PUBLIC AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Alternative 1:

Proposed Action

Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.13.1.)

There would be a SMALL impact 

on public and occupational 

health. Construction and 

decommissioning would generate 

fugitive dust emissions that would 

not result in a significant dose to 

the public or site workers. The 

emissions from construction 

equipment would be of short 

duration and would readily 

disperse into the atmosphere.

Not applicable There would be a SMALL impact 

from radiological exposure. Dose 

calculations under normal 

operations showed that the highest 

potential dose within the proposed 

project area is 5 percent of the 1 

mSv [100 mrem] per year public 

dose limit specified in NRC 

regulations. The radiological 

impacts from accidents would be 

SMALL for workers if procedures to 

deal with accident scenarios are 

followed, and SMALL for the public 

because of the facility’s remote 

location. The nonradiological public 

and occupational health impacts 

from normal operations, accidents, 

and chemical exposures would be 

SMALL if handling procedures are 

followed.

The

to p

follo

Fina

Mat

Alternative 3:

North Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.13.3.)
8-17

Table 8.1

Summary of the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

(Continued)

Unavoidable

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources

Short-Term Impacts

and 

Uses of the 

Environment

a

a

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Alternative 1:

Proposed Action

Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.14.1.)

There would be SMALL 

unavoidable adverse impacts as a 

result of waste management at the 

Proposed Action. The 

management of all waste streams 

(ordinary solid and domestic 

wastes, solid and liquid hazardous 

wastes, and all byproduct wastes) 

would be SMALL during all phases 

of the Ross Project. Many of the 

waste streams would be shipped 

off site to regulated (i.e., permitted 

or licensed as appropriate) 

facilities, which have undergone 

careful scrutiny by the respective 

regulatory agencies. In addition, 

discharge of small amounts of 

liquid byproduct material into the 

Class I deep-injection wells at the 

Project would comply with 

Underground Injection Control 

(UIC) Permit from the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental 

Quality (WDEQ).

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable resources 

committed to waste 

management, except for the 

respective liquid wastes which 

would be injected into the 

Deadwood and Flathead 

Formations approximately 8,000 

feet below the surface. 

However, since these aquifers 

are not potable and have not 

been identified as a source of oil 

and gas resources, the injection 

of waste would not impact the 

aquifer’s future use.

There would be few short-term 

impacts due to waste 

management at the Proposed 

Action. These short-term 

impacts, such as to 

transportation as well as public 

and occupational health and 

safety, which are described in 

this Table under those resource 

areas, would cease when waste 

is no longer generated or 

managed at the Ross Project. In 

addition, during the operation of 

the Proposed Action, there 

would be two double-lined 

surface impoundments with a 

maximum surface area of 

approximately 5.3 ha [13.2 ac] 

of stored liquid; the presence of 

these impoundments could have 

impacts to wildlife and birds. 

However, control features, such 

as an avian-deterrent system 

would be operated throughout 

the Ross Project. These surface 

impoundments would be 

completely removed during 

facility decommissioning and the

area regraded and revegetated.

All 

be 

con

dec

wou

Cla

Dur

Pro

disp

rad

was

term

pro

allo
8-18

Table 8.1

Summary of the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

(Continued)

Unavoidable

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources

Short-Term Impacts

and 

Uses of the 

Environment

a

a

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Alternative 3:

North Ross Project

(See SEIS Section 4.14.3.)

There could be SMALL 

unavoidable waste-management 

impacts at Alternative 3. These 

would be the same as those 

indicated above for the Proposed 

Action. The volume of demolition 

waste could be somewhat less than 

the Proposed Action’s, because the 

containment barrier wall would not 

have been constructed.

This Alternative would also 

employ deep-disposal wells, so 

that the same commitment of the 

Deadwood and Flathead aquifer 

would occur.

The short-term impacts of 

Alternative 3’s management of 

wastes would be the same as 

those for the Proposed Action.

The 

Alte

was

tho
List of Preparers

9-1 

9 LIST OF PREPARERS

This section documents all of the individuals who were involved with the preparation of this 

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS). Contributors include staff 

from the NRC and its consultants. Each individual’s responsibilities and affiliation are as 

follows. 

9.1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contributors

Johari Moore

SEIS Project Manager

M.S., Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences, University of Michigan, 2005

B.S., Physics, Florida A & M University, 2003

Years of Experience: 8 

Ashley Waldron

SEIS Co-Project Manager

B.S., Biology, Frostburg State University, 2009

Years of Experience: 4 

John Fringer, P.E.

Cultural Resources Reviewer

B.S., Chemistry, University of Maryland, 1978

B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Texas, 1985

Years of Experience: 25 

9.2 Attenuation Environmental Company Team

Doris Minor

Project Manager and Task Co-Manager

Attenuation Environmental Company

Radiological Public and Occupational Health and Safety/Solid and Radioactive Waste Management

M.S.E., (Nuclear) Engineering, University of Washington, 1984

B.A., English Literature, University of Washington, 1978

Years of Experience: 30

Dr. Kathryn Johnson 

Assistant Project Manager and Task Co-Manager

Attenuation Environmental Company

Geochemistry/Geology/Water Resources/Liquid Waste Management/Facility Design and Operation

Ph.D., Geology, South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, 1986

M.S., Chemistry, Iowa State University, 1977

B.S., Chemistry and Mathematics, Black Hills State College, 1975

Years of Experience: 33
List of Preparers

9-2 

9.2 Attenuation Environmental Company Team

 (Continued)

Jerry Boese

Ross & Associates Environmental Consulting Ltd., dba Ross Strategic

Public Comment Management

M.P.A., John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 1989

B.S., Biology and Economics, Yale University, 1975

Years of Experience: 32

Dr. Tony Burgess 

Attenuation Environmental Company 

Ground-Water Resources

Ph.D., Geology (Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology), 

University of Durham, United Kingdom, 1970

B.Sc., Geology University of Durham, United Kingdom, 1966

Years of Experience: 43

Dr. Cheryl Chapman, P.E.

RESPEC Consulting and Services Inc.

Tribal Coordination and Consultation

Ph.D. in Biological Sciences, South Dakota State University, 

Brookings, South Dakota, 2007

B.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering, 

South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, Rapid City, South Dakota, 1978 

B.S., Mathematics, South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, Rapid City, South Dakota, 1978 

Years of Experience: 32

Andy Chinn

Ross & Associates Environmental Consulting Ltd. dba Ross Strategic 

Public Comment Management

M.A., International Policy Studies, Monterey Institute for International Studies, 2003

B.A., Political Science, Lewis and Clark College, 1997

Years of Experience: 8 

Lauren Evans, P.E. 

Pinyon Environmental Engineering Resources Inc. 

Land Use/Transportation/Ecological Resources/Meteorology

B.S., Geological Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, 1982

Years of Experience: 30

Linn Gould 

Erda Environmental Services Inc.

Environmental Justice/Cumulative Impacts

M.P.H., University of Washington, 2003

M.S., Soil Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1988

B.A., Geology, Smith College, 1980

Years of Experience: 25
List of Preparers

9-3 

9.2 Attenuation Environmental Company Team

 (Continued)

David Heffner, P.E. 

Aspect Consulting L.L.C.

Chemical Engineering

M.S., Chemical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1981

B.S., Environmental Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1979

Years of Experience: 30

Mary Kenner

RESPEC Consulting and Services Inc.

Tribal Coordination and Consultation

B.S., Interdisciplinary Science, South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, 1998 

Years of Experience: 28

Scott Kindred, P.E. 

Aspect Consulting L.L.C.

Ground-Water and Surface-Water Resources/Geology/Soils

M.S., Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1987

B.S., Geology, Brown University, 1983

Years of Experience: 20

Miriam Kolker

Attenuation Environmental Company

Document Production

B.A., Whitman College, 2013

Years of Experience: 2

Charles McClendon

The Delphi Groupe, Inc.

Radiological/Mining/Industrial Hygiene/RSO/NEPA

B.S., Civil (Mining) Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, 1976

M.B.A., Nova University, Dade County, Florida 1985he 

Years of Experience: 35

David McCormack 

Aspect Consulting L.L.C.

Geology/Soils

M.S., Geology, Northern Arizona State University, 1989

B.S., Geological Sciences, University of Washington, 1983

Years of Experience: 23

Christian J. Miss

SWCA Environmental Consultants

Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources/Tribal Consultation

B.A., Biology, Case Western Reserve University, 1970 

M.A., Anthropology, Idaho State University, 1978

Years of Experience: 40
List of Preparers

9-4 

9.2 Attenuation Environmental Company Team

 (Continued)

Bradley A. Noisat

Niwot Archaeological Consultants Inc.

Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources/Archaeologist

B.A., Anthropology, San Jose State University, 1976

M.A., Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder, 1978

Years of Experience: 39

Jessie Piper 

SWCA Environmental Consultants

Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources/Tribal Consultation

B.A., Anthropology, University of Arizona, 1989

M.A., Anthropology, University of Arizona, 1992

Years of Experience: 20

Debby Reber 

SWCA Environmental Consultants

Visual Resources 

B.A., Natural Resource Management, University of California, Chico, 1984

Years of Experience: 15

Owen Reese, P.E.

Aspect Consulting L.L.C.

Surface-Water Resources

M.S., Civil Engineering, University of Washington, 1997

B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Washington, 1996

Years of Experience: 15

Karla Sparks

RESPEC Consulting and Services Inc.

Tribal Coordination and Consultation

M.S., Biological Science, University of Central Missouri, 2007

B.S., Biological Science, Edgewood College, 2005

Years of Experience: 6

Barbara Trenary 

Attenuation Environmental Company

Air Quality/Noise/Non-Radiological Public and Occupational Health and Safety

B.S., Environmental Sciences, Industrial Hygiene, Colorado State University, 1979

Years of Experience: 33
List of Preparers

9-5 

9.2 Attenuation Environmental Company Team

 (Continued)

Jeff Vitucci 

Robert D Niehaus Inc.

Socioeconomics/Cost-Benefit Analysis

M.A., Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1978

B.A., Environmental Studies, San Jose State University, 1974

Years of Experience: 34

Elly Weber

Pinyon Environmental Engineering Resources Inc. 

Ecological Resources

M.S., Environmental Science, Texas Christian University, 2004

B.S., Biology, Texas Christian University, 2001

Years of Experience: 5 

Richard Weinman

Attenuation Environmental Company: Assistant Project Manager

NEPA Analysis/Regulatory Compliance/Land Use Planning

B.A., English, New York University, 1965

M.A., English, Brandeis University, 1966

J.D., Law, University of Puget Sound (Seattle University) School of Law, 1978

Years of Experience: 33

Distribution List

10-1 

10 DISTRIBUTION LIST

The NRC is providing copies of this Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

(FSEIS) to the organizations and individuals listed as follows. The NRC will provide copies to 

other interested organizations and individuals upon request.

10.1 Federal Agency Officials 

James Bashor 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Newcastle Field Office

Newcastle, WY

John Keck

U.S. National Park Service

Devils Tower National Monument

Devils Tower, WY

Dr. John T Eddins

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Washington, DC

10.2 Tribal Government Officials 

Donnie Cabniss

Apache Tribe

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Anadarko, OK

John Murray

Blackfeet Tribe

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Browning, MT 

Margaret Anquoe 

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes

Acting Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Concho, OK

Steve Vance

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Eagle Butte, SD

Alvin Windy Boy, Sr.

Chippewa Cree Tribe

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Box Elder, MT 
Distribution List

10-2 

10.2 Tribal Government Officials 

(Continued) 

Ira Matt

Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribe

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Pablo, MT 

Emerson Bull Chief

Crow Tribe

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Crow Agency, MT

Wanda Wells

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Ft. Thompson, SD

Wilfred Ferris

Eastern Shoshone Tribe

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Fort Washakie, WY 

Carol Robertson 

Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribe

Acting Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Flandreau, SD

Ina Nez Perce

 Fort Belknap Tribe

 Environmental Protection Manager

Harlem, MT 

Darrell “Curley” Youpee

Fort Peck Tribes

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Poplar, MT 

Amie Tah-bone

Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma

NAGPRA Representative

Carnegie, OK 

Scott Jones, Director 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

 Cultural Resources 

Lower Brule, SD 
Distribution List

10-3 

10.2 Tribal Government Officials 

(Continued) 

Corrine Headley

Interim Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Northern Arapaho Tribe

Fort Washakie, WY 

Conrad Fisher

Northern Cheyenne Tribe

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Lame Deer, MT 

Joyce Whiting 

Oglala Sioux Tribe

Project Review Officer 

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Pine Ridge, SD

Russell Eagle Bear

Rosebud Sioux Tribe

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Rosebud, SD

Rick Thomas

Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Niobrara, NE 

Dianne Desrosiers

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Sisseton, SD

Eric Longie

Spirit Lake Tribe

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Fort Totten, ND 

Wašté Wiŋ Young

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Fort Yates, ND 

Elgin Crows Breast

Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara Nation

Three Affiliated Tribes

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

New Town, ND 
Distribution List

10-4 

10.2 Tribal Government Officials 

(Continued) 

Bruce F. Nadeau

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Belcourt, ND 

Lyle Miller 

Yankton Sioux Tribe

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Wagner, SD 

10.3 State Agency Officials 

Mary Hopkins

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office

Cheyenne, WY

Mark Rogaczewski

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division

Sheridan, WY

Tanner Shatto

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division

Sheridan, WY

John Passehl

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division

Cheyenne, WY

Scott Talbott

Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Sheridan, WY

10.4 Local Agency Officials 

Crook County Commissioners

Sundance, WY

10.5 Other Organizations and Individuals

Shannon Anderson, Esq.

Powder River Basin Resource Council

Sheridan, WY

Geoffrey H. Fettus, Esq.

Natural Resources Defense Council

Washington, DC
Distribution List

10-5 

10.5 Other Organizations and Individuals

(Continued) 

Ralph Knode

Strata Energy, Inc. 

Gillette, WY

Anthony Thompson, Esq. 

Thompson & Pugsley, P.L.L.C. 

Washington, DC

Echo Bohl

Crook County Library/Hulett Branch

Hulett, WY

Pamela Jespersen

Crook County Library/Moorcroft Branch

Moorcroft, WY

APPENDIX A

CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE

Appendix A: Consultation Correspondence

A-1 

APPENDIX A: CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, and the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, require that Federal agencies consult with 

applicable Federal and State agencies and groups prior to taking an action that may affect 

threatened and endangered species, essential fish habitat, or historical and archaeological 

resources. This Appendix lists the available Ross Project consultation documentation related to 

these Federal statutes. 

Table A.1

Chronology of Consultation Correspondence

Author Recipient Date of Letter

ADAMS

Accession

Number

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(L. Camper)

Fort Peck Tribal 

Executive Board

November 19, 2010(1) ML103160580

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(L. Camper)

Fort Belknap 

Community Council

February 9, 2011(2) ML110400321

Turtle Mountain Band of 

Chippewa Indians 

(K. Ferris)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(A. Bjornsen)

April 14, 2011 ML111080059

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

Sisseton-Wahpeton Lakota 

Tribal Historic Preservation 

Office 

(D. Desrosiers)

August 11, 2011(3) ML112220386

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Dept. of the Interior 

(M. Sattelberg)

August 12, 2011 ML112200151

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma

(L. Guy)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(A. Bjornsen)

August 19, 2011 ML11336A224

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(A. Persinko)

Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office 

(M. Hopkins)

August 19, 2011 ML112150393

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(A. Persinko)

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation 

(J. Fowler)

August 19, 2011 ML112150427
Appendix A: Consultation Correspondence

A-2 

Table A.1

Chronology of Consultation Correspondence

(Continued)

Author Recipient Date of Letter

ADAMS

Accession

Number

U.S. Dept. of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

(M. Sattelberg)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

September 13, 2011 ML112770035

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation 

(C. Hall)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(A. Persinko)

September 13, 2011 ML112770035

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department

(J. Emmerich)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(A. Bjornsen)

September 22, 2011 ML112660130

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(L. Camper)

U.S. National Park Service 

Devils Tower

National Monument 

(D. FireCloud)

December 5, 2011 ML113120356

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

Strata Energy, Inc. 

(M. James)

December 6, 2011 ML113200121

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation 

(C. Vaughn)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(A. Persinko)

December 12, 2011 ML113480465

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

Fort Peck Tribe

(D. Youpee)

December 22, 2011(3) ML113420504

Strata Energy, Inc.

(M. James)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

January 12, 2012 ML120720266

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation

(C. Vaughn)

January 31, 2012 ML113490371

Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

(R. Eagle Bear)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(A. Bjornsen)

February 1, 2012 ML120390551
Appendix A: Consultation Correspondence

A-3 

Table A.1

Chronology of Consultation Correspondence

(Continued)

Author Recipient Date of Letter

ADAMS

Accession

Number

Strata Energy, Inc.

(R. Knode)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

August 31, 2012 ML12248A421

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

Santee Sioux 

Tribe of Nebraska

(R. Thomas)

September 20, 2012(3) ML12264A220

WWC Engineering

(B. Schiffer)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(J. Moore)

October 16, 2012 ML12311A338

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

Kiowa Indian Tribe

(J. Eskew)

November 21, 2012(3) ML12325A776

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

(W. Young)

Makoche Wowapi

(T. Mentz)

November 27, 2013 ML12334A305

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

(S. Vance)

Makoche Wowapi

(T. Mentz)

November 27, 2013 ML12335A218

Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

(R. Eagle Bear)

Makoche Wowapi

(T. Mentz)

November 28, 2013 ML12335A227

Strata Energy, Inc.

(R. Knode)

Makoche Wowapi

(T. Mentz)

February 15, 2013 ML13063A235

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office 

(R. Currit)

March 8, 2013 ML13044A326

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission 

(K. Hsueh)

Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officers

March 11, 2013(3) ML13070A373

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(L. Camper)

Flandreau-Santee Sioux 

(A. Reider)

March 22, 2013(4) ML13085A005
Appendix A: Consultation Correspondence

A-4 

Table A.1

Chronology of Consultation Correspondence

(Continued)

Author Recipient Date of Letter

ADAMS

Accession

Number

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

U.S. National Park Service

Devils Tower 

National Monument

(J. Keck)

March 22, 2013 ML13067A198

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

(M. Sattelberg)

March 22, 2013 ML13067A194

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation

(R. Nelson)

March 22, 2013 ML13067A075

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office 

(M. Hopkins)

March 22, 2013 ML13067A173

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

Wyoming Game and

Fish Department

(S. Talbott)

March 22, 2013 ML13067A142

Rosebud Sioux Tribe

(R. Eagle Bear)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(J. Moore)

March 25, 2013 ML13121A295

Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office 

(R. Currit)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

March 28, 2013 ML13101A403

Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation 

(C. Vaughn)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

May 3, 2013 ML13196A368

U.S. Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 

and

U.S. National Park Service

(R. Stewart)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(C. Bladey)

May 8, 2013 ML13144A826
Appendix A: Consultation Correspondence

A-5 

Table A.1

Chronology of Consultation Correspondence

(Continued)

Author Recipient Date of Letter

ADAMS

Accession

Number

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(J. Moore)

Rosebud Sioux Tribe (R. Eagle 

Bear)

May 10, 2013(5) ML13137A070

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department

(M. Konishi)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(C. Bladey)

May 10, 2013 ML13137A086

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

(M. Wilson)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

(C. Bladey)

May 13, 2013 ML13137A055

Northern Arapaho THPO U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

July 22, 2013 ML13204A158

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation

(C. Vaughn)

August 14, 2013 ML13197A139

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

Blackfeet Tribe

(J. Murray)

September 19, 2013(3) ML13262A186

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation

(C. Vaughn)

September 19, 2013 ML13253A212

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office 

(R. Currit)

September 20, 2013 ML13241A257

Strata Energy, Inc.

(M. Griffin)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

September 27, 2013 ML13282A336

Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office 

(R. Currit)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

October 22, 2013 ML13302B421
Appendix A: Consultation Correspondence

A-6 

Table A.1

Chronology of Consultation Correspondence

(Continued)

Author Recipient Date of Letter

ADAMS

Accession

Number

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(J. Moore)

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (J. Eddins) 

October 22, 2013(6) ML13309A116

Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation

(J. Fowler)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(A. Macfarlane)

October 28, 2013 ML13303B046

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(J. Moore)

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (J. Eddins)

October 29, 2013(6) ML13309A066

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(J. Moore)

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (J. Eddins)

November 5, 2013(6) ML13311A120

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(J. Moore)

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (J. Eddins) 

November 13, 2013(6) ML14015A455

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(J. Moore)

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (J. Eddins)

November 20, 2013(6) ML13325A009

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(K. Hsueh)

Strata Energy, Inc.

(M. Griffin)

November 27, 2013 ML13322B209

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(J. Moore)

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (J. Eddins)

December 11, 2013(6) ML13345B320

WWC Engineering

(B. Schiffer)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(J. Moore)

January 7, 2014 ML14015A445

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

(J. Moore)

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (J. Eddins)

January 17, 2014(6) ML14021A081

(1) Similar letters sent to Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (J. Plenty), Crow Creek Sioux Tribe (L. Thompson, Jr.), Lower Brule Sioux 

Tribal Council (M. Jandreau), Oglala Sioux Tribal Council (T. Two Bulls), Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council (R. Bordeaux), Santee 

Sioux Nation (R. Trudell), Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (R. Thunder), Three Affiliated Tribes Business Council (M. Wells), 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe (L. Spaug), Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes (D. Flyingman), Arapaho Business Committee (H. 

Spoonhunter), Crow Tribal Council (C. Eagle), and Eastern Shoshone Tribe (I. Posey).
Appendix A: Consultation Correspondence

A-7 

(2) Similar letters sent to Standing Rock Lakota Tribal Council (C. Murphy), Crow Tribal Council (C. Eagle), Apache Tribe of 

Oklahoma (H. Kostzuta), Sisseton-Wahpeton Lakota (A. Grey, Sr.), Yankton Lakota Tribe (R. Courneyor), Blackfeet Tribal 

Business Council (W. Sharp), Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Council (B. Sazue), Lower Brule Sioux Tribal Council (M. Jandreau), 

Spirit lake Tribal Council (M. Pearson), Oglala Lakota Tribal Council (T. TwoBulls), Shoshone Business Council (I. Posey), 

Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council (G. Small), Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council (R. Bordeaux), Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board 

(A. Stafne), Cheyenne and Arapahoe Tribes of Oklahoma (J. Boswell),Turtle Mountain Chippewa Tribal Council (R. Marcellias), 

Santee Sioux Nation (R. Trudell), Arapaho Business Council (H. Spoonhunter), Three Affiliated Tribes Business Council (M. 

Levings), Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma (D. Tofpi), Flandreau Santee Lakota Executive Committee (G. Bouland), 

Confederated Salish & Kootenai (E. Moran), and Cheyenne River Lakota Tribal Council (J. Plenty).

(3) Similar letters sent to the Tribal Historic Preservation Officers: Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board (D. Youpee), Fort Belknap 

Community Council (D. Belgard), Standing Rock Lakota Tribal Council (W. Young), Crow Tribal Council (D. Old Horn), Yankton 

Lakota Tribe (L. Gravatt), Blackfeet Tribal Business Council (J. Murray), Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Council (W. Wells), Lower 

Brule Sioux Tribal Council (C. Green), Spirit lake Tribal Council (A. Shaw), Oglala Lakota Tribal Council (W. Mesteth), 

Shoshone Business Council (W. Ferris), Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council (C. Fisher), Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council (R. 

Eagle Bear), Cheyenne and Arapahoe Tribes of Oklahoma (D. Hamilton, Santee Sioux Nation (L. Ickes), Arapaho Business 

Council (D. Conrad), Three Affiliated Tribes Business Council (E. Crows Breast), Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma (J. Eskew), 

Flandreau Santee Lakota Executive Committee (J. Weston), Confederated Salish & Kootenai (C. Burke), and Cheyenne River 

Lakota Tribal Council (S. Vance), Sisseton-Wahpeton Lakots (D. Desrosiers).

(4) Similar letters sent to Tribal Chairman: Three Affiliated Tribes (T. Hall), Crow Creek Tribe (B. Sazue), Rosebud Sioux Tribe (C. 

“Whitey” Scott), Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma (A. Poppah), Chippewa Cree Tribe (K. Blatt), Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (C. 

Murphy). Fort Peck Tribes (F. Azure), Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribe (J. Durglo), Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (K. 

Keckler), Eastern Shosone (D. Sinclair), Crow Tribe (D. Old Coyote), Blackfeet Tribe (W. Sharp, Jr.), Spirit Lake Tribe (R. 

Yankton, Sr.), Northern Cheyenne Tribe (J. Robinson), Fort Belknap Tribe (T. King), Yankton Sioux Tribe (T. Cournoyer, Sr.), 

Oglala Sioux Tribe (B. Brewer), Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribe (J. Chief-Boswell), Lower Brule Sioux Tribe (M. Jandreau), 

Santee Sioux Nation (R. Trudell), Northern Arapaho Tribe (D. O’Neal, Sr.), Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Tribes (R. Shepherd). 

(5) Email was also to: Yankton Lakota Tribe (L. Gravatt), Crow Creek Sioux Tribe (W. Wells), Northern Cheyenne Tribe (C. 

Fisher), and Santee Sioux Tribe (R. Thomas), Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians (B. Nadeau and B. Grant), Ethno 

Tech (D. Schwab), RESPEC (C. Chapman), Strata Energy, Inc. (M. Griffin).

(6) Email was also sent to: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (E. Monteith), Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (R. 

Currit), Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (M. Hopkins), WWC Engineering (B. Schiffer), Strata Energy, Inc. (M. 

Griffin), Bureau of Land Management (A. Tratebas), Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma (J. Eskew), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (J. Olmstead), Blackfeet Tribe (J. Murray), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (J. Fringer), Cheyenne and 

Arapahoe Tribes of Oklahoma (M. Anquoe), Cheyenne River Lakota Tribe (S. Vance), Arapaho Chippewa Cree Tribe (A. 

Windy Boy), Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (F. Auld), Crow Tribe (H. Two Leggings), Crow Creek Sioux (W. Wells), 

Flandreau Santee Lakota (J.B. Weston), Fort Belknap (M. Belgarde), Fort Peck (D. “Curley” Youpee), Lower Brule Lakota (C. 

Green), Northern Cheyenne Tribe (C. Fisher), Oglala Lakota Tribe (M. Mesteth), Rosebud Sioux Tribe (R. Eagle Bear), Santee 

Sioux Nation (R. Thomas), Shoshone Tribe (W. Ferris); Sisseton-Wahpeton Lakota (D. Desrosiers); Spirit Lake (D. Smith), 

Standing Rock Lakota (W. Young and T. Clouthier), Three Affiliated Tribes (E. Crows Breast), and Yankton Lakota Tribe (L. 

Gravatt). 

APPENDIX B 

PUBLIC-COMMENT RESPONSES

Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

B.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... B-1 

B.2 Public Participation................................................................................................ B-1 

B.2.1 Notice of Intent to Develop the SEIS.......................................................... B-1 

B.2.2 Public Participation Activities ..................................................................... B-1 

B.2.3 Issuance and Availability of the SEIS......................................................... B-1 

B.2.4 Public Comment Period ............................................................................. B-2 

B.3 Comment Review Methods.................................................................................... B-2 

B.4 Major Issues and Topics of Concern ..................................................................... B-3 

B.5 Comment Summaries and Responses ................................................................. B-8 

B.5.1 General Opposition ................................................................................... B-8 

B.5.2 General Environmental Concerns .............................................................. B-8 

B.5.3 Executive Summary ................................................................................... B-10

B.5.4 Purpose, Need, and Scope of the SEIS/GEIS............................................ B-10

B.5.4.1 Description of the SEIS/GEIS Purpose and Need........................ B-10

B.5.4.2 Use of the GEIS in Site-Specific Environmental Reviews ............ B-11

B.5.4.3 References.................................................................................. B-13

B.5.5 SEIS/GEIS Methods and Approach ........................................................... B-14 

B.5.5.1 Reliance on Regulatory Compliance to Limit Impacts .................. B-14

B.5.5.2 SEIS/GEIS Methods and Approach to Impact Significance.......... B-14

B.5.6 Regulatory Issues and Process.................................................................. B-15

B.5.6.1 NRC Policies and Practices......................................................... B-15

B.5.6.1.1 NRC Licensing Process ............................................. B-15

B.5.6.1.2 Adequacy of NRC Regulations and Practices ............ B-16

B.5.6.1.3 Regulatory Definitions ................................................ B-17

B.5.6.1.4 NRC NEPA Process Implementation.......................... B-20

B.5.6.1.5 Miscellaneous NRC Policies and Practices ................ B-23

B.5.6.2 References.................................................................................. B-25

B.5.7 Public Involvement ................................................................................... B-26

B.5.8 Federal and State Agencies....................................................................... B-26

 B.5.8.1 Clarification of Other Federal and State Regulations and 

 Practices ................................................................................... B-26

B.5.9 ISR Process Description ............................................................................ B-27

B.5.9.1 Wellfields ................................................................................... B-27

B.5.9.2 Uranium-Recovery Operation ...................................................... B-29

B.5.9.3 Decommissioning ........................................................................ B-34

B.5.9.4 Restoration Action Plan ............................................................... B-39

B.5.9.5 Monitoring ................................................................................... B-39

B.5.9.6 Aquifer Protection and Restoration .............................................. B-45

B.5.9.7 Gaseous or Airborne Particulate Emissions................................. B-57

B.5.9.8 References.................................................................................. B-58

B.5.10 Financial Surety...... .................................................................................. B-59

B.5.11 Alternatives............ .................................................................................. B-60

B.5.11.1 References.................................................................................. B-63

B.5.12 Land Use.............. ................................................................................... B-63
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-ii

B.5.12.1 Ownership Issues, Surface, and Mineral Rights .......................... B-63

B.5.12.2 Amount of Land Affected and Type, Degree, and Duration of 

 Potential Impacts......................................................................... B-64

B.5.12.3 References.................................................................................. B-67

B.5.13 Transportation........................................................................................... B-67

 B.5.13.1 References.................................................................................. B-71

B.5.14 Geology and Soils... .................................................................................. B-72

B.5.14.1 Soil Disturbance Concerns .......................................................... B-72

B.5.14.2 Miscellaneous Geology and Soils ................................................ B-73

B.5.14.3 References.................................................................................. B-75

B.5.15 Ground-Water Resources ......................................................................... B-76

B.5.15.1 Concerns about ISR and Ground-Water Contamination .............. B-76

B.5.15.2 Importance of Water and Consumptive Water Use...................... B-82

B.5.15.2.1 Exploratory Drillholes, Abandoned Wells, and 

 Old Mines.................................................................. B-83

B.5.15.2.2 Control of Operational Impacts, Excursion of ISR 

 Solutions, and History ............................................... B-85

B.5.15.2.3 Aquifer Exemptions and Baseline Water Quality ....... B-89

B.5.15.2.4 Impact Analysis for Ground-Water Use ..................... B-102

B.5.15.3 Miscellaneous Ground Water ...................................................... B-103

B.5.15.4 References.................................................................................. B-110 

B.5.16 Surface-Water Resources.......................................................................... B-112

B.5.16.1 Impacts to Surface Drainages and Surface Waters ..................... B-112

B.5.16.2 Wetlands..................................................................................... B-115 

B.5.16.3 Miscellaneous Surface Water...................................................... B-116

B.5.16.4 References.................................................................................. B-117 

B.5.17 Ecology...................................................................................................... B-118

 B.5.17.1 General Ecology.......................................................................... B-118

 B.5.17.2 Impacts to Terrestrial Ecology and Wildlife .................................. B-120

 B.5.17.3 Mitigation and Timing .................................................................. B-122 

 B.5.17.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................... B-123 

 B.5.17.5 Sage-Grouse............................................................................... B-124

 B.5.17.6 Habitat Loss and Fragmentation.................................................. B-124

 B.5.17.7 Traffic and Noise Impacts............................................................ B-125

 B.5.17.8 References.................................................................................. B-128

B.5.18 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality.................................................. B-128 

 B.5.18.1 Impacts to Air Quality .................................................................. B-128 

 B.5.18.1.1 GHG and Climate Change ........................................ B-128 

 B.5.18.2 Impacts to Devils Tower National Monument............................... B-129

 B.5.18.3 Miscellaneous Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality............ B-131

 B.5.18.4 References.................................................................................. B-132 

B.5.19 Historical and Cultural Resources .............................................................. B-133 

B.5.19.1 Potential Impacts to Cultural, Historical, and Sacred Places........ B-133 

B.5.19.2 Miscellaneous Historic and Cultural............................................. B-134 

B.5.20 Visual and Scenic Resources..................................................................... B-136

B.5.20.1 Light Pollution Concerns.............................................................. B-136

B.5.20.2 Visual Impacts ............................................................................. B-138

B5.20.3 References.................................................................................. B-139

B.5.21 Socioeconomics..... ................................................................................... B-140

B.5.21.1 References.................................................................................. B-142
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-iii

B.5.22 Public and Occupational Health ................................................................. B-142

B.5.22.1 Impacts to Members of the General Public .................................. B-142

B.5.22.2 Impacts to Occupational Workers ................................................ B-143

B.5.22.3 References....... ........................................................................... B-144

B.5.23 Waste Management ................................................................................... B-144

B.5.23.1 Waste Treatment and Disposal Methods ..................................... B-144

B.5.23.2 Regulation of Wastes and Disposal Methods............................... B-152

B.5.23.3 Scope of the Assessment of Waste Management Impacts .......... B-152

B.5.23.4 References.................................................................................. B-153

B.5.24 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... B-154

B.5.24.1 Scope of Cumulative-Impact Analyses ........................................ B-154

B.5.24.2 Onsite Excavated Pits ................................................................. B-162

B.5.24.3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ....... B-163

B.5.24.4 References.................................................................................. B-165

B.5.25 Impact Conclusions.................................................................................... B-166

 B.5.25.1 References.................................................................................. B-170

 B.5.26 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... B-170

B.5.27 Environmental Justice................................................................................ B-170

B.5.28 Editorial................ ................................................................................... B-171

 B.5.28.1 Grammar and Typography Editorial............................................. B-171

 B.5.28.2 Technical Editorial ....................................................................... B-172

 B.5.28.3 References ................................................................................. B-174

APPENDIX B1 .................................................................................................................. B-175

B1.1 References ................................................................................................ B-177
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-iv

LIST OF TABLES

Section Page

B.1 Commenter Names

(Listed Alphabetically by Last Name)...................................................................... B-3 

B.2 Comment Numbers 

(Listed Sequentially by Commenter Number).......................................................... B-6 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-v 

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Properties

ACL Alternate Concentration Limit

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954, As Amended

ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable

APE Area of Potential Effect

AQD Air Quality Division (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality)

ASLB Atomic Safety Licensing Board

BACT Best Available Control Technology

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management

BMPs Best Management Practices

CAA Clean Air Act

CBM Coal Bed Methane

CBW Containment Barrier Wall

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CPP Central Processing Plant

CR County Road

dB Decibel

dBA A-weighted Decibel

DFP Decommissioning Funding Plan

DM Deep Monitoring Zone or Unit

DP Decommissioning Plan

DSEIS Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ER Strata Energy, Inc.’s Environmental Report

FSEIS Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

FONSI Findings of No Significant Impact

FR Federal Register

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant

ISR In-Situ Recovery

IX Ion Exchange
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-vi

LQD Land Quality Division 

(Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality)

MCLs Maximum Contaminant Levels

MIT Mechanical-Integrity Test

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NESHAPS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, As Amended

NOA Notice of Availability

NOI Notice of Intent

NPS U.S. National Park Service

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSDWUMR Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration/

U.S. Department of Labor

OZ Ore Zone

PA Programmatic Agreement

RAI Request for Additional Information

RAP Restoration Action Plan

RFFA Reasonably Foreseeable Future Action

RO Reverse Osmosis

ROD Record of Decision

ROI Region of Influence

RP Ross Project

SA Surficial Aquifer

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

SER Safety Evaluation Report

SGCN (Wyoming) Species of Greatest Conservation Need

SM Shallow Monitoring Zone

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SU Standard Unit (pH)

TCP Traditional Cultural Properties

TDS Total Dissolved Solids
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-vii

TENORM Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office

TLD Thermo Luminescent Dosimeter

TR Strata Energy, Inc.’s Technical Report

TRG Target Restoration Goal

TRV Target Restoration Value

UCL Upper Control Limit

UIC Underground Injection Control

UMTRCA Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978

U.S. United States

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

USDW Underground Source of Drinking Water

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WAQSR Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

WOGCC Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

WQD Water Quality Division

WSOC Wyoming Species of Concern

WWDC Wyoming Water Development Commission

WWUMR Wyoming West Uranium Milling Region

WYPDES Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-1 

APPENDIX B: PUBLIC-COMMENT RESPONSES 

B.1 Overview

On March 29, 2013, the United States (U.S.) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff 

published a notice in the Federal Register (78 FR 19330) requesting public review and comment 

on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the Ross In-Situ Recovery (ISR) 

Project in Crook County, Wyoming. This SEIS is a Supplement to the Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities (NUREG–1910, the “GEIS”) (74 

FR 65808) in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for 

Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” The subject of this environmental 

review is known as the Ross Project. The NRC staff established May 13, 2013, as the deadline 

for submitting public comments on the DSEIS. Forty-three documents were submitted to the 

NRC by e-mail and U.S. mail containing comments on the proposed Ross Project. 

B.2 Public Participation

Public participation is an essential component of the NRC’s environmental-review process. This 

section describes the process for public participation during the NRC staff’s development of the 

SEIS. The NRC conducted an open, public SEIS development process consistent with the 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and NRC regulations. 

The NRC staff met with Federal, State, and local agencies and authorities as well as public 

organizations during a site visit to gather site-specific information. The NRC provided a 45-day 

public-comment period for agencies, organizations, and the general public to review the DSEIS 

and provide comments.

B.2.1 Notice of Intent to Develop the SEIS

The NRC staff published a “Notice of Intent” (NOI) to prepare the Ross Project SEIS in the 

Federal Register (76 FR 71082) on November 16, 2011, in accordance with NRC regulations.

B.2.2 Public Participation Activities

As described in SEIS Section 1, the NRC staff met with Federal, State, and local agencies and 

authorities during the course of an expanded site visit to the proposed Ross Project site and its 

vicinity. The purpose of this visit and these meetings was to gather additional site-specific 

information to assist with the Ross Project environmental review. 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 and via e-mail and telephone. The 

NRC staff also held 10 public meetings or teleconferences with the Applicant from 2010 through 

2012. Meeting notices and summaries are available through the NRC website: 

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/uranium-recovery/license-apps/ross.html.

B.2.3 Issuance and Availability of the SEIS

On March 29, 2013, the NRC staff published a “Notice of Availability” (NOA) for the DSEIS in 

the Federal Register (78 FR 19330). In this notice, the NRC staff provided information on how 

to access or obtain a copy of the DSEIS for the Ross Project. Electronic versions of the DSEIS 

and supporting information were made available through the NRC’s Agencywide Documents 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-2 

Access and Management System (ADAMS), which is accessible through the NRC website: 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The public may examine and have copied, for a fee, 

the SEIS and other related publicly available documents from the NRC Public Document Room. 

Copies of the DSEIS were also publicly available at Crook County Libraries in Hulett and 

Moorcroft, Wyoming. 

B.2.4 Public Comment Period

In the NOA for the DSEIS cited above, the NRC indicated that public comments on the DSEIS 

should be submitted by May 13, 2013. Members of the public were invited and encouraged to 

submit related comments through different media. Electronically, comments could be submitted 

to the Federal rulemaking website. Written comments could be submitted by mail or facsimiles. 

The 45-day period for public comments (i.e., from March 29, 2013, to May 13, 2013) met the 

minimum 45-day comment period required under NRC regulations. 

B.3 Comment Review Methods

The NRC staff received 1,120 comments from 43 documents via e-mail and U.S. mail during the 

comment period. Each of these comments has been considered carefully, and each has been 

summarized and responded to in this Appendix. Each comment was individually identified, 

uniquely numbered, and responded to by the NRC, using a systematic approach which involved 

identifying individual comments from the source documents, entering comment information into 

a database, sorting comments by topic, and then identifying and distributing to individual NRC 

staff members for review, summary, and response.

The NRC staff reviewed all comment documents and identified, marked, and consecutively 

numbered individual comments in each document. Comment numbers followed a three-digit 

numbering system separated by a hyphen. The comment number to the left of the hyphen is 

the source-document number (i.e., each commenter was assigned its own number). The 

number to the right of the hyphen is a consecutive number for each comment identified in a 

specific source document. Table B.1 provides an alphabetical list of all commenter names, their 

affiliations, and the unique document numbers assigned to all of their comments (i.e., the 

number to the left of the hyphen). Table B.2 provides this same information sorted numerically 

by source comment-document number. Readers can use these tables to electronically search 

this Appendix to locate comments submitted by specific individuals or organizations as well as 

to find individuals or organizations associated with comments described in Section B.5.

In addition to the numbering, each unique comment was also assigned a topic category to 

facilitate NRC’s sorting and reviewing comments on similar topics. Topic categories are aligned 

with the topics included in Section B.5 of this Appendix. Following the initial comment 

identification review, the identified comments were entered into a database that allowed 

individual comments to be sorted by topic and distributed to staff for further consideration. The 

NRC staff then continued sorting and reviewing all comments within specific topic categories, 

developed comment summaries and responses for this Appendix, and made changes to the 

SEIS, as appropriate, to address the public comments. Based on the similarity of comments 

related to a specific topic, as appropriate, the NRC staff consolidated same or similar comments 

within each topic to facilitate developing summaries and responses. This approach allowed 

multiple, similar comments to be addressed with a single response to avoid duplication of effort 

and to enhance readability of this Appendix. A response has been provided for each comment 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-3 

or group of comments. Each response indicates whether the DSEIS was modified in the FSEIS 

as a result of the comment.

B.4 Major Issues and Topics of Concern

The majority of comments received addressed specific items within the scope of the DSEIS for 

the Ross Project. Topics raised included, but were not limited to, a variety of concerns about 

the purpose, need, and scope of the SEIS; regulatory issues; NEPA-related concerns; the 

description of the ISR (i.e., uranium-recovery) process; land use; transportation; surface water, 

ground water, and wetlands; ecological resources; air quality; noise; historical and cultural 

resources and Tribal concerns; scenic and visual resources; socioeconomics; occupational and 

public health and safety; waste management; and cumulative impacts.

Other comments addressed topics and issues that are not applicable to the Ross SEIS,

including general support or opposition to uranium mining or milling; discussion of the legacy of 

past uranium mining and milling; evaluation of the NRC regulatory program or licensing process; 

identification of environmental impacts at disposal facilities for byproduct material and wastes; 

and comments not specifically directed toward the SEIS. For example, some comments were 

exclusively directed toward the NRC’s GEIS for in situ uranium milling, NUREG–1910 (NRC, 

2009b).

Table B.1

Names of Commenters 

(by Last Name with Affiliation, Document Number, and ADAMS Accession Number)

Last

Name

First

Name Affiliation

Comment 

Document 

Number

ADAMS 

Accession 

Number

Ames-Curtis Juli No known affiliation RP034 ML13137A090

Anderson William No known affiliation RP025 ML13137A008

Anderson Shannon Powder River Basin 

Resource Council RP041 ML13137A021

Baker Jerri No known affiliation RP022 ML13137A010

Brennan Tamra Protect Sacred Sites RP042 ML13137A056

Concerned 

Community 

Members

 Residents and 

Landowners of Oshoto RP016 ML13137A014

Dale John Truth about Mining RP002 ML13130A232

Dale John No known affiliation RP007 ML13137A004

DeCory Jace No known affiliation RP033 ML13137A089

Durrum Kathey No known affiliation RP003 ML13130A236

Fettus Geoffrey Natural Resources 

Defense Council RP032 ML13137A120
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-4 

Table B.1

Names of Commenters 

(by Last Name with Affiliation, Document Number, and ADAMS Accession Number)

(Cont.)

Last

Name

First

Name Affiliation

Comment 

Document 

Number

ADAMS 

Accession 

Number

Furois Therese No known affiliation RP004 ML13130A233

Goodvin Terry No known affiliation RP018 ML13137A013

Griffin Evelyn and 

Marvin No known affiliation RP014 ML13137A016

Griffin Mike Strata Energy, Inc. RP024 ML13137A106

Hasselstrom Linda M. No known affiliation RP019 ML13144A830

Hilding Nancy No known affiliation RP038 ML13137A087

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon 

Society RP039 ML13137A085

Jackson Sherri No known affiliation RP012 ML13137A018

Johnson Andy Dakota Rural Action -

Black Hills Chapter RP029 ML13137A088

Jones James No known affiliation RP027

ML13137A051

& ML13137A053

[Duplicate]

Katus Jean No known affiliation RP021 ML13137A009

Knudson Rodney Ranchers and Neighbors 

to Protect Our Water RP028 ML13137A050

Konishi Mark Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department RP036 ML13137A086

Larson Patsy No known affiliation RP010 ML13137A007

Leas Rebecca No known affiliation RP015 ML13137A015

Lloyd Lisa

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

Region 8

RP035 ML13144A827

Lord Rebecca No known affiliation RP023 ML13137A012

Parkhurst Gena No known affiliation RP031 ML13137A091

Patterson Cynthia No known affiliation RP013 ML13137A017
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-5 

Table B.1

Names of Commenters 

(by Last Name with Affiliation, Document Number, and ADAMS Accession Number)

(Cont.)

Last

Name

First

Name Affiliation

Comment 

Document 

Number

ADAMS 

Accession 

Number

Pendery Bruce

Wyoming Outdoor 

Council and 

the Sierra Club

RP020 ML13137A011

Pfeifer Jeanette No known affiliation RP008 ML13137A005

Reid Justine No known affiliation RP009 ML13137A006

Stewart Robert U.S. Department 

of the Interior RP017 ML13144A826

Taylor Joanna No known affiliation RP011 ML13137A019

Tope Wilma No known affiliation RP043 ML13137A057

Uptain Douglas No known affiliation RP030 ML13137A054

Viviano Pamela No known affiliation RP040 ML13137A052

Watson Donna Action for the 

Environment RP026 ML13137A020

Waugh Kelly No known affiliation RP005 ML13130A237

Waugh Scott No known affiliation RP006 ML13130A234

Wilson Mary Standing Rock 

Sioux Tribe RP037 ML13137A055

Wolken Paige

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers/Wyoming 

Office

RP001 ML13101A118
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-6 

Table B.2 

Comment-Document Numbers

(by Comment-Document Number, with Commenter Name, 

Affiliation, and ADAMS Accession Number)

Comment 

Document 

Number

Last

Name

First

Name Affiliation

ADAMS 

Accession 

Number

RP001 Wolken Paige U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers/Wyoming Office ML13101A118

RP002 Dale John Truth about Mining ML13130A232

RP003 Durrum Kathey No known affiliation ML13130A236

RP004 Furois Therese No known affiliation ML13130A233

RP005 Waugh Kelly No known affiliation ML13130A237

RP006 Waugh Scott No known affiliation ML13130A234

RP007 Dale John No known affiliation ML13137A004

RP008 Pfeifer Jeanette No known affiliation ML13137A005

RP009 Reid Justine No known affiliation ML13137A006

RP010 Larson Patsy No known affiliation ML13137A007

RP011 Taylor Joanna No known affiliation ML13137A019

RP012 Jackson Sherri No known affiliation ML13137A018

RP013 Patterson Cynthia No known affiliation ML13137A017

RP014 Griffin Evelyn and 

Marvin No known affiliation ML13137A016

RP015 Leas Rebecca No known affiliation ML13137A015

RP016

Concerned 

Community 

Members

 Residents and Landowners 

of Oshoto ML13137A014

RP017 Stewart Robert U.S. Department 

of the Interior ML13144A826

RP018 Goodvin Terry No known affiliation ML13137A013
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-7 

Table B.2 

Comment-Document Numbers

(by Comment-Document Number, with Commenter Name, 

Affiliation, and ADAMS Accession Number)

(Cont.)

Comment 

Document 

Number

Last

Name

First

Name Affiliation

ADAMS 

Accession 

Number

RP019 Hasselstrom Linda M. No known affiliation ML13144A830

RP020 Pendery Bruce Wyoming Outdoor Council 

and the Sierra Club ML13137A011

RP021 Katus Jean No known affiliation ML13137A009

RP022 Baker Jerri No known affiliation ML13137A010

RP023 Lord Rebecca No known affiliation ML13137A012

RP024 Griffin Mike Strata Energy, Inc. ML13137A106

RP025 Anderson William No known affiliation ML13137A008

RP026 Watson Donna Action for the Environment ML13137A020

RP027 Jones James No known affiliation

ML13137A051

& ML13137A053

[Duplicate]

RP028 Knudson Rodney Ranchers and Neighbors 

to Protect Our Water ML13137A050

RP029 Johnson Andy Dakota Rural Action 

Black Hills Chapter ML13137A088

RP030 Uptain Douglas No known affiliation ML13137A054

RP031 Parkhurst Gena No known affiliation ML13137A091

RP032 Fettus Geoffrey Natural Resources 

Defense Council ML13137A120

RP033 DeCory Jace No known affiliation ML13137A089

RP034 Ames-Curtis Juli No known affiliation ML13137A090

RP035 Lloyd Lisa

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

Region 8

ML13144A827

RP036 Konishi Mark Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department ML13137A086

RP037 Wilson Mary Standing Rock 

Sioux Tribe ML13137A055
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-8 

Table B.2 

Comment-Document Numbers

(by Comment-Document Number, with Commenter Name, 

Affiliation, and ADAMS Accession Number)

(Cont.)

Comment 

Document 

Number

Last

Name

First

Name Affiliation

ADAMS 

Accession 

Number

RP038 Hilding Nancy No known affiliation ML13137A087

RP039 Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills 

Audubon Society ML13137A085

RP040 Viviano Pamela No known affiliation ML13137A052

RP041 Anderson Shannon Powder River Basin 

Resource Council ML13137A021

RP042 Brennan Tamra Protect Sacred Sites ML13137A056

RP043 Tope Wilma No known affiliation ML13137A057

B.5 Comments Summaries and Responses

B.5.1 General Opposition

Comments: RP002-001; RP022-002; RP022-003; RP022-004; RP025-002; RP025-004; 

RP029-006; RP033-001

The commenters expressed concern about potential problems with in situ uranium recovery and 

how the process could impact water resources. Another commenter noted that uranium 

recovery should only be performed in cases where it is needed. Another commenter expressed 

concern regarding the effects uranium recovery might have for the next generation and 

indicated that the commenter is not aware of any uranium mine that has not had effects.

Response: The NRC recognizes that some commenters are not supportive of uranium mining, 

milling, or other uranium-recovery techniques. These comments are beyond the scope of this 

SEIS, which focuses on the environmental impacts of a specific license application. Further, the 

NRC has no role in deciding whether uranium mining, milling, or recovery is needed or not; the 

agency only has a role in deciding whether or not to issue a source and/or byproduct materials 

license. Regarding impacts to water resources, this topic is specifically discussed in SEIS 

Section 4.5. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this

response.

B.5.2 General Environmental Concerns

Comment: RP028-003

The commenter stated that the world is moving away from nuclear power because of the longterm detrimental effect of every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to final disposal.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-9 

Response: The NRC recognizes that some commenters are not supportive of nuclear power or 

uranium mining or milling. These comments are beyond the scope of the SEIS. However, the 

NRC does recognize the potential environmental impacts associated with uranium recovery, 

including leaks, spills, and excursions of the liquid mixtures used to mobilize and recover 

uranium (e.g., lixiviant), which could occur at the Ross Project. These potential impacts are 

discussed in Section 4.5.1 of the SEIS. No change was made to the SEIS beyond the 

information provided in this response.

Comments: RP038-001; RP039-001

The commenter stated that the Federal government should not approve of more uranium 

extraction until such time as the government decides how to manage the high-level radioactive 

waste that is currently stored in containers at nuclear power plants, with no permanent place to 

dispose of it. The commenter noted that future storage of radioactive wastes generated by the 

future use of the uranium is a connected action to the Proposed Action and a pending disaster 

for future generations. Therefore, the commenter requested that the NRC not limit its SEIS 

discussion to the waste generated specifically at the Ross Project, but expand its discussion to 

all wastes at the remote facilities that the uranium is shipped to, stored, and used, as well as the 

transportation wastes produced. The commenter asked that the FSEIS include a discussion of 

inter-generational responsibility and requested that the FSEIS discuss specifically where and 

how radioactive wastes generated by the future use of recovered uranium derived from the 

Ross Project will likely be stored and how much the storage of that radioactive waste will cost 

taxpayers.

Response: The NRC notes that the U.S. and other nations are working on solutions for the 

disposal of spent (i.e., irradiated) nuclear fuels and other high- and low-level radioactive wastes 

generated at commercial nuclear power plants. Information on storage and disposal of 

radioactive waste can be found on the NRC website (http://www.nrc.gov/waste.html). The 

interim storage and final disposal of spent fuel generated at commercial nuclear power plants 

and other radioactive wastes not generated at the Ross Project, however, is beyond the scope 

of this SEIS. The scope of the SEIS is described in SEIS Section 1.4. The 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. The scope of this SEIS 

evaluates both radiological and nonradiological (including chemical) impacts associated with the 

Proposed Action and the two Alternatives discussed in this SEIS. This document also describes 

the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the relationship between short-term uses of 

the environment and long-term productivity, and irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 

resources as a result of the proposed Ross Project. No change was made to the SEIS beyond 

the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP039-002

One commenter noted that the risk and the environmental impacts of nuclear war as well as 

nuclear winter should be discussed in the SEIS as a connected action. The commenter asked 

that the SEIS discuss the percentage of the world’s uranium supply that would be made 

available by the Ross Project, noting that the existence of this uranium would allow other 

uranium supplies to be used for war rather than the generation of electricity.

Response: The environmental impacts of nuclear war are outside the scope of this SEIS. The 

scope of this SEIS is described in SEIS Section 1.4. The NRC staff prepared this SEIS to 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-10

analyze the potential environmental impacts (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts) of the 

Proposed Action and the reasonable alternatives. The scope of the SEIS evaluates both 

radiological and nonradiological (including chemical) impacts associated with the Proposed 

Action and the two Alternatives discussed in this SEIS. This document also identifies 

unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the relationship between short-term uses of the 

environment and long-term productivity, and irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 

resources. No change was made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

B.5.3 Executive Summary

Comments: RP024-024; RP024-025

The commenter requested that the Executive Summary accurately reflect the respective 

discussion and conclusions in SEIS Section 4.4 regarding geology and soils impacts during the 

aquifer-restoration phase of the Ross Project. The commenter also stated that there were 

additional facts that should be summarized in the Executive Summary text that support the 

respective conclusions. In particular, the commenter asked for more specific information 

regarding any expected changes to the rock matrix in the ore-zone aquifer as well as other 

information regarding any relationship of uranium recovery to the subsidence of local soils 

and/or geological fault activation.

Response: The NRC has revised the Executive Summary text to ensure its consistency with 

FSEIS Section 4.4. The text is now a concise summary of the information provided in FSEIS 

Section 4.4. 

B.5.4 Purpose, Need, and Scope of the SEIS/GEIS

B.5.4.1 Description of the SEIS/GEIS Purpose and Need

Comment: RP024-066

The commenter suggested that the first page of Section 1 in the SEIS clarify that the GEIS and 

SEIS were prepared based upon 10 CFR Part 51.20(b)(8), which requires an EIS-level analysis 

for all new source-material (and/or byproduct-material) uranium-recovery and uranium-milling 

licenses.

Response: The commenter is correct that the GEIS and this SEIS were prepared based upon 

the requirement at 10 CFR Part 51.20(b)(8). However, the NRC staff does not find that this 

level of detail is necessary for the section of the SEIS referenced in this comment. This 

information is provided in the SEIS in Section 1. Therefore, no changes to the SEIS were made 

in response to this comment.

Comment: RP032-001

The commenter noted that DSEIS Section 1.3 stated, “The purpose and need for this Proposed 

Action is to provide an option that allows the Applicant to recover uranium and produce 

yellowcake at the Ross Project area.” The commenter expressed concern that the purpose and 

need as stated could facilitate future expansion with minimal or no further environmental review. 

The commenter also noted that the Proposed Action includes the recovery of vanadium, which 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-11

was not included in the purpose and need statement. The commenter suggested that a more 

appropriate purpose and need would be stated as follows: 

The purpose and need for the proposed action -- the granting of an NRC license to 

recover uranium from [name wellfield areas] and process it at [name Central Processing 

Facility] for [x years]—is to ensure, through a rigorous nuclear safety and NEPA review 

process prior to licensing, that the uranium recovery activities and associated 

environment, safety, and health risks and environmental impacts described in the license 

application and applicant's Environmental Report, faithfully represent the full range of 

activities, risks, and impacts that will arise as a result of the licensed activity, and that all 

these activities will be conducted in a manner that: (1) ensures adequate protection of 

public health and safety and the common defense and security; (2) identifies and seeks 

to avoid or minimize all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts, while mitigating 

any unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. 

Response: The statement of the purpose and need in DSEIS Section 1.3 is derived from the 

proposed Federal action. Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), the NRC has statutory 

authority to issue licenses for the possession and use of certain AEA-regulated radioactive 

materials and the particular activities involving these materials. Based upon the NRC’s statutory 

authority, the proposed Federal action is the NRC’s decision whether to grant or to deny a 

license to a private party that would allow the conduct of uranium-recovery operations to extract 

uranium and produce yellowcake at a particular site.

The recovery and production of vanadium requested by the Applicant is attendant to the 

recovery of uranium and production of yellowcake and does not alter the process from what it 

would be for uranium recovery only. The purpose and need statement for this proposed Federal 

action must consider the Applicant's request in providing an option that would allow the 

Applicant to recover uranium and to produce yellowcake at the Ross Project. Therefore, the 

purpose and need of this Proposed Action encompasses the recovery and production of 

vanadium.

The NRC would not accept a proposed purpose and need statement if it is unduly narrow, but 

the NRC also allows deference to the business decisions of an applicant. If the NRC decides to 

grant the license request, the specific applicant must comply with the specific license 

requirements, NRC’s regulatory requirements, and any other relevant local, State, or Federal 

requirements to operate its facility. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information 

provided in this response.

B.5.4.2 Use of the GEIS in Site-Specific Environmental Reviews

Comments: RP011-001; RP012-001; RP013-001; RP014-001; RP015-001; RP016-010; 

RP019-001; RP021-001; RP023-001; RP027-001; RP029-005; RP030-001; RP032-078; 

RP033-002; RP034-001; RP039-005; RP040-002; RP041-001; RP043-005

The commenters stated that the GEIS should not be used when analyzing the environmental 

and other impacts of the Ross Project with respect to water, land, air, ecology, occupational and 

public health and safety. One commenter stated the tiering off the GEIS was only used as a 

way to streamline and speed up the review process. Another commenter stated that to do so 

“was arbitrary, capricious, and frankly ridiculous.”
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-12

Response: As discussed in SEIS Section 1.1, the NRC staff prepared this SEIS for the Ross 

Project consistent with its regulations under 10 CFR Part 51 that implement NEPA and with its 

guidance for environmental reviews as found in NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003b). In addition, the 

GEIS provides a starting point for all of the NRC’s NEPA analyses for site-specific license 

applications for new ISR facilities, such as Strata Energy, Inc.’s (Strata) (herein referred to as

the “Applicant”), license application for the proposed Ross Project. This SEIS is a supplement 

to the GEIS and incorporates by reference relevant information contained in the GEIS as well as 

its findings and conclusions concerning potential environmental impacts.

The NRC’s analysis of the potential environmental impacts to land, water, air, and ecology as 

well as public and occupational health are found in SEIS Sections 4.2.1, 4.5.1, 4.7.1, 4.6.1, and 

4.13.1, respectively. These SEIS Sections consider the site-specific information provided in the 

license application by the Applicant. The site-specific analyses determined that, for the 

proposed Ross Project, the significance of potential impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE 

after mitigation measures are considered; the final significance depends upon the respective 

resource area. The site-specific determination draws on the evaluation found in the GEIS and 

the NRC staff’s independent evaluation of the site-specific information provided in the 

Applicant’s license application and its responses to the NRC’s requests for additional 

information (Strata, 2011a; Strata, 2012a). No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the 

information provided in this response.

Comment: RP024-071

The commenter suggested adding a discussion of the concept of “tiering” from the GEIS prior to 

the scoping discussion. The commenter also suggested that the FSEIS include a statement 

indicating that the NRC is not required to conduct any form of scoping for an SEIS under 10 

CFR Part 51, but it did so anyway for the GEIS.

Response: The GEIS is a generic analysis of the potential impacts of individual ISR facilities in 

a specified geographic area. The GEIS for ISR facilities serves as the starting point for 

environmental reviews of site-specific ISR license applications. The NRC “tiers” an SEIS from 

the GEIS by incorporating applicable GEIS discussions by reference and by adopting relevant 

GEIS environmental impact conclusions.

The NRC conducted scoping in developing the GEIS. Scoping provides a means by which the 

scope of issues to be addressed in the environmental review related to the Proposed Action are 

identified. The scoping process for the GEIS identified local conditions and potential impacts 

that could be considered generically and those that need to be analyzed using site-specific 

information in an SEIS. SEIS Section 1.4.2 describes the scoping activities conducted for the 

development of the GEIS and future supplements to the GEIS.

The NRC’s NEPA-implementing regulations, specifically 10 CFR 51.26(d) and 51.92(d), provide 

that the NRC staff need not conduct a scoping process when a supplement to an EIS is 

prepared. Nevertheless, the NRC staff has the discretion to decide whether to incorporate a 

scoping process when preparing a SEIS. During the development of this SEIS, the NRC staff 

conducted additional scoping activities, which are described in Section 1.4.2 of the SEIS. SEIS 

Section 1.4.2 has been revised to include the information regarding tiering and scoping that is 

provided in this response. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-13

Comment: RP024-074

The commenter noted that the DSEIS stated that “Some issues and concerns raised during the

scoping process of the GEIS were determined to be outside the scope of the GEIS” and “are 

also outside the scope of this SEIS” (NRC, 2009b). The commenter stated that it is important to 

provide a complete discussion of all of these items in order to ensure that the FSEIS is fully 

accurate and inclusive.

Response: The quoted text is from SEIS Section 1.4.4, “Issues Outside the Scope of the 

SEIS.” A list of topics that were considered outside the scope of the GEIS (NRC, 2009b) and 

this Ross Project SEIS is provided in this Section in the SEIS. In addition, a citation for 

Appendix A of the GEIS is provided for readers who wish to review additional details regarding 

the topics that are considered outside the scope of both documents. Therefore, no changes 

were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

B.5.4.3 References

Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 

2), CLI-02-14, 55 NRC 278, 295. 2002. 

Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 n. 20. 1976.

 

(US)NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium 

Extraction License Applications, Final Report.” NUREG–1569. Washington, DC: USNRC. 

2003a. ADAMS Accession No. ML032250177.

 

(US)NRC. “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS 

Programs.” NUREG–1748. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2003b. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML032450279.

(US)NRC. “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities. Volumes 1 and 2.” NUREG–1910. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2009b. ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML091480244 and ML091480188.

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Environmental Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata Energy, Inc. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130342, 

ML110130344, and ML110130348.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, RAI Question 

and Answer Responses, Environmental Report, Volume 1 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-

09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2012a. ADAMS Accession No. ML121030465. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-14

B.5.5 SEIS/GEIS Methods and Approach

B.5.5.1 Reliance on Regulatory Compliance to Limit Impacts

Comment: RP032-091

The commenter asserted that DSEIS Section 5, “Cumulative Impacts,” did not present a 

quantitative analysis of cumulative impacts, or even substantive discussions of qualitative 

factors. In addition, the commenter questioned the use of regulations and monitoring programs 

in environmental-impact analyses and suggested that regulatory compliance should not serve 

as a substitute for thorough analysis of impacts and presentation of findings within the SEIS.

Response: The NRC staff believes that the information presented in SEIS Chapter 5 is valid 

and relevant to the assessment of potential cumulative impacts. Regulatory requirements do 

mitigate potential impacts and are used in the impact analyses for the NRC to establish an 

upper bound on possible impacts. Mitigation measures are described throughout SEIS Sections 

4 and 5, and additional monitoring measures are described in Section 6.

The NRC does not agree with the commenter’s premise that SEIS Section 5 did not present 

quantitative analysis of cumulative impacts or even substantive discussions of qualitative 

factors. The NRC staff acknowledges that quantitative analysis of potential cumulative impacts 

is constrained by the limited availability of quantitative data from past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions (RFFAs). However, assumptions regarding the relative size of 

RFFAs compared to the Ross Project have been used where appropriate to apply quantitative 

information related to the impact analyses. Quantitative data can be found throughout Section 5 

in the SEIS. For example, in the cumulative-impact analysis of water resources, the NRC staff 

assumed that the impacts to water quantity would be roughly proportional to the size of a 

potential future uranium-recovery project compared to the Ross Project. Note that the NRC has 

revised the cumulative-impact analyses presented in the FSEIS in Section 5 to improve the 

transparency and clarity of the analyses as a result of this comment and others.

B.5.5.2 SEIS/GEIS Methods and Approach to Impact Significance

Comments: RP024-056; RP024-057; RP024-472

The commenter requested that “MODERATE” be changed to “SMALL to MODERATE” for 

consistency throughout the SEIS, particularly in the Executive Summary and Section 4.5.1.2.

Response: Although other comments included factual or editorial bases for a request to 

change the significance of the potential impacts in particular findings in the SEIS (viz. 

Comments Nos. RP024-019, RP024-020, RP024-220, RP024-221, and RP024-379), these 

comments related to the Executive Summary and SEIS Section 4.5.1.2 do not. The NRC does 

not agree that a finding of MODERATE significance should be changed to “SMALL to

MODERATE” for consistency throughout the SEIS. When the significance of an impact’s finding 

ranged from SMALL to MODERATE, then the SEIS included the range; when it did not, and the 

significance was MODERATE in all cases, then no range of significance was appropriate. The 

NRC consequently notes that “SMALL to MODERATE” indicates a different range of 

magnitudes related to resource-area impacts (i.e., a different range of “significance”) than does 

simply “MODERATE.” No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in 

this response.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-15

B.5.6 Regulatory Issues and Process

B.5.6.1 NRC Policies and Practices

B.5.6.1.1 NRC Licensing Process

Comment: RP024-001

The commenter stated that it commends the work completed by the NRC staff and its 

preparation of the DSEIS in a timely manner. Consistent with the conclusions in the GEIS and 

publication of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER), the commenter agrees with the NRC staff’s 

conclusion that the Applicant be issued a license by the NRC.

Response: The NRC recognizes that the commenter supports the staff’s environmental review 

for the proposed Ross Project. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information 

provided in this response. 

Comment: RP041-013

The commenter stated that the DSEIS did not discuss source and byproduct materials license 

requirements and how they will or will not mitigate impacts. The commenter also noted that 

before the DSEIS was released for public review and comment, the NRC essentially finalized 

Strata’s license and had met with Strata several times to negotiate license conditions. The 

commenter expressed concern that the negotiations were not carried out under NEPA's publicreview and comment processes and stated that the NRC acted prior to its NEPA review. The 

commenter further commented that by negotiating with Strata, the NRC has been locked into 

positions that would be difficult to reverse after its NEPA review is complete. Therefore, the 

commenter stated that the NRC needs to re-release a new draft of the DSEIS with the Draft 

Source and Byproduct Materials License included as an appendix and its conditions fully 

discussed and analyzed throughout the text of the document. The commenter stated that this is 

particularly important because the NRC license is the only source of binding and enforceable 

mitigation measures specific to the Ross Project and, therefore, the license conditions should be 

the only source of mitigation measures that can be relied upon by the agency to reduce impacts 

related to Strata's Ross Project.

Response: The development of a Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License for the Ross 

Project is part of the NRC’s licensing process for the Ross Project. However, the conditions of 

the Draft License are subject to change prior to issuance of a final license and the development 

of the Draft License does not guarantee that such a license would be issued. Meetings between 

the NRC and the Applicant to negotiate the conditions of the Draft License were publicly 

noticed. The public was invited to observe the meetings or participate by phone and the public

could ask questions at the end of the business portions of the meetings.

The NRC staff’s Draft License has been prepared concurrently with this SEIS. The DSEIS 

included requirements from the Draft License that were available at the time that the DSEIS was 

being prepared. Following completion of the DSEIS, the NRC staff has continued to develop 

the Draft License. The FSEIS includes additional requirements from the Draft License that were 

not available to be included in the DSEIS.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-16

The NRC implements best management practices (BMPs), mitigation measures, and 

management actions for the Ross Project so as to avoid and reduce environmental impacts. By 

license condition, the NRC also requires Applicants of ISR facilities to obtain the necessary 

permits and licenses from the appropriate regulatory authorities prior to operating the facility 

(Draft License Condition No. 12.1) (NRC, 2014b). Mitigation may be imposed as a requirement 

other agencies establish through required permits the Applicant must obtain for the proposed 

Ross Project. The NRC staff believes the appropriate mitigation measures have been 

described under the Proposed Action. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the 

information provided in this response.

Comment: RP024-068

The commenter noted the following statement in SEIS Section 1.2: “Based upon the 

application, the NRC’s Federal action is the decision to either grant or deny the license,” is 

incorrect. The commenter requested a revision to the SEIS that would state that the NRC is 

empowered under the AEA to act in one of three ways: 1) grant a requested licensing action, 2) 

grant a requested licensing action with conditions, or 3) deny a requested licensing action.

Response: Under the AEA, the NRC has statutory authority to issue licenses for the 

possession and use of AEA-regulated radioactive materials and particular activities involving 

these materials. Based on the NRC’s statutory authority, the proposed Federal action is the 

NRC’s decision whether to grant or deny a private party’s license application to conduct 

uranium-recovery operations to extract uranium and produce yellowcake at a particular site. If 

the NRC staff decides to grant the license request, it may do so with conditions, but the Federal 

action is the decision to grant or deny the license. The Applicant must comply with the license 

requirements, NRC regulatory requirements, and any other relevant local, State, or Federal 

requirements to operate its facility. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information 

provided in this response.

B.5.6.1.2 Adequacy of NRC Regulations and Practices

Comment: RP032-004

The commenter noted that neither the specific aquifer-restoration standards that would be 

applied to the ore zone’s (OZ) ground water nor the analysis that demonstrated that such 

standards would be protective of the surrounding ground water were provided in the DSEIS. 

Moreover, the commenter noted that “3,000 drillholes and wells” would suggest, on the contrary, 

that there is a potential for substantial fluid migration and degradation of ground-water quality 

outside of the OZ.

Response: The NRC disagrees with this comment. As discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.1.3, 

Condition No. 10.6 in the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License for the proposed Ross

Project would require that hazardous constituents in the ground water of the exempted aquifer 

be restored to the numerical ground-water standards as required by 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix 

A, “Criteria Related to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes 

Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores Processed Primarily 

for Their Source Material Content,” Criterion 5B(5) (NRC, 2014b). The Applicant’s meeting 

these standards for the exempted aquifer would ensure that present or potential future sources 

of drinking water outside of the exempted aquifer would be protected. This requirement is the 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-17

basis for the determination in SEIS Section 4.5.1.3, that the long-term impacts to the aquifer 

outside the exempted aquifer would be SMALL.

Criterion 5B(5) of Appendix A requires that the concentration of a given hazardous constituent 

at the point of compliance (i.e., edge of exempted aquifer) must not exceed 1) the NRCapproved post-licensing, pre-operational concentration of that constituent in ground water 

(5B(5)(a)); 2) the respective numeric value in the table included in Paragraph 5C of Criterion 

5B(6) if the specific constituent is listed in the table and if the post-licensing, pre-operational

concentration of the constituent is below the value listed (5B(5)(b)); or 3) an Alternate 

Concentration Limit (ACL) that the Commission establishes for the constituent (5B(5)(c)). To 

achieve this requirement, Criterion 5B(6) states that, conceptually, post-licensing, preoperational concentrations pose no incremental hazard and the numeric limits in Paragraph 5C 

pose acceptable hazards, but these two options might not be practical. In this case, the NRC 

may establish an ACL if the licensee has demonstrated that such an ACL does not present a 

significant hazard to present or potential future sources of drinking water outside of the 

exempted aquifer. 

As discussed in FSEIS Sections 2.1.1.1 and 4.5.1.2, Condition No. 10.12 of the Draft License 

would require that the Applicant attempt to locate and plug all historical drillholes located within 

the perimeter monitoring-well rings for each wellfield (NRC, 2014b). The hydrologic tests 

necessary for the hydrologic-test data package that would be required by License Condition No. 

10.13 would ensure that the Applicant identify any communication between the ore-zone and 

the surrounding aquifers from historical drillholes that could still need to be properly abandoned. 

As described in SEIS Section 4.5.1.2, the impacts to the aquifers were determined to be SMALL 

by the NRC staff, because of the mitigating effects of the Applicant’s plugging drillholes and 

subsequent hydrologic testing. FSEIS Sections 2.1.1.1 and 4.5.1.2 have been revised to clarify 

these requirements and the associated process of the NRC’s determining ground-waterrestoration compliance. (Also see Comment Nos. RP024-013, RP024-161, RP024-169, RP024-

170, RP024-425, and RP041-006 among others related to water-protection standards.)

B.5.6.1.3 Regulatory Definitions

Comments: RP024-004; RP024-115; RP024-146; RP024-160; RP024-177; RP024-180: 

RP024-181; RP024-182; RP024-199; RP024-202; RP024-206; RP024-375; RP024-381; 

RP024-384; RP024-568; RP024-579; RP024-585; RP024-703; RP024-736

The commenter recommended that the SEIS use the modifier “11e.(2)” instead of using the 

term “byproduct material” throughout the SEIS. The commenter noted that other classes of 

byproduct material are defined by the AEA and three of these classes are not applicable to the 

Ross Project. 

Response: Since the GEIS was prepared, the NRC staff has elected not to use the modifier 

“11e.(2)” in documents prepared for a Part 40 source and byproduct materials license for the 

following reason: in response to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978

(UMTRCA), the definition of byproduct material included in Part 40 expanded the definition of 

11e.(2) byproduct material as was used in the AEA. The definition of byproduct material (under 

Part 40) would include those materials defined by 11e.(2) in the AEA. Therefore, the lack of the 

“11e.(2)” modifier to “byproduct material” does not diminish its applicability. No changes were 

made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-18

Comment: RP024-084

The commenter suggested that DSEIS Section 1.7.3.1 be updated to indicate that a new 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) on February 12, 2013, and by the NRC on February 4, 2013.

Response: The commenter is correct that, on February 12, 2013, the NRC and the BLM 

entered into an MOU that sets forth the cooperative working relationship between the NRC and 

the BLM, primarily for the purpose of enhancing each agency’s compliance with the NEPA and 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). The MOU supersedes 

the original MOU entered into between the NRC and the BLM on November 30, 2009. The new

MOU was signed while the DSEIS was in the final-printing review stage; thus, the signing of the 

new MOU was not captured in the DSEIS. Therefore, FSEIS Section 1.7.3.1 has been revised 

to reflect this new information. 

Comment: RP024-140

The commenter noted that the description of “Aquifer Exemption” that appears in the text box 

entitled “What are underground injection control permits?” in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.1 does not 

include the criteria for an aquifer exemption when the aquifer is mineral producing.

Response: The NRC has revised the “What are underground injection control permits?” text 

box in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1. The following clause was added: “...and whether the aquifer 

contains minerals that are expected to be commercially producible...” to the list of criteria for an 

aquifer exemption in the respective text box in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.1. 

Comment: RP024-141

The commenter suggested that the text box entitled “What are underground injection control 

permits?” in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.1 be revised to remove the statement, “This Class includes all 

wells that dispose of waste on a commercial basis,” under the description of “Industrial and 

Municipal Waste Disposal Wells,” because Class II and V wells also may dispose of waste. 

Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter and has revised the “What are underground 

injection control permits?” text box in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.1 by deleting the statement that “This 

Class includes all wells that dispose of waste on a commercial basis” under the description of 

“Industrial and Municipal Waste Disposal Wells.”

Comment: RP024-184

The commenter recommended revising the definition of “liquid byproduct waste” in the text box 

entitled “What types of wastes would be generated at the proposed Ross Project?” in DSEIS 

Section 2.1.1.5, which currently states that the waste “is contaminated with byproduct material.” 

The commenter suggests either removing the statement or revising the text to make the 

definition compatible with the “11e.(2) byproduct material definition” in 10 CFR Part 40.4.

Response: The NRC staff agrees that the definition of “liquid byproduct waste” as stated in the 

text box is not appropriate. The “waste” is the “byproduct material” and is not “contaminated 

with byproduct material.” The text box in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.4 entitled “What types of wastes 

would be generated at the proposed Ross Project?” has been revised to define “Liquid 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-19

Byproduct Material” as a type of liquid waste generated that would be generated by the 

proposed Ross Project, in addition to hazardous and sanitary wastes (i.e., domestic waste) as 

well as well-development and ground-water-sampling waste waters. 

Comment: RP024-209

The commenter asserted that the following statement in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.7 was inconsistent 

with the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License: “A decommissioning funding plan 

(DFP) would be required from the Applicant as an NRC license condition; the DFP would 

contain a decommissioning cost estimate, the amount of which the Applicant would be required 

to maintain in a financial-surety arrangement” (NRC, 2014b). The commenter requested that 

the FSEIS be revised for consistency with the Conditions of the Draft License. The commenter 

pointed out that Draft License Condition No. 9.5 states that 1) “Within 90 days of NRC approval 

of a revised closure (decommissioning) plan and its cost estimate, the licensee shall submit, for 

NRC staff review and approval, a proposed revision to the financial assurance arrangement if 

estimated costs exceed the amount covered in the existing arrangement” and 2) “The licensee 

shall continuously maintain an approved surety instrument for the Ross Project, in favor of the 

State of Wyoming (Wyoming).” The commenter requested that the statement identified above 

be revised for consistency with the Draft License. 

Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter’s recommendations. FSEIS Section 2.1.1.7 

has been revised accordingly. The statement noted by the commenter as inaccurate and the 

succeeding statements were replaced with a discussion of Condition No. 9.5 of the Draft Source 

and Byproduct Materials License.

Comment: RP024-749

The commenter suggested that the SEIS not use the term “impoundments” because this term 

implies tailings that are produced during ore milling and such tailings are not generated by an 

ISR facility. The commenter suggested that, for consistency with the license application and the 

Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, the term “ponds” should be used throughout the 

SEIS (NRC, 2014b). 

Response: The commenter is correct that Strata’s license application and the early drafts of 

the License use the term “pond(s)” when describing the proposed surface impoundments that 

would be used to retain and store liquid byproduct material. Nonetheless, the NRC disagrees 

that the term “impoundments” implies tailings, and the SEIS clearly states that the 

impoundments would be used to store waste waters and liquid byproduct material. By virtue of 

being in the license application and in the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, the 

ponds are “regulated” features, a view which may not be obvious to the average person reading 

the SEIS. When the phrase “surface impoundments” is used in the SEIS, rather than the term 

“ponds,” it becomes clearer that the surface impoundments are, in fact, regulated. Thus, the 

NRC staff has determined that the term “impoundments” and the phrase “surface 

impoundments” are more consistent with the pertinent regulations (e.g., see the definition of 

“surface impoundment” under 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A). No changes were made to the 

SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-20

B.5.6.1.4 NRC NEPA Process Implementation

Comments: RP032-002; RP032-067; RP041-009

The commenters stated that the NRC violated NEPA by failing to include the project 

encompassing the entire Lance District as within the scope of this SEIS. The commenters 

stated that the Ross Amendment Area 1, Kendrick Satellite Area, Richards Satellite Area, and 

Barber Satellite Area, all potential satellite areas to the Ross Project, are actions connected to 

the Proposed Action (i.e., licensing of the Ross Project). One commenter noted that meaningful 

consideration of impacts in the SEIS is limited to the Ross Project wellfields only, even though 

the capacity of the proposed Central Processing Plant (CPP) has been sized to accommodate a 

throughput four times greater than that required by the Ross Project alone, and it would thus 

enable the simultaneous uranium recovery in additional areas. One commenter asked if 

construction of the CPP would be economically viable if its feedstock were limited to the Ross 

Project and, if not, the commenter asked why the scope of the Proposed Action in the SEIS is 

limited to the Ross Project. The other commenter expressed concern that the satellite areas 

could be licensed through amendments to the license for the Ross Project, so that there would 

be no opportunity for a contested hearing and a NEPA “Findings of No Significant Impact" 

(FONSI) would be prepared for each additional satellite operation (NRC, 2014b). One 

commenter stated that the entire “Affected Environment” section of the SEIS (Section 3) should 

be revised to encompass a description of the wider area that could be “solution mined” as a 

direct consequence of the NRC’s proposed licensing action (i.e., the wider area would include 

the following: “Ross Permit Area”; “Ross Amendment Area #1”; “Kendrick Production Unit 

(Amendment Area #2)”; “Richards Production Unit (Amendment Area #3)”; “Barber Production 

Unit (Amendment Area #4)”; “Warren Project”; “Richards Project,” “Osborne Project”; 

“Chatterton Project”; “Brooks Project”; “Carey Project”; “Houx Project”; “Clark Project”; “Lucas 

Project”; and “Emerson Project.”). 

Response: As noted in SEIS Section 2.1.1, Strata informed the NRC via its license application 

that it has identified four other uranium-bearing areas that would extend the area of uranium 

recovery to the north with the Ross Amendment Area 1 and to the south of the Lance District 

with the Kendrick, Richards, and Barber satellite areas. If the NRC approves the Ross Project 

license application, Strata would only be authorized to operate on the Ross Project site, so 

development of the wider area described by the commenter would not be a direct consequence 

of licensing the Ross Project. Furthermore, granting a license to Strata for the Ross Project 

would not commit the Agency to subsequent approvals of Strata’s proposed satellite areas. If 

Strata were to submit a license-amendment application to the NRC to expand operations into 

any of the satellite areas, the NRC would offer an opportunity for a hearing and the NRC staff 

would prepare an SER and a NEPA document. 

The Supreme Court has stated that agencies need not consider “possible environmental 

impacts of less imminent actions when preparing the impact statement on proposed actions.” 

Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 n. 20 (1976). The Commission has agreed that to 

bring NEPA into play, a possible future action must at least constitute a “proposal” pending 

before the Agency, and it must in some way be interrelated with the action that the Agency is 

actively considering. See Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2; Catawba 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-02-14, 55 NRC 278, 295 (2002). The NRC categorized 

Strata’s Lance District plans provided in its license application as reasonably foreseeable 

actions, so they are considered in the cumulative-impact analyses of this SEIS. Should any of 

the contemplated actions later reach the stage of an actual proposal, the environmental impacts 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-21

of the Ross Project, if licensed, can be considered when preparing the comprehensive 

statement on the cumulative impacts of that proposal. No changes were made to the SEIS 

beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP032-005

The commenter noted that the significance of potential environmental impacts in the DSEIS is 

categorized as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE and stated that this impact-classification 

method is inadequate and that the DSEIS illustrates these problems. Specifically, the 

commenter stated that the SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE terms are not tied to any 

consistent set of quantitative or otherwise objectively ascertainable metrics for one’s assessing 

and comparing the impacts of uranium-recovery activities. 

Response: SEIS Section 1.4.3 provides a summary of the methodology for and describes the 

types of considerations the NRC staff used to determine the significance of identified impacts as 

SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 

the significance of impacts is determined by one’s considering both context and intensity (40 

CFR Part 1508.27). The NRC established this standard of significance for its assessment of 

environmental impacts during the conduct of environmental reviews originally in its Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NRC, 1996a), which 

used the CEQ regulations as a basis for these significance levels. This SEIS was prepared in 

accordance with NRC guidance presented in NUREG–1748, Environmental Review Guidance 

for Licensing Action Associated with NMSS Programs (NRC, 2003b), which incorporates these 

significance-level categories. See also Comment Nos. RP024-056, RP024-057, and RP024-

472. Therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS as a result of this comment. 

Comment: RP041-006

The commenter stated that the DSEIS’s failure to disclose baseline water quality violates 

NEPA's public disclosure and analysis requirements. The commenter refers to the information 

provided in pleadings in the license-intervention proceeding before the Atomic Safety Licensing 

Board (ASLB) regarding contentions claiming flaws in the Applicant's water-sampling regime 

and claiming that neither the Applicant nor the NRC has properly put forward the correct and 

accurate data to determine baseline water quality. The commenter incorporates the pleadings 

by reference into this comment. The commenter goes on to state that the NRC fully 

acknowledges that baseline water quality has yet to be established and disclosed and that this 

failure has to two important consequences: 1) the DSEIS cannot analyze or disclose impacts 

related to excursions because those yet-to-be-determined baseline water-quality values would 

be used to determine whether excursions have occurred through the Applicant's monitoring 

program; and 2) the DSEIS cannot analyze or disclose impacts related to the failure (or even 

the unlikely success) of the Applicant to restore water quality to baseline conditions because the 

NRC does not yet know what those baseline restoration targets are. This commenter stated 

that because of 1) and 2) above, the most important impact analyses would occur post-NEPA 

and after the NRC has made its decision. Therefore, the commenter finds that, in addition to 

violating basic NEPA principles regarding the importance for upfront disclosure and analysis 

prior to the NRC’s making its decision, the failure also violates NEPA's dual purpose of 

disclosing the information to the public to facilitate meaningful participation through the publiccomment process. Through NEPA, the commenter stated, an agency “must insure that 

environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made 

and before actions are taken,” (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 1500.1[b].) The 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-22

commenter stated that the public is prevented from participating in the NRC's NEPA process 

because the public is left with nothing on which to comment. 

Response: As the commenter notes, this comment was also raised as a contention against the 

Applicant’s Environmental Report (ER) and later as a contention against the DSEIS in pleadings 

before the ASLB. Therefore, the NRC staff’s responses to this contention are incorporated by 

reference into this comment response, and can be accessed through the NRC’s Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Docket No. 04009091. According to 

10 CFR Part 51.45, which falls under Subpart A (i.e., NEPA) regulations implementing Section 

102(2), an application submitted to the Commission for a license is required to include an ER, 

which shall contain a description of the environment affected by a proposed action. Also, 

according to NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003b), which is the guidance document that the Applicant 

and the NRC staff used to prepare the ER and the SEIS, respectively, the description of the 

affected environment focuses on the baseline conditions (i.e., the status quo). 10 CFR Part 51 

does not define the specific information about the environment affected that an Applicant shall 

provide or that the NRC staff must include in its NEPA document. Regarding water quality, 

NUREG–1748 states that the SEIS should include a description of site-specific and regional 

data on the characteristics of surface- and ground-water quality in sufficient detail to provide the 

necessary data for other reviews dealing with water resources. The Applicant included 

information regarding the affected environment, including an analysis of the site-specific 

surface- and ground-water quality, in its license application for the proposed Ross Project. The 

NRC staff reviewed this information, found it acceptable, and then the staff used it to prepare 

SEIS Section 3, “Affected Environment,” and Section 4, “Environmental Impacts and Mitigation 

Measures.” An analysis of the environmental impacts to ground-water quality due to excursions 

and an analysis of the impacts following the aquifer-restoration phase are provided in Section 4 

of this SEIS. 

According to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5), at the point of compliance, the 

concentration of a hazardous constituent must not exceed 1) the Commission approved 

background [in this SEIS, “post-licensing, pre-operational”] concentration of that constituent in 

the ground water; 2) the respective value given in the table in paragraph 5C if the constituent is 

listed in the table and if the background [in this SEIS, “post-licensing, pre-operational”] level of 

the constituent is below the value listed; or 3) an ACL established by the Commission. The 

commenter finds that the SEIS fails to disclose post-licensing, pre-operational water-quality 

values because the commenter improperly equates the 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, statement 

“Commission approved background [in this SEIS, “post-licensing, pre-operational”] 

concentrations of hazardous constituents in the ground water at the points of compliance” to the 

“description of the environment affected” and the “description of the site-specific data on the 

characteristics of ground-water quality” that are to be included in the NEPA document per 10 

CFR Part 51 and NUREG–1748, respectively (NRC, 2003b). These concepts are not 

equivalent. The Commission-approved concentrations would be determined following the 

Applicant’s submission of a hydrologic-test data package to the NRC for approval, which would 

occur after the Applicant is granted a license but before uranium-recovery operation begins. 

The 10 CFR Part 51 “description of the environment affected” and the NUREG–1748 

“description of the site-specific data on the characteristics of ground-water quality” are 

information that must be reasonably obtained prior to the NRC’s granting of a license as it is 

information that the NRC staff must use to develop the NEPA document, which must occur prior 

to the NRC’s granting the license. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-23

The commenter states that, unless the SEIS discloses the 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 5B(5) Commission-approved concentrations of hazardous constituents measured at 

the point of compliance within the Ross Project area, the SEIS cannot fully disclose or analyze 

the environmental impacts to ground water during an excursion or following aquifer restoration. 

The NRC staff does not agree with this assertion. In the case that the Applicant is not able to 

restore the ground-water constituents to the 5B(5) concentrations or in the case of an excursion, 

the NRC staff’s knowledge of what these 5B(5) concentrations are would not allow the NRC 

staff to predict exactly how the concentrations would change or how ground-water quality as a 

whole would change any better than the NRC staff can predict this without having these 5B(5) 

concentrations. In the case that the Applicant is able to restore the ground-water’s hazardousconstituent concentrations to those of 5B(5), then, as stated in Section 4 of the SEIS, the sitespecific ground-water quality would not be expected to change from the quality presented in 

Section 3 of the SEIS. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that these point-of-compliance, 

specific hazardous-constituent concentrations would not be Commission approved until after a 

license is granted and thus cannot be legally obtained by the Applicant prior to the granting of 

the license, the collection of this information is neither required by 10 CFR Part 51 nor would it 

affect the water-quality-impacts analysis presented in the SEIS. Therefore, no changes were

made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP041-018

The commenter stated that, as the comments regarding the GEIS and the Ross Project DSEIS 

that are presented in the comment document which accompanied this commenter’s comments 

demonstrated, the GEIS and the DSEIS were inadequate pursuant to NEPA, the NRC's 

regulations implementing NEPA (10 CFR Part 51), and the CEQ regulations implementing 

NEPA. Therefore, the commenter stated that NRC must withdraw the Ross Project DSEIS, 

significantly amend it to address the deficiencies described in the comments, and reissue the 

DSEIS for additional public comment. The commenter also noted that, during these efforts, the 

NRC should not rely on the GEIS for any site-specific analyses.

Response: The NRC disagrees with the commenter and believes that the SEIS for the Ross 

Project now adequately addresses all public comments and does not need to be reissued for 

additional public comment. For further information on how the SEIS tiers from the GEIS, please 

refer to Section B.5.4.2 of this Appendix B. The NRC staff has prepared this Ross Project SEIS 

consistent with its regulations under 10 CFR Part 51 that implement NEPA and its guidance for 

conducting environmental reviews as found in NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003b). Pursuant to 10 

CFR Part 51.73, the NRC staff issued the DSEIS for the Ross Project for public comment on 

March 29, 2013 (78 FR 19330). The comment period for the document closed on May 13, 

2013. As discussed in Section B.3 of this Appendix B, 1,120 public comments from 43 

comment documents were received on the DSEIS, among which were the comments presented 

by the commenter. Consistent with 10 CFR Part 51.91(a), the NRC considered and responded 

to all comments received. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided 

in this response.

B.5.6.1.5 Miscellaneous NRC Policies and Practices

Comment: RP024-054

Due to the fact that the SER was finalized in February 2013, and the NRC issued a Draft Source 

and Byproduct Materials License for the Ross Project, the commenter stated that the following 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-24

caveat in the DSEIS is unnecessary: “Unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the preliminary 

NRC staff recommendation...” (NRC, 2014b). 

Response: The text quoted by the commenter is from DSEIS Section 2.4, “Preliminary 

Recommendation.” The full quote is as follows: “Unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the 

preliminary NRC staff recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects 

of the Proposed Action is that a source and byproduct materials license for the Proposed Action 

be issued as requested” [emphasis added]. The conclusion provided in this statement is related 

only to the environmental aspects of the Proposed Action. Thus, the caveat is necessary and 

no changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information contained in this response.

Comment: RP024-080

The commenter suggested that DSEIS Table 1.2, “Environmental Approvals for the Proposed 

Ross Project” be revised to remove “Permit application to construct holding (storage) ponds (40 

CFR 61.07)” because, as the commenter stated, this permit was not discussed in the license 

application and is not relevant to any ponds at the proposed Ross Project. 

Response: DSEIS Table 1.2, “Environmental Approvals for the Proposed Ross Project” was 

developed based upon the information submitted by the Applicant in its ER Table 1.6-1. During 

preparation of this FSEIS, the NRC staff requested that the Applicant provide an updated Table 

1.6-1. FSEIS Table 1.2 has been revised to reflect the more recent information provided by the 

Applicant. 

Comment: RP035-012

The commenter recommended that the FSEIS discuss the applicability of Subpart W of 40 CFR 

Part 61 and provide a detailed description of surface-impoundment design and size. The 

commenter also highlighted the fact that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 

currently considering revisions to 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W, that could result in changes to 

the requirements in 40 CFR Part 61.

Response: The EPA asserts that 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W, applies to water-storage surface 

impoundments. The authority for EPA’s 40 CFR Part 61 is derived from the Clean Air Act

(CAA), over which the NRC does not have jurisdiction. To be in compliance with 40 CFR Part 

61, Subpart W, new facilities would have to meet specific effluent limits, size limits, and linerconstruction designs as specified in 40 CFR Part 61, Subparts A and W. Specifically, the 

Applicant must submit an application to the EPA for the construction of the surface 

impoundments pursuant to 40 CFR Part 61.07 and must monitor radon effluents during 

impoundment operation to demonstrate compliance pursuant to 40 CFR Part 61.253. These 

requirements, as applicable, would be satisfied by the Applicant in its design of the Ross Project 

surface impoundments. SEIS Section 2.1.1.1 includes the description of the currently proposed 

surface-impoundment design and size as well as references to the Applicant’s license 

application, which contains detailed design descriptions and drawings (Strata, 2011b). 

Regarding the potential revisions to 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W, the NRC reviews the license 

applications it receives vis-à-vis the regulations in place at the time of review. No changes were 

made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-25

B.5.6.2 References

(US)NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” NUREG–1437. Washington, DC: USNRC, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. May 1996a. ADAMS Accession No. ML13106A241. 

(US)NRC. “Staff Technical Position, Alternate Concentration Limits for Title II Uranium Mills.” 

Washington, DC: USNRC. 1996b. ADAMS Accession No. ML091420242. 

(US)NRC. “Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications, 

Final Report.” NUREG–1569. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2003a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML032250177. 

(US)NRC. “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS 

Programs.” NUREG–1748. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2003b. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML032450279. 

(US)NRC. “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities. Volumes 1 and 2.” NUREG–1910. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2009b. ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML091480244 and ML091480188. 

(US)NRC. “Staff Assessment of Ground Water Impacts from Previously Licensed In-Situ 

Uranium Recovery Facilities.” Memorandum from C. Miller to Chairman Jaczko, et al. 

Washington, DC: USNRC. July 10, 2009d. ADAMS Accession No. ML091770385.

 

(US)NRC. Safety Evaluation Report for the Strata Energy, Inc. Ross ISR Project, Crook 

County, Wyoming. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2014a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML14002A107. 

(US)NRC. “Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, No. SUA-1601.” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2014b. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A111.

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Environmental Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata Energy, Inc. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130342, 

ML110130344, and ML110130348.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, Technical 

Report, Volumes 1 through 6 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 

2011b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130333, ML110130335, ML110130314, ML110130316, 

ML110130320, and ML110130327. 

WDEQ/LQD (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division). “Noncoal 

In Situ Mining,” Rules and Regulations, Chapter 11. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/LQD. 2005.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-26

B.5.7 Public Involvement

Comment: RP024-072

The commenter suggested that a statement be added to the FSEIS to indicate that a public 

hearing has been granted.

Response: The commenter is correct that a hearing has been granted. Section 1.4.2 of the 

FSEIS has been revised to provide additional details about the ongoing administrative hearingrelated activities.

B.5.8 Federal and State Agencies

B.5.8.1 Clarification of Other Federal and State Regulations and Practices

Comment: RP024-088

The commenter suggested that the FSEIS include a definition of the term “commenting agency.”

Response: A commenting agency is a public agency with jurisdiction over a particular natural 

resource, but is neither a lead agency nor a responsible party. The term “commenting agency” 

has also been used by the NRC and U.S. National Park Service (NPS) at Devils Tower National 

Monument (Devils Tower or Bear Lodge) to indicate that the NPS at Devils Tower would be 

notified of the availability of the DSEIS, provided a copy, and provided an opportunity to 

comment during the public-comment period. Section 1.7.3.2 of the FSEIS has been revised to 

clarify the role of the NPS as a commenting agency.

Comment: RP041-015

The commenter stated that the DSEIS did not meet the BLM's requirements for NEPA analysis. 

The commenter noted that, while the DSEIS contained a purpose and need statement from the 

BLM, no other mention of the BLM's approval process for the Ross Project is included in the 

document. Additionally, although Section 1.7.3.1 of the DSEIS says that the NRC coordinated 

with the BLM, it does not appear to the commenter as though the DSEIS was jointly prepared by 

both Federal agencies. The commenter also noted that no one from the BLM is listed as a 

preparer of the SEIS in Section 9 of the DSEIS. The commenter stated that the SEIS would 

need to comply with CEQ’s NEPA regulations if the SEIS is intended to meet the BLM's NEPA 

requirements. The commenter asked if the SEIS was indeed a joint document and, if not, then 

what NEPA analysis the BLM would conduct and why the NRC and BLM chose to divide the 

BLM’s analysis from the NRC’s analysis, which, the commenter stated, prevented either agency 

from conducting a true, comprehensive “hard look” of the environmental impacts related to the 

Ross Project.

Response: The SEIS has been prepared by the NRC staff with the BLM as a cooperating 

agency and, as such, BLM staff participation is documented in the Administrative Record and 

does not need to be documented in the SEIS. The NRC, as the lead agency, has the 

responsibility to prepare the document to the level of compliance with NEPA that it is required 

by its policy and guidance. The BLM has regulatory policy and guidance that it must abide by 

as well. The BLM is aware of the differences between both agencies’ requirements and, as a 

cooperating agency, is working with the NRC staff to ensure that both agencies’ requirements 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-27

are met. Prior to the completion of the FSEIS, the BLM will evaluate the document to confirm 

that the FSEIS meets the BLM’s NEPA requirements. If not, then the BLM will use the 

appropriate NEPA process to tier to and/or supplement the SEIS to address BLM’s specific 

requirements. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this 

response.

Comments: RP024-107; RP024-211; RP024-367

The commenter suggested that the NRC staff modify any statement throughout the DSEIS 

which indicated that, “No radioactive materials would be present at the Ross Project during 

preconstruction activities.” The commenter indicated that all similar statements in DSEIS 

Sections 2 and 3 should include a discussion of technologically enhanced naturally occurring 

radioactive material (TENORM) drillhole cuttings as well as muds and fluids associated with well 

construction and completion activities. 

Response: The NRC staff agrees with the recommendation and has revised FSEIS Section 

2.1.1.1 to include a discussion of TENORM drillhole cuttings associated with well-construction 

and well-completion activities as well as fluids such as drilling muds and waste water. FSEIS

Sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2 were also revised as a result of these comments to achieve more 

clarity in the respective texts.

B.5.9 ISR Process Description

B.5.9.1 Wellfields

Comment: RP032-013

The commenter requested addditional information regarding the final areal extent of the 

installed wellfields.

Response: The final areal extent of the wellfields cannot exceed the boundary of the exempted 

aquifer. The individual boundaries of a particular wellfield, and the configuration of injection and 

recovery wells therein, would be determined by the Applicant after receiving its Source and 

Byproduct Materials License from the NRC (NRC, 2014b). Based upon a wellfield’s unique 

boundaries, the Applicant would install monitoring wells, and it would then collect post-licensing, 

pre-operational water-quality data from these monitoring wells. (See NRC’s responses to 

Comment Nos. RP032-003 and RP041-012 for information on the size of the exempted aquifer 

underlying the Ross Project area and the NRC’s responses to Comment Nos. RP032-019 and 

RP032-031 for information regarding wellfield configurations.) No changes were made to the 

SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP032-014

The commenter asked for additional information on the total number of wells planned and/or 

likely to be located within a floodplain.

Response: The total number of wells expected to be located within a floodplain of the Project 

area is unknown. However, the floodplain, as shown in SEIS Figure 3.13, would be only a small 

portion of the total Ross Project area. Consequently, the floodplain itself would be expected to 

contain only a commensurately small percentage of the recovery, injection, and/or monitoring 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-28

wells proposed for the Project area. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the 

information provided in this response.

Comment: RP032-022

The commenter noted that Figure 2.4 in DSEIS Section 2.1.1 indicates the location of a large 

number of overlapping wellfield perimeters representing potentially thousands of Underground 

Injection Control (UIC) Class III Wells within the Ross Project area. The commenter asked that 

the FSEIS include tables and map(s) showing the number and locations of all prospective UIC 

Class I or Class III mining wells (or wellfields if the specific well locations are unknown) and the 

targeted aquifer(s) that would be part of the Lance District development. The commenter 

requested that the Class III wells or wellfields discussed in the tables or map(s) be classified as 

currently proposed for the Ross Project, targeted by the Applicant for future development in the 

Lance District, or other reasonably foreseeable ISR projects in the Lance District. The 

commenter requested that the FSEIS include a scientifically and technically adequate 

discussion of the cumulative environmental impacts that the UIC mining wells for uranium 

extraction could have on the NEPA-defined region of interest surrounding the Ross Project, 

including the adverse impacts of all other reasonably foreseeable UIC Class III mining wells and 

UIC Class I disposal well activities in the same NEPA region of interest.

Response: A map or table showing the location of all UIC Class I and Class III wells proposed 

to be developed by the Applicant in association with development of the proposed Ross Project 

and potential future satellite areas within the Lance District cannot be provided in the SEIS as 

this information is not currently available. Please see the NRC staff’s response to Comment 

RP032-021 for a discussion of the Ross Project UIC Class I wells. The NRC notes that SEIS 

Figure 2.4 is a map showing the locations of the proposed Ross Project wellfields. Although a 

similar figure showing the locations of the wellfields within the potential Lance District satellite 

areas is not available, SEIS Figure 2.2 does show the locations of the potential satellites within 

which the wellfields would be located. 

SEIS Section 4.5 provides a detailed analysis of the impacts to water quality that could result 

from the various phases of the Ross Project due to the installation of wellfields. Impacts to 

surface water due to the discharge of well-drilling fluids from the installation, development, and 

testing of wells are analyzed in this section. Water-quality and water-quantity impacts on 

ground water due to wells are discussed in this SEIS section. In addition, the impacts resulting 

from vegetation and soil disturbance associated with wellfield installation and impacts to 

wetlands are also discussed in this SEIS Section. Finally, SEIS Section 4.5 provides an 

analysis of the impacts to water quality due to the plugging and abandoning of wells. SEIS 

Section 5 provides additional analyses in Sections 5.6 and 5.7 regarding the cumulative impacts 

to geology and soils as well as water quality due to the wells. Therefore, no changes were 

made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP035-022

The commenter referenced a sentence in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.1, “The Applicant proposes that 

wells configured in a line-drive pattern would likely require increased aquifer restoration efforts; 

therefore, the Applicant would make limited use of line-drive patterns. Where it is not possible 

to avoid the use of line-drive patterns, the Applicant would perform additional computer 

modeling to determine the most efficient well spacing so as to facilitate aquifer restoration.” The 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-29

commenter recommended that the NRC explain how the line-drive well pattern is designed and 

why aquifer-restoration efforts employing this pattern would enhance mitigation measures.

Response: A line-drive pattern was described by the Applicant in its ER as the arrangement of 

injection and recovery wells that would be used on narrow ore bodies within the ore zone. This 

type of pattern is generally a row that is one or two wells wide, as illustrated in Figure 1.2-11 of 

the ER (Strata, 2011a). As noted in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.1, a line-drive pattern would likely 

require increased aquifer-restoration effort; this effort could increase because the liklihood of 

lixiviant outside the recovery wells could be greater in a line-drive arrangement than with 5-spot 

or 7-spot patterns. Therefore, the Applicant committed to only limited use of the line-drive 

pattern. Where it would not be possible to avoid the use of line-drive patterns, the Applicant 

would perform additional computer modeling to determine the most efficient well spacing so as 

to facilitate subsequent aquifer restoration. Information about line-drive wellfield patterns’ 

potentially requiring more aquifer-restoration effort compared to other wellfield patterns has 

been added to Section 2.1.1.1 of the FSEIS.

B.5.9.2 Uranium-Recovery Operation

Comment: RP024-100

The commenter disagreed with the statement in DSEIS Section 2.1.1, “In situ pressures in ISR 

injection wells are only slightly above the in situ aquifer pressure.” The commenter noted that 

the license application indicates that the maximum injection pressure would be less than the 

respective formation’s fracture pressure (Strata, 2011b). In addition, the UIC Class III Permit 

requires that the injection pressure be maintained below the respective formation’s fracture 

pressure.

Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter’s statement. It has revised the text in FSEIS 

Section 2.1.1, replacing the phrase, “only slightly above the in situ aquifer pressure” with 

“maintained at less than the fracture pressures of the formations in which ISR is occurring.”

Comment: RP024-112

The commenter suggested that the NRC revise DSEIS Section 2.1.1.1 in order to make clear 

that the chemical-storage area at the Ross Project would have two distinct sections (one inside 

the CPP and one outside). The commenter also suggested including a discussion of the 

primary controls associated with the chemical-storage area.

Response: The NRC staff does not agree that further clarification is required in SEIS Section 

2.1.1.1, as the text is clear regarding division of the chemical-storage area into two sections as 

well as the primary controls for containment in the event of accidental releases or spills. Section 

2.1.1.1 in the SEIS contains the following statement: “The chemical-storage area would be 

constructed with secondary containment, which would consist of a concrete berm as part of the 

floor area that would be able to contain at least 110 percent of the volume of the largest tank 

(Strata, 2011b). The space would be divided into two areas, one inside the CPP and one 

outside.” Thus, the SEIS does explain that there is a supplemental secondary containment that 

would ensure accidental releases or other spills would be contained and not allowed to spread 

within the storage area. Moreover, the SEIS explains that, with respect to chemical-storage 

tanks, each would be clearly labeled to identify the contents. No changes were made to the 

SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-30

Comment: RP032-012

The commenter stated that the DSEIS provides incomplete and misleading information in 

DSEIS Section 2.1.1.1, Ross Project Facility, where it is noted that “The excess capacity in the 

yellowcake production circuit would allow processing of loaded ion-exchange (IX) resin brought 

to the Ross Project from other ISR or water treatment facilities.” The commenter contended that 

loaded resin brought to the Ross Project’s CPP would first originate in the Applicant’s own 

potential satellite areas in the Lance District, and not from other uranium-recovery or watertreatment facilities. Also, the commenter asserted that any excess capacity would likely be 

allocated, first, to additional uranium-bearing lixiviant arriving by pipeline at the Ross Project’s 

CPP from the Applicant’s own contiguous wellfield operations. 

Response: The NRC staff does not agree that the information provided in the DSEIS Section 

2.1.1.1, Ross Project Facility, regarding the Applicant’s intended use of the excess capacity in 

the yellowcake-production circuit is incomplete or misleading. The SEIS does discuss clearly 

the Applicant’s proposal to process material from its own potential satellites. For example, it is 

stated in the SEIS, based upon the Applicant’s own ER, that “The Applicant proposes to 

construct and operate a single facility to serve the Ross Project as well as other potential ISR 

satellites (i.e., wellfields) within the Lance District. It could also process uranium-loaded resin 

from other ISR and water-treatment operations, which would be trucked into the facility” (Strata, 

2011a). However, the NRC staff has revised the statement in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.1 called out 

by the commenter, and it now clarifies that the IX resin could come to the Ross Project’s CPP 

from the Applicant’s own satellites if any were to be licensed.

Comment: RP032-026

The commenter indicated that the DSEIS Section 2.1.1.2 stated, “The excess water, referred to 

as ‘production bleed,’ is a byproduct material that must be properly managed and disposed. For 

the Ross Project, the Applicant proposes a production-bleed range from 0.5 percent to 2 

percent, and averaging 1.25 percent of the injection volume.” The commenter asked that the 

NRC provide a NEPA-compliant quantification and sensitivity analysis of the environmental 

consequences in the event the required bleed range to prevent excursions exceeds that 

proposed by the Applicant by technically plausible margins and/or the average bleed rate 

exceeds 1.25 percent of the injection volume. The commenter asked for the following 

information: 1) the maximum observed peak bleed rate and maximum bleed volume for an ISR 

wellfield to date in the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region (NSDWUMR); 

2) the maximum observed average bleed rate and total bleed volume for an ISR wellfield in the 

NSDWUMR; 3) the proposed and/or estimated total “injection volume” for the Ross Project, and 

the technically supported range of uncertainty that surrounds this number; 4) the proposed or 

estimated total injection volume for potential future ISR satellite efforts in the Lance District and 

a technically supported range of uncertainty that surrounds this number; and 5) a description of 

the relationship between expected and actual wellfield bleed rates. 

In addition, the commenter asked for a discussion on higher than expected bleed rates and the 

maximum safe capacity of the reverse-osmosis (RO) circuit in the Ross Project CPP, the 

capacity of planned surface impoundments, the capacity of planned storage impoundments, and 

the permitted capacities of the UIC Class I deep-injection wells. The commenter asked for the 

bleed rate and injection volumes at which the capacity of the RO circuit would be exceeded; 

where excess bleed would be stored until it could be processed in the CPP; and what temporary 

waste-storage capacity would be available to deal with higher-than-expected bleed production.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-31

Response: The NRC did not analyze a scenario in which the production bleed exceeded that 

presented in the Proposed Action. When preparing an SEIS, the NRC staff takes a “hard look” 

at the environmental impacts of the particular Proposed Action. The “hard look” standard does 

not, however, require that the Staff address every conceivable environmental impact in an 

environmental-review document (e.g., this SEIS). For example, the NRC staff need not discuss 

remote and highly speculative consequences. To the contrary, a “hard look” under NEPA 

requires only that the NRC staff provide “[a] reasonably thorough discussion of the significant 

aspects of the probable environmental consequences.” Further, analysis of the uncertainty of 

operating parameters is not required for the SEIS. As the Commission has explained, “NEPA 

does not call for certainty or precision, but an estimate of anticipated (not unduly speculative) 

impacts.” The proper inquiry under the “hard look” standard is not whether an effect is 

“theoretically possible,” but whether it is “reasonably probable that the situation will occur.” 

The requests by the commenter for: 1) expected and observed or actual maximum and average 

bleed rates and volumes; and 2) a description of the relationship between expected and actual 

wellfield bleed rates associated with licensed ISR wellfields within the NSDWUMR are outside 

the scope of this Ross Project SEIS.

As provided in FSEIS Figures 4.2 and 4.3, the anticipated injection rates would range from 

18,500 – 28,300 L/min [4,900 – 7,460 gal/min] with a typical rate of 28,030 L/min [7,406 

gal/min]. NRC staff’s impact analysis does not require the total injection volume. As presented 

in SEIS Section 4.5.1, the impacts to water quantity were determined by the results projected 

from the ground-water drawdown model which was based upon the estimated withdrawal rates 

and bleed percentages. The Applicant’s license application, the pumping tests, and the 

hydrologic model support the principle that the hydraulic properties at the Ross Project area are 

amenable to the injection, withdrawal, and bleed rates within the range of parameters proposed 

by the Applicant (Strata, 2011b). The hydrologic tests required for the hydrologic-test data 

package which would be in turn required by License Condition No. 10.13 would refine and 

optimize the bleed rates within the proposed range (0.5 to 2 percent) for each proposed wellfield

(NRC, 2014b). 

Information on injection rates and the range of uncertainty that could be proposed for potential 

satellite areas in the Lance District is not available. Please see the NRC’s responses to 

Comment Nos. RP032-002, RP032-067, and RP041-009, which describe the environmental 

review process that the NRC staff would follow if Strata were to submit a license amendment 

application to the NRC to expand its operation into any of the Lance District satellite areas.

A discussion of higher than expected bleed rates that is requested by the commenter is outside 

the scope of this SEIS. As described in the first paragraph of this response, NEPA does not 

require analysis of the uncertainty of operating parameters but only the analysis of reasonably 

probable situations. Responding to the request for the maximum safe operating capacity of the 

RO circuit proposed for the Ross Project CPP is also outside the scope of this SEIS. As 

described in Sections 4.5.1.2 and 4.5.1.3, the capacity of the proposed CPP would be adequate 

to support the anticipated production of water recovered from the Project wellfields. In response 

to Comment No. RP035-006, supplemental figures that depict the Project’s water balances (i.e., 

the rates of injection, recovery, bleed, and disposal) produced during different Project 

processing phases have been added to the FSEIS Section 4.5.1 (i.e., Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4). 

The rate of water recovery from the wellfields would depend upon the rate of injection, which is 

a variable that can be controlled by operations. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-32

The bleed-water volume would be stored in the surface impoundments described in SEIS 

Sections 2.1.1.1, 4.4.1.2, and 4.5.1.2. The surface impoundments would provide reserve 

capacity in the event that unforeseen operating conditions generate more than anticipated liquid 

byproduct material. Condition No. 10.8 in the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License for 

the Ross Project indicates that the surface impoundments be used as described by the

Applicant in its license application (NRC, 2014b). This License Condition would limit the 

operating capacity of each impoundment to be one-third to one-half of the total capacity in order 

to preserve reserve capacity at all times (Strata, 2011b). The capacity of the UIC Class I deepinjection wells is discussed in the response to Comment Nos. RP017-011 and RP032-055. 

Storage tanks would provide storage at the location of the deep-injection wells. No changes 

were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP032-027

The commenter referenced DSEIS Section 2.1.1.2 statement, “The Applicant proposes a 

maximum injection pressure ... less than the pressure rating for operation of the pipes and other 

equipment (Strata, 2011b).” The commenter requested information on the pressure rating for 

the operation of the pipelines and other equipment to be used in the injection and recovery 

circuits of the Ross Project and the potential future uranium-recovery satellite areas in the 

Lance District. In addition, the commenter noted the statement in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.2, “... 

pressure requirements within a specific wellfield generally tend to increase with time.” The 

commenter asked for a discussion of the following: 1) wellfield injection-pressure requirements 

over time, including the range of expected and maximum plausible values for minimum, 

maximum, and average wellfield-injection pressure over the life of the wellfield, and 2) the 

relationship, if any, between injection pressure, wellfield pressure, wellfield balance, and the 

likelihood of excursions. The commenter asked if the likelihood of excursions increases with 

greater injection pressures and if the available regulatory record of excursions at uraniumrecovery facilities shows any correlation between injection pressure and the likelihood of 

excursions.

Response: The pressure rating for the pipes and other equipment used in the injection and 

recovery circuits requested by the commenter is not available nor is that information necessary 

for the respective impact assessment in the SEIS. The important point is that the Applicant 

commits to maximum injection pressures that are less than the pressure ratings of the pipes and 

associated equipment, which ensures the integrity of the pipes and equipment. In addition, the 

maximum injection pressures would be less than the pressures necessary to cause fractures in 

the confining layers of rock. As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1, the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (WDEQ) Permit to Mine includes approval for the Applicant to operate 

the UIC Class III injection wells associated with uranium recovery. The WDEQ Permit to Mine 

imposes standards on the pressures in the Class III wells in a wellfield per Wyoming’s Rules 

and Regulations, Chapter 11, “In-Situ Mining” (WDEQ/LQD, 2005). The approved WDEQ 

Permit to Mine would include maximum and average injection volumes and/or pressures 

necessary to ensure that fractures are not initiated in the confining zone, that injected fluids do 

not migrate into any unauthorized zone, and that formation fluids are not displaced into any 

unauthorized zone. 

Operating requirements of the WDEQ Permit to Mine specifies that, at a minimum, the fluid and 

fracture pressures of the production zone be calculated to ensure that the pressure in the 

production zone during injection does not initiate new fractures or propagate existing fractures. 

The WDEQ/LQD Rules Chapter 11, NonCoal In Situ Mining Section 11, specifies that “In no 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-33

case will injection pressure initiate fractures in the confining zone, if confinement is present, or 

cause the migration of injection or formation fluids into an unauthorized zone.” Although 

pressures could increase over time, pressures would not exceed the maximum allowable 

injection pressures. Condition No. 10.14 of the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License

for the Ross Project indicates that during wellfield operations, injection pressures are not to 

exceed the maximum operating pressures as specified in the Applicant’s license application 

(NRC, 2014b). Information has been added to FSEIS Section 2.1.1 to explicitly describe the 

requirements within the WDEQ’s Permit to Mine and the specifications in Draft License 

Condition No. 10.14 that pertain to injection pressures.

NRC was unable to locate information on the relationship of injection pressures and excursions. 

However, the NRC does not agree that there is a relationship between injection pressures and 

excursions. Within an aquifer with porosity and permeability sufficient for the ISR process, 

injection pressures would dissipate within a short distance from the injection well; whereas, 

excursions are influenced by ground-water flow patterns at the perimeter of the wellfields.

Information on the pressure ratings of the pipes and equipment that could be proposed for 

potential satellite areas in the Lance District is not available. Please see the NRC’s responses 

to Comment Nos. RP032-002, RP032-067, and RP041-009, which describe the environmentalreview process that the NRC staff would follow if Strata were to submit a license-amendment 

application to the Commission to expand its operation into any of the Lance District satellite 

areas.

Comment: RP032-028

The commenter referenced DSEIS Section 2.1.1.2 statement, “The Applicant suggests that, in 

order to maintain flow rates and wellfield balance, some wellfields would require flexibility in 

their allowable injection pressure.” The commenter requested information on the following: 1) 

The practical meaning of the phrase “flexibility in their allowable injection pressure.” 2) The 

methodology through which “flexibility” would be provided. 3) The purpose of the NRC’s 

allowing flexibility. The commenter asked if the flexibility would permit the Applicant's proposed 

maximum injection pressure to be exceeded and, if so, by how much and for how long. 

Similarly, the commenter asked if the likelihood and/or potential severity of leaks would be 

increased. 

Response: As described in the NRC staff’s response to Comment No. RP032-027, the 

maximum allowable injection pressure is the limit that would be specified in the Source and 

Byproduct Materials License for the Ross Project as well as in the WDEQ’s Permit to Mine. 

This maximum injection pressure cannot be exceeded if the Applicant is to remain in 

compliance with the License. Such compliance would be monitored by the requirement that 

injection pressures and flow rates be measured and recorded daily by the inline computer 

system and/or by a wellfield operator according to Condition No. 10.14 in the Ross Project’s 

Draft License. In the context of the subject statement, “flexibility” refers to the Applicant’s using 

less pressure in wellfields that are of lesser depth, as stated in SEIS Section 2.1.1.2. The 

purpose of NRC allowing flexibility would be to allow the Applicant to operate in the most 

efficient manner. In no case would such flexibility allow the Applicant's licensed maximum 

injection pressure to be exceeded. As described in the response to Comment No. RP032-027, 

there is no relationship between injection at pressures below the maximum allowed and leaks 

and excursions. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this 

response.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-34

Comment: RP032-035

The commenter noted that DSEIS Section 2.1.1.2 states, "The Applicant estimates that 0.1 – 2 

kg [~ 2 – 4 lb] of V205 would be produced for every 1 kg [~ 2 lb] of U308.” The commenter then 

asked what accounts for the variability in the estimated yield of co-produced vanadium?

Response: The concentrations of metals within a given ore varies naturally, as determined by 

the geologic processes that formed the ore (Rose et al., 1979). No changes were made to the 

SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

B.5.9.3 Decommissioning

Comment: RP024-105

The commenter referred to the statements in DSEIS Section 2.1.1: 

In Section 2 of the GEIS, the four stages in the life of an ISR facility are described: 1) 

construction, 2) operation, 3) aquifer restoration, and 4) decommissioning (NRC, 2009). 

The decommissioning phase would include facility decontamination, dismantling, 

demolition, and disposal as well as site reclamation and restoration. Although NRC 

recognizes that these four phases could be performed concurrently, and in practice early 

wellfields would undergo aquifer restoration while other wellfields are being installed, the 

GEIS determined that describing the ISR process in terms of these stages aids in the 

discussion of the ISR process and in the evaluation of potential environmental impacts 

from an ISR facility.

Based upon the subject statements in DSEIS Section 2.1.1, the commenter stated that the 

NRC’s description of “decommissioning” was inconsistent with its application of 10 CFR Part 

40.42, “Timeliness in Decommissioning” regulation to uranium-recovery wellfields. The 

commenter noted that nowhere in the DSEIS’s description did it reference ground-water 

restoration, aquifer-stabilization monitoring, and wellfield decommissioning, but rather the SEIS 

merely stated “facility” decommissioning. The commenter suggested that some uraniumrecovery facilities decommission wellfields after aquifer restoration has been completed, and 

some after all facility operations are completed. Therefore, this regulation would apply to 

uranium-recovery wellfields and the FSEIS’s description should reflect that fact.

Response: According to the Commission decision regarding Hydro Resources, Inc.

(NRC, 2000b), NRC staff is required to review a decommissioning plan prior to issuing a 

license. NUREG–1569 contains NRC staff guidance for reviewing decommissioning plans

(NRC, 2003a). NRC addresses the decommissioning/restoration activities to be included in the 

application including ground-water restoration, soils reclamation, building decommissioning, and 

post-decommissioning surveys. Therefore, the intent of the aforementioned Commission 

decision and NUREG–1569 is to review a decommissioning plan that addressed full facility 

build-out for the life of the facility.

Unlike other facilities, the precise as-built conditions are unknown prior to operations because 

continued exploration may result in alterations to proposed wellfields. Such alterations affect the 

required wellfield infrastructure. Therefore, a more detailed decommissioning plan would be 

required 12 months prior to decommissioning a facility or a portion thereof. This plan would 

comply with 10 CFR 40.42. With respect to schedule and in accordance with 10 CFR 40.42, the 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-35

licensee would be required to complete site decommissioning within two years after approval of 

the DP or as otherwise specified in the Plan.

As stated in generic letters to licensees dated July 7, 2008 (e.g., NRC, 2008 [ADAMS Accession 

No. ML081480293]), the timeliness and decommissioning regulations apply to ISRs and under 

provisions of 10 CFR 40.42(d) for separate outdoor areas, the subsurface ground water 

restoration of individual wellfields is interpreted as decommissioning; therefore, alternate 

schedules must be submitted if ground water restoration/decommissioning of the wellfield would 

require more than two years.

Ground-water restoration of the wellfield aquifer is separate from the 

decommissioning/reclamation of the surface features at a wellfield including the abandonment 

of all wells. A licensee is required to receive NRC approval of the wellfield restoration prior to 

performing decommissioning/reclamation of the surface features. SEIS references to “facility” 

decommissioning include wellfield decommissioning. Ground-water restoration is discussed in 

SEIS Sections 2.1.1.3 and 4.5.1.3. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information 

provided in this response.

Comment: RP024-488

The commenter noted that Condition No. 10.3 of the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials 

License requires the Applicant to submit a detailed Decommissioning Plan (DP) for NRC staff 

review and approval at least 12 months prior to initiation of any planned final Ross Project 

decommissioning (NRC, 2014b). For consistency, the commenter suggested that DSEIS 

Section 4.6.1.4 be revised to reflect this requirement.

Response: Although the NRC staff acknowledges the commenter is correct that Condition No. 

10.3 in the Draft License (NRC, 2014b) indicates that the Applicant would submit a detailed DP 

for NRC staff review and approval at least 12 months prior to initiation of any final Ross Project 

decommissioning, the NRC staff does not find that this information regarding the timing of the 

DP is particularly relevant to the discussion in SEIS Section 4.6.1.4. No changes were made to 

the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comments: RP032-045; RP032-046; RP032-047; RP032-048

The commenter provided several closely related comments: 

1) The commenter noted that DSEIS Section 2.1.1.4 stated, “Prior to the Ross Project's facility 

decontamination, dismantling, and decommissioning, and the Project site’s reclamation and 

restoration, appropriate cleanup criteria for surfaces would need to be established in concert 

with NRC requirements, and a Ross Project-specific decommissioning plan would need to be 

accepted by the NRC.” The commenter asked what the current NRC requirements are for 

“appropriate cleanup criteria for surfaces” of uranium-recovery facilities during 

decommissioning, and the commenter further asked when and how the criteria required for 

cleanup of surfaces at the Ross Project facility would be determined. 

2) The commenter also asked that the NRC provide the earliest and latest dates at which facility 

decontamination, dismantling, and decommissioning could reasonably be expected to occur 

based upon the current plans of the Applicant. In particular, the commenter requested 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-36

clarification on the timing of the Applicant’s submittal of a DP as well as the timing of the NRC’s 

approval of that DP. 

3) The commenter also asked if the “Ross Project facility” named above is the same as the 

“Lance Projects Central Processing Plant (CPP),” described by the Applicant’s (i.e., Strata 

Energy, Inc.'s) parent company, Peninsula Energy, Ltd., in releases to the global investing 

community. If so, the commenter asked why the CPP is referred to by a different name in the 

DSEIS. 

4) Additionally, the commenter requested a table showing the expected levels of radioactive and 

chemical contamination before and after decontamination of a typical uranium-recovery facility 

similar in size to the Ross Project CPP. If the data requested are time dependent, the 

commenter asked that the NRC indicate how the contamination levels pre- and postdecontamination could vary with a plant’s operating history. Finally, the commenter asked what 

would happen if a contaminated area of the Ross Project could not economically meet the 

cleanup criteria established in the DP.

Response: 1) As stated in SEIS Section 4.13.1.4, the protection of workers and the public 

would be ensured through the NRC’s approval of a DP and/or a Restoration Action Plan (RAP) 

as well as through its verification that radiation doses that result from exposures during 

decommissioning would comply with the NRC’s 10 CFR Part 20 limits. The Ross Project area 

could be released for unrestricted use in conformance with the related conditions of the Source 

and Byproduct Materials License and the dose criteria for unrestricted 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 Ross Project, after decommissioning is complete, to levels 

that are sufficiently low to protect public health and safety. 

2) License Condition No. 10.3 of the Draft License indicates that the Applicant submit a detailed 

DP to the NRC staff for review and approval at least 12 months prior to initiation of any final 

Ross Project decontamination, dismantling, and/or decommissioning of Project areas and 

structures. A Draft RAP for the Project area was submitted by the Applicant in its Technical 

Report (TR) (see Addendum 6.1-A in Strata, 2011b). The DP would represent the as-built 

conditions at the Ross Project. The primary steps involved in decommissioning an ISR facility 

are discussed in Section 2.6 of the GEIS. 

As shown in SEIS Figure 2.6, the Applicant has estimated that the decommissioning of the Ross 

Project could begin between four and six years after regulatory approval of the Ross Project, if 

the Ross Project were not expanded into the Lance District. If the Ross Project were to be 

expanded into the Lance District through future license amendments, then, as shown in SEIS 

Figure 2.6, the Applicant has estimated that decommissioning of the facility components (e.g., 

CPP, surface impoundments, and so forth) could begin between six and eight years after 

regulatory approval of the Ross Project. As stated in the GEIS, Section 2.6, unless otherwise 

acknowledged by the NRC, licensees are required under 10 CFR Part 40.42 to complete 

decommissioning within two years from the time the DP has been approved. 

3) The Ross Project facility or CPP is the same facility the commenter refers to as the Lance 

Project CPP. The term “Ross Project facility” is used in this SEIS because the license 

application that was submitted to the NRC, and the Proposed Action discussed in this SEIS, is 

for the NRC to authorize the Applicant to construct and operate an uranium-recovery facility and 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-37

wellfields at the Ross Project area. The term “Ross Project facility” is consistent with the license 

application, the NRC staff’s SER, and the Draft License (NRC, 2014a; NRC, 2014b). 

4) SEIS Section 4.13.1 discusses the radiological and nonradiological impacts during Ross 

Project throughout its lifecycle. As stated in SEIS Section 4.13.1.2, GEIS Sections 4.4.11.2.1 

and 4.4.11.2.4 presented historical data for ISR facilities, and the GEIS was used in the 

development of this SEIS. This SEIS has concluded in Section 4.13.1.2 that the potential

radiation doses to occupationally exposed workers and members of the public during normal 

operations would be SMALL. Calculated radiation doses from the releases of radioactive 

materials to the environment from the Ross Project are very small fractions of the limits in 10 

CFR Part 20, which have been established by the NRC 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 as low as 

reasonably achievable (ALARA). The Applicant’s proposed radiation protection program would 

include implementation of management controls, engineering controls, radiation-safety training, 

radon monitoring and sampling, and audit programs. The types and quantities of chemicals 

(hazardous and nonhazardous) proposed for use at the Ross Project would be consistent with 

those evaluated in the GEIS. In addition, the Applicant proposed to implement the occupational 

health and safety protection plans presented for typical ISR facilities in the GEIS and to comply 

with the requirements of regulations governing the use and storage of chemicals. Therefore, the 

NRC staff concluded that the nonradiological impacts to public and occupational health and 

safety during normal operations of the Proposed Action would be SMALL. The NRC’s response 

to Comment No. RP032-051 contains additional information regarding radiation-dose limits.

The NRC staff has revised the FSEIS text to elaborate and confirm that appropriate cleanup 

criteria would be identified as applicable in the Applicant's DP and that the DP would be 

required of the Applicant if the Ross Project were to be licensed by the NRC. In addition, FSEIS 

Section 4.13.1.4 now notes that any area, item, or surface that cannot be economically 

decontaminated, where “economically decontaminated” would be defined by the Applicant, 

would be shipped to a properly licensed radioactive-waste disposal facility. 

Comment: RP032-051 

The commenter requested additional information on how an evaluation of potentially 

contaminated soils would be conducted as part of decommissioning. Specifically, the 

commenter: 

1) Asked whether the soils beneath the surface impoundments would be examined for chemical 

contamination.

2) Asked if the mud pits would be subject to the same radiation surveys performed on buildings, 

structures, and equipment, and asked whether mud-pit areas that met cleanup criteria would be 

suitable for reseeding and livestock grazing.

3) Requested the specific criteria that would be applied to determine the choice between 

“disposed of appropriately” and “released for unrestricted use.”

4) Inquired as to the total hectares [acres] of mud pits and associated land that would be 

examined for radioactive and/or chemical contamination as well as a description of the size of 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-38

the area around and down gradient from the mud pits that would be examined for 

contamination.

5) Asked that information on the size of potentially impacted soils as a result the Applicant’s use 

of mud pits be provided for the potential satellite areas in the Lance District. 

6) Asked for a characterization of any potential risks to livestock, wildlife, food chains, surface 

water or shallow ground water due to the Applicant’s use of mud pits, which would be left in 

place because they cannot economically be remediated to meet cleanup criteria.

Response: 

1) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates most types of hazardouschemical contamination and/or hazardous wastes. During decommissioning, soil samples could 

be tested for hazardous constituents, based upon EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 262, if any 

EPA-regulated hazardous constituents had been managed in the surface impoundments (i.e., 

passed through, accumulated in, or stored in). 

2). The Applicant would conduct radiation surveys of the onsite mud pits using the same 

standard, contemporary radiation-survey methods as would be used to survey buildings, 

structures, and equipment at the Project site. The NRC-approved DP will include the specific 

details required to effectively decontaminate, dismantle, and decommission the Ross Project, 

such as survey procedures, sampling locations, analytical parameters, applicable cleanup 

criteria, and expected waste management techniques (i.e., decontamination of surfaces when

possible and/or disposal at an identified disposal facility that is licensed or permitted to accept 

such wastes). 

The Applicant would dismantle, decontaminate, and decommission the Ross Project area so 

that it can be released without restrictions (i.e., “unrestricted release). Unrestricted release 

would mean that any land use could be employed at the Project area, including the landowner’s 

reseeding as well as livestock and wildlife grazing. 

3) 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E, 40.36, and 40.42 contain the NRC’s basic requirements for 

decommissioning. The phrases “unrestricted release” and “disposed of appropriately” are not 

mutually exclusive; they go hand in hand. A site may be released for unrestricted use when 

survey and/or sample results show that all surfaces, equipment, structures, and environmental 

media that are to remain at the site are below the applicable cleanup criteria, such as those 

limits (i.e., radiation doses) specified in 10 CFR Part 20 and other NRC guidance and all 

articles, surfaces, structures, and/or media that cannot be released without restriction are 

disposed of appropriately in a licensed disposal facility. 

4) The total area to be surveyed by the Applicant upon its entering the decommissioning phase 

would be identified and discussed in its proposed DP, which would be required to be submitted 

to the NRC one year before decommissioning commences (NRC, 2014b, License Condition No. 

10.3). Thus, detailed information regarding the areal extent subject to surveying and 

decommissioning activities at each mud pit is not available at this time. However, as stated in 

GEIS Section 4.4.3.4, any areas potentially impacted by operations would be included in 

surveys to ensure all areas of elevated soil concentrations are identified and properly cleaned 

up to comply with NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6-(6) (NRC, 

2009b). The EPA issues the regulations that govern the material disposed of in the mud pits, 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-39

which is called TENORM; these regulations can be found at 40 CFR Part 192. In addition, the 

dried pits would be reclaimed and restored by grading and reseeding according to WDEQ/LQD 

requirements usually within one construction season, as discussed in FSEIS 2.1.1.5, Liquid 

Effluents. 

5) Specific information regarding the areal extent subject to decontamination and 

decommissioning activities in the Lance District’s potential satellite areas is not available and is 

outside the scope of this SEIS. However, as with the Ross Project, any areas potentially 

impacted by operations of future Lance District satellites would be included in decommissioning 

surveys for the satellite facilities to ensure all areas of elevated soil concentrations are identified 

and properly cleaned up to comply with NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 6-(6) (NRC, 2009a).

6) License Condition 9.5 would require that the Applicant maintain an NRC-approved 

financial surety arrangement, consistent with 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 9, 

adequate to cover the estimated costs for decommissioning and decontamination, if 

accomplished by a third party, which includes offsite disposal of radioactive solid 

process or evaporation pond residues, and ground-water restoration. The surety shall 

also include the costs associated with all soil and water sampling analyses necessary to 

confirm the completion of decontamination. FSEIS Sections 2.1.1.4, 2.1.1.5, 3.13.1, and 

4.14.1 have been revised to provide more clarity on the decommissioning process, 

including the management of the mud pits, the procedures for surveys, sampling and 

analysis protocols, types of wastes, the management of the wastes (e.g., radioactive, 

hazardous, construction, and other commonly generated wastes such as domestic 

wastes).

B.5.9.4 Restoration Action Plan

Comment: RP024-210

The commenter requested that the Applicant's RAP be included wherever decommissioning 

plans are discussed, for example, in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.7.

Response: The NRC has revised the text of the FSEIS throughout to include references to 

both a DP and the RAP, including a reference to Addendum 6.1-A of the TR (Strata, 2011b), 

when one or the other are mentioned. 

B.5.9.5 Monitoring

Comment: RP024-132

The commenter pointed out that DSEIS Section 2.1.1.1 incorrectly stated that the monitoringwell ring around the perimeter of each wellfield would be used to detect “horizontal and vertical 

excursions.” The commenter emphasized that the monitoring wells that would installed in the 

underlying and overlying aquifers would be used to detect vertical excursions, while the 

perimeter monitoring-well ring would be used to detect horizontal excursions.

Response: The NRC staff has revised FSEIS Section 2.1.1.1 as suggested by the commenter. 

The FSEIS Section 2.1.1.1 text has been clarified; it now states that the Applicant would install a 

monitoring-well ring around the perimeter of each wellfield for the detection of horizontal 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-40

excursions and that monitoring wells completed in the underlying and overlying aquifers would 

be used to detect vertical excursions.

Comment: RP024-134

The commenter noted that the statement in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.1, “During uranium-recovery 

wellfield operation, the Applicant would sample ground water from the wells and compare the 

analytical values to the NRC-specified baseline constituent concentrations to determine whether 

an excursion...,” is inconsistent with the license application and the Draft Source and Byproduct 

Materials License (NRC, 2014b). The commenter suggested that the statement be revised to 

read “compare the analytical values to the respective UCLs [upper control limits]...” so that it is

consistent with Condition No. 11.3 of the Draft License.

Response: The text in Section 2.1.1.1 of the FSEIS has been revised as suggested by the 

commenter; the text now reads: “The Applicant would compare the analytical ground-water 

data with the UCLs to determine whether an excursion has occurred.”

Comments: RP024-133; RP024-135; RP024-338

The commenter suggested that the NRC staff make clear in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.1 that prelicensing, site-characterization data were collected in accordance with the NRC’s guidance 

found in Chapter 2 of NUREG–1569 (as opposed to Chapter 5 of NUREG–1569, which includes 

guidance on post-licensing, pre-operational baseline data collection). 

Response: The NRC staff agrees that the FSEIS should clarify that pre-licensing, sitecharacterization data collection has already been performed by the Applicant. The data that 

were accrued by the analyses of site-characterization samples are presented in SEIS Section 3, 

“Affected Environment,” predominantly in SEIS Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 (“Geology and Soils,” 

“Water Resources,” and “Air Quality,” respectively). During its preparation of the SEIS, the NRC 

staff also focused its evaluation on the pre-licensing, site-characterization data using the 

guidance provided in NUREG–1748 for environmental-review documents (NRC, 2003b). The 

NRC also agrees that the FSEIS should clarify that post-licensing, pre-operational data that 

would be intended to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, have not yet 

been collected. As a result of this comment, the NRC staff has made that clarification 

throughout this Appendix B as well as the FSEIS where appropriate. 

Comment: RP024-142

The commenter referred to the text box located in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.1 entitled “What are 

underground injection control permits?” The commenter asked that the information included in 

this text box be revised to also include the fact that monitoring and recovery wells would be 

regulated by Wyoming through WDEQ’s Water Quality Division (WQD) and its Land Quality 

Division (LQD). The two WDEQ Divisions cooperate through an MOU that facilitates uraniumrecovery oversight by the WDEQ. 

Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter that this information should be included in the 

subject text box to more fully describe the WDEQ’s permitting arrangements. The text box has 

been revised in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.1; it now reads: “The corresponding monitoring and 

recovery wells are regulated through the WDEQ by both its Water Quality Division (WQD) and 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-41

Land Quality Division (LQD), which cooperate through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

which facilitates in situ uranium-recovery oversight by the WDEQ/LQD.”

Comment: RP024-443

The commenter disagreed with the statement in DSEIS Section 4.5.1.2, “The NRC would 

require an early-warning system of pressure transducers to detect anomalous hydrostatic 

pressure increases in the perimeter monitoring wells.” The commenter requested that this 

statement be revised for consistency with the license application, where the Applicant commits 

to measuring water levels in monitoring wells during its semi-monthly sampling campaigns. The 

commenter highlighted that the Source and Byproduct Materials License would not require 

pressure transducers to be installed in wells. 

Response: The NRC staff has revised the text in FSEIS Section 4.5.1.2 as the commenter 

suggested. The statement quoted by the commenter has been replaced with “In addition to 

sampling the monitoring wells for water-quality parameters, the Applicant commits to measuring 

water levels during the semi-monthly sampling to detect anomalous hydrostatic pressure 

increases, which might signal an operational upset (Strata, 2011b).”

Comment: RP032-016

The commenter referenced the statement in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.1, “After initial testing by the 

Applicant, the well would be retested at five year intervals,” which refers to the mechanical 

integrity testing (MIT) that would be required of the Applicant. The commenter asked what 

assurance would be derived from the five-year retesting interval, given that the operating 

lifetime of the average ISR injection or recovery well is considerably less than five years. The 

commenter asked that data on the number of wells, as a percentage of the total licensed and 

operated for in situ injection or recovery in the NSDWUMR region or in Wyoming, that have 

been retested for mechanical integrity prior to well plugging and abandonment be supplied.

Response: The data requested by the commenter on retesting of injection and recovery wells 

in either the NSDWUMR region or in Wyoming for mechanical integrity are not available; the 

collection of such data by the NRC staff is beyond the scope of this SEIS. The five-year 

retesting timeframe was established by the EPA in its UIC Program, which is administrated by 

the WDEQ in Wyoming. 

The MIT committed to by the Applicant in its license application was described in SEIS Section 

2.1.1.1. In addition, Condition No. 10.4 of the Draft License would require the Applicant to 

develop and implement written standard operating procedures (SOPs) prior to the Ross 

Project’s operation for construction and installation activities (NRC, 2014b), including MIT of 

pipelines prior to their burial to ensure mechanical integrity. During the time between the initial 

MIT of wells and the retesting in five years, the requirement for regular ground-water sampling 

of monitoring wells as well as the commitment by the Applicant in its license application to 

measure water levels in monitoring wells would both ensure that a breach of integrity in a well 

structure or pipeline would be detected. 

Further, as described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.2, daily measurements of the injection pressures 

and the lixiviant flow rates of the injection wells would detect leaks in a well or pipeline between 

MIT. License Condition No. 10.14 would also require weekly inspections of wellfield pipelines, 

wellheads, and module buildings in accordance with those approved by the NRC; additionally 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-42

License Condition No. 11.1(B) would require that the results of the daily pressure and flow-rate 

monitoring activities be submitted quarterly or made available for inspection upon request. NRC 

staff would verify that the MIT procedures are appropriate and that the testing has been 

performed as described in the Applicant’s SOPs during a pre-operational inspection. In addition, 

NRC staff would review MIT testing records and other compliance issues during routine annual 

or semi-annual inspections. As part of an NRC staff review of environmental impacts to ground 

water at previously licensed ISR projects, it was determined that a small percentage of the wells 

tested failed and, with one exception, the data from the respective project’s ground-water 

monitoring did not identify any impact attributable to well failure (NRC, 2009d). See also 

Comment Nos. RP024-443, RP032-036, RP032-037, RP032-041, and RP032-042 for 

information related to ground-water and water-level monitoring. The NRC has revised the 

FSEIS by discussing Condition No. 10.14 of the Draft License in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.1 and 

discussing the NRC staff’s review of environmental impacts to the ground water at previously 

licensed ISR projects in FSEIS Section 4.5.1.3.

Comment: RP032-017

The commenter referenced the statement in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.1, “The Applicant would test 

for leaks with fresh water on the pipelines prior to their burial, in order to ensure the pipelines' 

mechanical integrity.” The commenter requested additional information on: 1) the specific 

standards, approved test protocols, and hardware inspections that the NRC generally requires 

and specifically intends to apply to the Ross Project and the potential satellite areas in the 

Lance District in order to ensure the mechanical integrity of buried pipelines; 2) the leakdetection and warning systems that the NRC would require to ensure that the Applicant 

promptly addresses leaks and spills; and 3) the NRC verification techniques and protocols that 

would evaluate a licensee's compliance with buried pipeline-integrity requirements.

Response: According to License Condition No. 10.5 of the Draft Source and Byproduct 

Materials License for the Ross Project (NRC, 2014b), the MIT of wells and pipelines in Ross 

Project wellfields would be conducted in accordance with the Applicant’s SOPs, which are 

reflected in the commitments in Strata’s license application. SEIS Section 2.1.1.1 includes the 

text box, “What is mechanical-integrity testing (MIT)?” which provides the quantitative 

requirements for MIT, as described in the GEIS. In addition, SEIS Section 2.1.1.1 references 

the Applicant’s license application, which provides details of the MIT that would be conducted. 

The Applicant’s commitment to conducting MIT conforms to the procedure described the GEIS 

and required by the WDEQ (NRC, 2009b). The well-integrity information obtained by MIT would 

be documented and filed onsite, and the information would be provided to the WDEQ on a 

quarterly basis. The NRC would also review this documentation during facility inspections. 

SEIS Section 4.5.1.2 describes the leak- and spill-detection features that would reduce the 

likelihood and magnitude of pipeline leaks. License Condition No. 10.4 would require that the 

licensee develop and implement written SOPs prior to operation for all routine operational 

activities involving radioactive materials, and would require daily measurement of injection 

pressures and flow rates as well as weekly inspections of wellfield piping, wellheads, and 

module buildings to detect leaks and spills. Leak-detection devices would be installed in 

manholes along the pipelines. Further, the Applicant would monitor recovery and injection 

pipelines and immediately shut down the respective pumps if a leak or spill were to be detected 

(Strata, 2011b). The CPP would include a control room where a master-control system would 

allow remote monitoring and control of each wellfield engaged in uranium recovery. Operators 

would be located in the control room 24 hours a day and would use a computer-based station to 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-43

command the master-control system. In addition, related information on the schedule for MIT 

and water-level monitoring to ensure well and pipeline integrity between MIT is discussed in the 

NRC staff’s related response to Comment No. RP032-016. The same requirements for MIT 

would be required in any license amendments for the potential satellite areas in the Lance 

District. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP032-030

The commenter referenced the statement in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.2, “The monitoring of water 

levels that would be performed would serve to avert a potential excursion.” The commenter 

then asked: 1) Which specific “water levels” would be monitored, how would they be monitored, 

and where would they be monitored? 2) How does the NRC infer from water levels, 

scientifically, that an excursion is about to occur as opposed to its detecting an excursion which 

is already in progress? 3) What has been the record at uranium-recovery facilities of licensees 

using such water-level measurements to avert excursions from occurring? 4) How many 

excursions that were later confirmed to have occurred were correctly forecast by such waterlevel measurements, and why did such water-level measurements fail to avert them?

Response: 1) The statement referenced by the commenter refers specifically to water levels in 

the perimeter monitoring wells. The Applicant has committed to measuring water levels in all 

monitoring wells semi-monthly, as discussed in the NRC staff’s responses to Comment Nos. 

RP024-443, RP032-019, and RP032-031 (i.e., the frequency of water-level measurements). 

The method of water-level measurement is not specified because the method for water-level 

measurements is simply and straightforwardly the distance from the ground’s surface to the top 

of the water contained within a monitoring well. 

2) Water-level data from the semi-monthly measurements of the monitoring wells’ water levels 

would indicate hydrologic imbalances in a wellfield, if imbalances were to occur. Hydrological 

imbalances can lead to excursions. Operational adjustments by the Applicant, such as 

changing flow rates of injection and recovery wells or shutting down individual injection wells, 

could correct hydrologic imbalances and might serve to recover an excursion before it would be 

detected by water-quality monitoring. 

In addition, water-level measurements in perimeter monitoring wells are essential for the 

Applicant to document the “net inward gradient” during uranium-recovery operation throughout a 

given wellfield’s operation and restoration (until the Applicant initiates the ground-waterstabilization period); this net inward gradient would be required by the Source and Byproduct 

Materials License for the Ross Project. (See also Comment Nos. RP032-036, RP032-037, 

RP032-041, and RP032-042 for information related to ground-water monitoring requirements 

found in the Draft License.) As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.2, the Applicant’s monitoring of 

perimeter wells’ water levels would ensure that a net inward hydraulic gradient is maintained in 

a given wellfield. A constant inward gradient would serve to reduce the potential of an 

excursion. FSEIS Section 2.1.1.2 has been revised to replace the phrase “serve to avert” with 

“reduce the potential” in the statement that was the subject of this comment.

3 and 4) Specific analyses regarding the success of water-level measurements in forecasting 

excursions at other uranium-recovery facilities, as requested by the commenter, is not available. 

Similarly, no data are available regarding the success or failure of water-level information with 

respect to actual excursions. However, the NRC believes that monitoring-well water levels are 

an effective tool to reduce the potential for excursions because water levels reflect ground-water 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-44

flow directions and excursions occur when the ground-water flow is directed outside of a 

wellfield.

Comment: RP032-053

The commenter inquired about how the Applicant's compliance with “local, State, and Federal 

requirements related to air quality as well as occupational health and safety” would be 

ascertained. The commenter also requested information regarding other ISR facilities and their 

respective compliance with radon-related requirements such as effluent monitoring, ventilation, 

and personnel protection.

Response: If the Ross Project were to be licensed, the NRC staff would inspect the Project as 

would be specified in the Source and Byproduct Materials License that the Applicant would be 

issued. These inspections would specifically evaluate compliance with all effluent limits and 

radiation-dose standards, including those pertaining to air emissions and direct radiation, with

which Strata would be required to comply. Wyoming (i.e., the WDEQ/Air Quality Division 

[AQD]) would also perform inspections and audits related to the Air Quality Permit that the 

agency has already issued to the Applicant for the Ross Project (see the WDEQ/AQD's “Permit 

to Construct, Air Quality Permit No. 12198”) (WDEQ/AQD, 2011). Because the Ross Project 

has not yet received a license from the NRC, the NRC has no compliance data available for the 

Project itself. Compliance at other ISR facilities, operations, or projects are not within the scope 

of this SEIS, which addresses only the potential environmental impacts of the Ross Project. No 

changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comments: RP032-071; RP032-077; RP035-035

The commenters recommended that the NRC staff include a map that clearly depicts the 

locations of the 29 water-supply wells within the Ross Project area and the surrounding 2-km (1-

mi) area. 

Response: As discussed in FSEIS Sections 3.5.3, 3.12.1, and 6.2.5, these 29 water-supply 

wells have been monitored by the Applicant for ground-water quality for site-characterization 

purposes and to include related pre-licensing water-quality data in its license application. In 

addition, the Applicant has proposed that it would monitor these 29 wells throughout the 

lifecycle of the Ross Project. A map depicting the 29 water-supply wells that have been, and 

would be, monitored for ground-water quality by the Applicant throughout the Project’s lifecycle 

has been added as Figure 3.15 to FSEIS Section 3.5.3 (Strata, 2011a). 

Comment: RP035-041

The commenter stated that including an adaptive-management approach for responding to 

unanticipated water-quality-monitoring results that are outside the range of expected values in 

the environmental-monitoring plan would be valuable additional mitigation measure. 

Response: The NRC staff agrees that an adaptive management approach would help to 

reduce the likelihood of a water-quality incident’s occurring and increase the likelihood that 

water-quality incidents are resolved efficiently. The Draft Source and Byproduct Materials 

License includes several conditions that would require the Applicant to submit reports on a 

regular basis, reports that would document corrective actions taken in response to events with 

environmental consequences (NRC, 2014b). For example, Condition No. 11.6 of the Draft 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-45

Source and Byproduct Materials License would require that the Applicant submit a written report 

to the Commission detailing conditions leading to a spill or incident/event (including wellfield 

excursions), corrective actions taken, and results achieved. An inherent benefit to these 

reporting requirements is that they would permit the Applicant and the NRC staff to employ 

lessons learned from past incidents/events to address future incidents/events. This is a form of 

adaptive management that would be required by the NRC Source and Byproduct Materials 

License. No changes have been made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this 

response.

B.5.9.6 Aquifer Protection and Restoration

Comment: RP024-162

The commenter indicated that the description of the purpose of an aquifer exemption in relation 

to underground source of drinking water (USDW) protection in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.3 did not 

adequately address the protection of adjacent aquifers and suggested that the discussion be 

revised. 

Response: The NRC staff has revised the text in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.3 to discuss that ground 

water in aquifers outside of the aquifer-exemption boundaries (i.e., those boundaries that define 

the exempted portion of the ore-zone aquifer, where uranium recovery is permitted) are 

protected as USDWs. As such, the USDWs must meet the water-quality requirements in 10 

CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). 

Comments: RP024-163; RP024-165

The commenter identified the five proposed aquifer-restoration activities described in DSEIS 

Section 2.1.1.3 by the statement, “The aquifer-restoration activities proposed for the Ross 

Project are the same as those methods described in Section 2.5 of the GEIS: 1) ground-water 

transfer, 2) ground-water sweep, 3) RO with permeate injection, 4) ground-water recirculation, 

and 5) stabilization monitoring (Strata, 2011a; NRC, 2009b).” The commenter indicated these 

five activities are consistent with Strata’s license application; however, the commenter 

suggested including a statement to describe how the Applicant proposes to use these activities 

with flexibility. The commenter also suggested revising the following statement in DSEIS 

Section 2.1.1.3: “The Applicant’s proposed restoration methodology would include groundwater sweep, permeate injection, and ground-water recirculation.” The commenter asked that 

the two statements be made consistent within Section 2.1.1.3 of the FSEIS.

Response: The NRC staff agrees that these statements should be made consistent. The staff 

has revised the text in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.3 by adding the following statement: “The 

Applicant’s proposed aquifer-restoration methodology would use all of the five activities 

described in the GEIS, which would be applied in a flexible manner so as to optimize the overall 

aquifer-restoration process.” 

Comment: RP024-166 

The commenter referenced a statement in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.3, “The water removed from the 

aquifer during the sweep first would be passed through an IX system to recover uranium and 

then be disposed of as excess permeate.” The commenter then opined that the statement is 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-46

inconsistent with Strata’s license application, because the application does not describe the twophase RO system. 

Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter and has revised the text in FSEIS Section 

2.1.1.3 in order to provide a clear explanation that water from the ground-water sweep would be 

first passed through the IX system to recover uranium and vanadium, then it would be treated 

by the two-phase RO system. After that, the water would be reused or disposed of as excess 

permeate. This statement is now consistent with the license application.

Comment: RP024-168

The commenter suggested that Section 2.1.1.3 in the FSEIS include a discussion of groundwater transfer, as described in the Applicant’s TR Section 6.1.2, which has been proposed by 

the Applicant as an aquifer-restoration activity. 

Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter, and it has revised the text in FSEIS Section 

2.1.1.3 by adding a definition and an additional statement which describe ground-water transfer: 

“Ground-water transfer is the movement of ground water between a wellfield entering 

restoration and another wellfield where uranium recovery is beginning, or between areas within 

the same wellfield that are in different stages of aquifer restoration. The objective of groundwater transfer is to blend ground-water compositions, and it generally does not generate liquid 

effluents (NRC, 2009a).” This revision makes Strata’s license application and FSEIS Section 

2.1.1.3 consistent.

Comment: RP024-171

The commenter suggested that the NRC add a discussion of the pore-volume estimate 

prepared by the Applicant for the Ross Project to FSEIS Section 2.1.1.3. The commenter also 

suggested that the NRC address how this estimate relates to the Applicant’s RAP, which was 

included as Addendum 6.1-A in its TR (Strata, 2011b).

Response: The NRC staff has revised the text in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.3, which now clearly 

explains that the Applicant estimated and committed to 9.5 pore volumes of ground-water 

sweep, injection of permeate, and ground-water recirculation during aquifer restoration. The 

costs of restoration using 9.5 pore volumes were included in the Applicant’s decommissioningfunding estimate, which in turn was used as the Applicant’s basis for its financial-assurance 

surety. The estimate and the accompanying financial surety instrument are described in the 

Applicant’s RAP. The NRC staff found that the Applicant’s estimate of 9.5 pore volumes was 

acceptable because the estimate is within the range currently used by the uranium-recovery 

industry, and the Applicant commits to minimizing inefficiences and adjusting the 

decommissioning estimate based upon its future experience (NRC, 2014a). 

Comments: RP024-172; RP024-173; RP024-175 

The commenter questioned the purpose of aquifer stabilization as described in DSEIS Section 

2.1.1.3 by the statement: “The purpose of stabilization during aquifer restoration is to establish a 

chemical environment that would reduce the solubility of dissolved constituents such as 

uranium, arsenic, and selenium, as described in GEIS Section 2.5.4.” The commenter also 

noted that the discussion in the DSEIS section includes the Applicant’s use of a chemical 

reductant to immobilize uranium and dissolved species, even though the Applicant did not 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-47

specifically commit to the use of reductants. The commenter also noted that the Source and 

Byproduct Materials License would require the Applicant to specifically submit a plan for the 

NRC’s review before biological or chemical reductants could be used. Therefore, the 

commenter suggested omitting or revising the discussion of aquifer stabilization. 

In addition, the commenter referred to two related statements in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.3: “The 

need for aquifer stabilization would be determined on a case-by-case basis...” and “The 

Applicant would reinitiate the entire aquifer-restoration phase if stabilization monitoring 

determines it is necessary.” The commenter then remarked that these statements were 

inconsistent with Strata’s license application. The commenter observed that the concept of 

aquifer stabilization as used in the license application applied to monitoring and not the use of 

biological or chemical reductants. The commenter pointed out that, rather than iterate the entire 

aquifer-restoration process, additional evaluation would be performed by the Applicant in order 

to identify any hot spots and to observe any significant increasing trends. This additional 

evaluation could include additional monitoring, fate-and-transport modeling, or additional 

aquifer-restoration actions.

Response: The NRC staff has revised the text in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.3 to clearly distinguish

between the general description of the aquifer-stabilization process included in the GEIS and 

the Applicant’s proposed aquifer-restoration techniques as set forth in Strata’s license 

application as well as those techniques that will be required by the Source and Byproduct 

Materials License issued to Strata. In addition, supplemental information has been added to 

FSEIS Section 2.1.1.3 regarding the Applicant’s commitments to aquifer stabilization and 

stabilization monitoring. This information supports the NRC’s determination in its SER that the 

license application provides reasonable assurance the Applicant would restore ground water to 

the respective ground-water protection standards of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 

5B(5) and that the extent of restoration activities undertaken ensures compliance with groundwater protection standards that are protective of human health and the environment as required 

by 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5D (NRC, 2014a). 

The statements on aquifer restoration referenced by the commenter have been modified to 

accurately reflect the commitment by the Applicant and the Draft Source and Byproduct 

Materials License. The revised text in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.3 reflects these modifications, which 

now states that “Further analysis and evaluation would be conducted in the event that waterquality parameters exhibit a statistically significant increasing trend or areas of ground water not 

meeting the water quality protection standards are identified within the aquifer (Strata, 2011b). 

This analysis may include additional monitoring and flow transport modeling. If the evaluation 

reveals that ground water outside the exempted aquifer could potentially be affected, the 

Applicant may repeat a previous phase of active restoration.” 

Comments: RP024-152; RP032-037; RP032-042

One commenter noted that the DSEIS states that, as aquifer restoration occurs in depleted 

wellfield modules, uranium-recovery operation would be ongoing in subsequent wellfield 

modules and asked a series of questions related to this topic.

1) Could the difference between a "well[field] module" and a "wellfield" for the purposes of 

establishing accountable units for implementing and assessing aquifer restoration be clarified? 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-48

2) How many lixiviant injection and uranium-recovery wells would comprise a typical Ross 

Project well[field] module? How many such modules would comprise a wellfield? How many 

wellfields would ultimately be deployed pursuant to the NRC’s granting of a license to the Ross 

Project?

3) Would the post-licensing, pre-operational constituent concentrations found in perimeter 

ground-water monitoring wells and baseline recovery wells be applied for the purpose of 

determining the target restoration values (TRVs) to individual well modules, or to a group of 

several well modules, or to a wellfield? 

4) What is the approved standard for each constituent that would be subjected to monitoring to 

demonstrate that the approved standard has been met for aquifer restoration and that would be 

used to demonstrate that any adjacent nonexempt aquifers are unaffected? Who would 

conduct this quarterly sampling and, if it is the Applicant, how would the NRC obtain 

independent verification of the results? What happens if quarterly sampling demonstrates that 

one or more adjacent non-exempted aquifers are affected? 

5) How many discrete environmental accountancy areas (i.e., groups of location-specific UCLs 

and TRVs) would be established within the Ross Project to detect and control excursions and 

set standards for aquifer restoration? 

6) Who is responsible for establishing and maintaining this large and complex dataset of waterquality measurements, and where would it be maintained? 

7) How would the relevant UCLs and TRVs applicable to each specific well[field] module be 

communicated to the field personnel responsible for detecting and preventing excursions and 

assessing aquifer-restoration progress and success at particular sites?

8) With a small workforce attending to so many individual environmental-compliance units that 

must monitored and assessed, how would the Applicant and the NRC avoid confusion or 

misapplication of standards between units? 

9) Would the NRC provide a description of its process for reviewing and validating the 

environmentally protective character of UCLs and TRVs proposed for inclusion in the Ross 

Project license over time, and would the NRC describe how it would verify the authenticity of the 

large number of site-specific datasets required? If there are differences in view between the 

NRC and the Applicant on the establishment or revision of UCLs and TRVs, how would these 

differences be adjudicated and resolved? Who within NRC holds the final decision authority on 

such matters? The other commenter discussed UCLs are subject to the NRC’s review and 

approval, noting Condition No. 10.13 in the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License.

10) Would the NRC provide a map showing the location and planned restoration sequence of 

the Ross Project "well[field] modules" that would undergo restoration, relative to those modules 

in which "ISR operation would be ongoing" at the same time? Would the NRC provide detailed 

topographic and stratigraphic maps showing the location, relative to the Ross Project, of all 

subsequent well[field] modules in contiguous areas currently scheduled for Lance District 

development in which uranium recovery would be ongoing while Ross Project well[field] 

modules are undergoing restoration? Would all "well[field] modules" undergoing restoration be 

hydrologically upgradient of well[field] modules in which uranium recovery would be ongoing? 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-49

11) Would the NRC define a "baseline recovery well," as the term is used in the Applicant's ER, 

and describe how it would be used to establish UCLs and TRVs? 

Response: With respect to 1) and 2), the Ross Project production area (all wellfields and the 

processing facility, including the CPP) consists of 50.6 – 58.7 ha [125 – 145 ac] within the 

licensed area. The proposed wellfields are divided into two “mine units,” under the WDEQ 

Permit to Mine, which are further delineated into wellfield modules. (See NRC’s response to 

Comment No. RP032-040 as well for a discussion of wellfield modules and accounting units.) 

The total number of wellfield modules for the proposed Ross Project is estimated to be between 

15 – 25. The primary components of a wellfield module, including the injection well, the 

recovery well, the shallow[-aquifer] monitoring well, the deep[-aquifer] monitoring well, and the 

perimeter monitoring well, are illustrated in SEIS Figure 2.7. The Applicant proposes that each 

wellfield module would consist of 40 recovery wells. The total number of injection wells would 

be a multiple of the total number of recovery wells and would depend on the “spot pattern” used. 

Each wellfield module would undergo aquifer restoration. As Condition No. 10.6 of the Draft 

License indicates, sampling conducted by the Applicant during restoration-stability monitoring 

shall include the specified production-zone- (i.e., ore-zone-) aquifer wells used to define the 

wellfield’s baseline levels (NRC, 2014b). As Draft License Condition No. 11.3 also indicates, 

post-licensing, pre-operational ground-water quality would be established by the Applicant’s 

collection of samples from the injection wells, the recovery wells, the shallow monitoring wells, 

the deep monitoring wells, and the perimeter monitoring wells prior to uranium-recovery 

operation.

Currently, Condition No. 11.4 of the Draft License addresses the establishment of UCLs (NRC, 

2014b): 

11.4 Establishment of UCLs. Prior to injection of lixiviant into a wellfield, the licensee

shall establish excursion control parameters and their respective upper control limits

(UCLs) in the designated overlying aquifer, underlying aquifer and perimeter monitoring

wells in accordance with Section 5.7.8.2 of the approved license application. The default

excursion parameters for wells in the ore zone and overlying aquifer are chloride,

conductivity, and total alkalinity. The default excursion parameters for wells in the

underlying aquifer are sulfate, conductivity, and total alkalinity. The UCLs shall be 

established for each excursion control parameter and for each well, wellfield or subset of

the wellfield, as appropriate, based on the mean plus five standard deviations of data

collected for LC11.3. The UCL for chloride can be set at the background [in this SEIS, “postlicensing, pre-operational”] mean concentration plus either five standard deviations or 15 

mg/l, whichever is higher.

3) As stated in the SER (NRC, 2014a), the NRC staff acknowledges that the Applicant refers to 

the “baseline” values as TRVs or target restoration goals (TRGs), although such references are 

not derived from NRC-implementing regulations. As discussed in SEIS Section 6.3.2, the postlicensing, pre-operational data would be collected from each individual wellfield as its installation 

is completed, but prior to the Applicant’s initiating uranium recovery. Each wellfield’s monitoring 

data would be used to establish NRC-approved UCLs. Thus, the excursion indicators and the 

aquifer-restoration target values would be wellfield specific. SER Section 5.7.8.3.1.2 states, 

“During the construction phase, the Applicant proposes to conduct a background [in this SEIS, 

“post-licensing, pre-operational”] monitoring program for each wellfield to define its ‘primary’ 

restoration goals [restoration standards] and determine its upper control limits (UCLs) for the 

excursion monitoring program.”
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-50

4) As described in the response to 3) above, the post-licensing, pre-operational data for each 

wellfield that would be used to establish the restoration standards and UCLs would be collected 

as wellfield installation is completed. Therefore this information is not currently available. 

Regular sampling would be conducted by the Applicant in accordance with the license, if 

granted. If an excursion is detected, the following would occur according to Draft License 

Condition No. 11.5 (NRC, 2014b): 

If, at any well during a semi-monthly sampling event, the concentrations of any two

excursion indicator parameters exceed their respective UCL or any one excursion

indicator parameter exceeds its UCL by 20 percent, then the excursion criterion is

exceeded and a verification sample shall be taken from that well within 48 hours after

results of the first analysis are received. If the verification sample confirms that the

excursion criterion is exceeded, then the well is placed on excursion status. If the 

verification sample does not confirm that the excursion criterion is exceeded, a third

sample shall be taken within 48 hours after results of the first verification sampling are

received. If the third sample shows that the excursion criterion is exceeded, the well shall

be placed on excursion status. If the third sample does not show that the excursion

criterion is exceeded, the first sample shall be considered to be an error and routine 

excursion monitoring is resumed (the well is not placed on excursion status).

Upon confirmation of an excursion, the licensee shall notify NRC as stated below,

implement corrective action, and increase the sampling frequency for the excursion

indicator parameters at the well on excursion status to at least once every seven days.

Corrective actions for confirmed excursions may be, but are not limited to, those

described in Section 5.7.8.2 of the approved license application. An excursion is

considered corrected when concentrations of all indicator parameters defining the

excursion status are at or below the UCLs defined in LC [Draft License Condition] 11.4 for

three consecutive weekly samples.

For wellfields located in an area in which the uppermost aquifer, the “SA Aquifer”, is

comprised of saturated unconsolidated alluvium, the licensee will include monitoring wells

in the SA Aquifer in that area of the wellfield as part of the excursion monitoring program

as described above. The hydrologic-test data package must include sufficient justification

on the locations, baseline [in this SEIS, “post-licensing, pre-operational”] sampling if the

frequency is less than quarterly and operational sampling if the frequency is less than 

semi-monthly for wells in the uppermost aquifer. The justification must demonstrate that

the wells provide early detection of a release (including a surficial release). 

If a vertical excursion is detected during operations, then injection of lixiviant into the

production area surrounding the monitoring well will cease until the licensee demonstrates

to the satisfaction of NRC that the vertical excursion is not attributed to leakage through 

any abandoned drillhole.

If an excursion is not corrected within 60 days of the initial confirmation, the licensee shall

either: (a) terminate injection of lixiviant within the wellfield, or a portion of the wellfield

provided the licensee demonstrates to NRC that only a portion of the wellfield is within the

area of influence for the excursion) until the excursion is corrected; or (b) increase the 

financial surety in an amount to cover the full third-party cost for correcting and cleaning 

up impacts that may be attributed to the excursion. The surety increase shall remain in

force until the NRC has verified that the excursion has been corrected and appropriate

remedial actions have been undertaken. The written 60-day excursion report shall identify

which course of action the licensee is taking if the excursion has not been corrected.

Under no circumstances does this condition eliminate the requirement that the licensee 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-51

remediate the excursion to meet ground-water protection standards as required by LC

[License Condition No.] 11.3.

The licensee shall notify the NRC Project Manager (PM) by telephone or email within 24

hours of confirming a lixiviant excursion, and by letter within 7 days from the time the

excursion is confirmed, pursuant to this LC [License Condition] 9.3. A written report

describing the excursion event, corrective actions taken, and the corrective action results

shall be submitted to the NRC within 60 days of the excursion confirmation. For all wells

that remain on excursion status after 60 days, the licensee shall submit a report as

discussed in LC [License Condition No.] 11.1(A).

5) For those wells used to define restoration standards, the Applicant proposes a density of one 

well to a maximum of every 1.6 ha [4 ac] of production (i.e., uranium-recovery) area (Strata, 

2011a). Based upon the currently defined production wellfield area, the Applicant estimates 24 

such wells, encompassing both mine units within the Ross Project. The Applicant commits to 

one such well per wellfield module (see SER Figure 5.7-1) (NRC, 2014a). 

Wells to be used for excursion-detection monitoring consist of those wells in the overlying and 

underlying aquifers in addition to wells in the ore-zone aquifer’s perimeter-monitoring ring 

surrounding the production area (Strata, 2011a). Wells in the underlying and overlying aquifers 

would be completed as well clusters at the locations of the post-licensing, pre-operational

monitoring wells for the ore-zone aquifer (i.e., 24 locations within both mine units). Wells in the 

perimeter-monitoring ring would be completed approximately 120 m [400 ft] from the closest 

production-unit wells, at a spacing of approximately 120 m [400 ft] within the monitoring-well ring 

that surrounds the mine unit (Strata, 2011b).

6) As currently stated in Draft License Condition Nos. 11.4 and 11.5, above, the Applicant would 

be responsible for collecting and maintaining the water-quality-measurement dataset. Condition 

No. 11.1 in the Draft License addresses the monitoring, recording, and bookkeeping 

requirements (NRC, 2014b): 

11.1 In addition to reports required to be submitted to NRC staff or maintained on-site

by the applicable parts of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the licensee shall

prepare the following reports related to operations at the facility:

A) A quarterly report that includes a summary of the excursion indicator parameter 

concentrations, corrective actions taken, and the results obtained for all wells that were on 

excursion status during that quarter. This report shall be submitted to NRC within 60 days 

following completion of the reporting period.

B) A quarterly report summarizing daily flow rates and pressures for each injection

manifold within the operating system. This report shall be made available for inspection

upon request.

C) A semi-annual report that discusses: status of wellfields (or wellfield modules if

appropriate) in operation (including last date of lixiviant injection), progress of wellfields

(wellfield modules) in restoration, status of any long term excursions and a summary of

MITs during the reporting period. This report shall be submitted to NRC within 60 days

following completion of the reporting period.

D) Consistent with Regulatory Position 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.14 (as revised), a 

semiannual report that summarizes the results of the operational effluent and
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-52

environmental monitoring program. For this program, the nearby water supply wells are

those within 2 km of the perimeter ring monitoring wells for all wellfields undergoing

recovery operations or restoration. This report shall be submitted to NRC within 60 days

following completion of the reporting period.

E) An annual report pursuant to LC [License Condition No.] 9.4(E).

F) An annual report that summarizes modifications to the inventory of nearby water

supply wells and land-use survey within 2 kilometers of any production area. This report

shall be submitted to NRC within 90 days following completion of the reporting period.

7) As indicated by the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License (NRC, 2014b), the 

Applicant would be required to measure the excursion parameters at all wells on a semi-monthly 

basis. If the UCLs are exceeded (and the well is on excursion status), the Applicant would be

required to notify NRC within a short time frame (48 hours), perform weekly sampling and 

corrective actions until the parameters are below the UCLs. By license condition, if the well is 

on excursion status for 60 days, the Applicant would be required to stop operations in that area 

and/or post additional surety to clean up the area. 

The TRVs (i.e., ground-water protection standards) will be evaluated by NRC staff upon 

completion of restoration and stabilization of a wellfield. The Applicant could not complete 

decommissioning of the wellfield until the NRC staff approves that the restoration is protective of 

human health and the environment.

8) The Radiation Safety Officer would have to meet the qualifications specified in the Source 

and Byproduct Materials License and would be responsible for ensuring the Applicant’s 

compliance with NRC regulations. Also, the NRC staff would perform routine inspections, 

generally semi-annually, to ensure all programs are in compliance with the applicable 

regulations. 

9) As stated in the GEIS (NRC, 2009b), Section 2.2, “Preconstruction,” the NRC verifies the 

accuracy of the water-quality data by ensuring that the Applicant’s or licensee’s procedures 

include 1) acceptable sample-collection methods, 2) a set of analytical parameters that is 

appropriate for the respective project and the uranium-extraction method, and 3) collection of 

sample sets that are sufficient to represent the natural spatial and temporal variations in water 

quality. 

Condition No. 10.13 of the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License currently addresses

the wellfield package (NRC, 2014b): 

10.13 Wellfield Package. Prior to conducting principal activities in a new wellfield, the 

licensee shall submit a hydrologic test data package (wellfield package) to the NRC. The 

initial wellfield package will be submitted for NRC staff review and verification. Each 

wellfield package shall be submitted at least 60 days prior to the planned start date of 

lixiviant injection. In each wellfield data package, the licensee will document that: (1) all 

perimeter monitoring wells are screened in the appropriate horizon in order to provide 

timely detection of an excursion; and (2), the baseline [in this SEIS, “post-licensing, preoperational”] values to establish ground-water protection standards and UCLs for the 

Wellfield in accordance with LC 11.3. The wellfield package will adequately define 

heterogeneities that may affect the chemical signature and ground-water flow paths 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-53

within the ore zone as described in Sections 2.7.3.2.3, 3.1.1 and 5.7.8.1 of the approved 

license application.

If there are differences in view between the NRC and the Applicant on the establishment of 

UCLs and TRVs, the NRC may elect to issue a generic letter to all licensees with that respective 

type of license to clarify what is expected by NRC staff. In the end, the NRC staff will have to 

approve, by a finding of reasonable assurance, that the final state of the restoration is protective 

of human health and the environment. It is unlikely that TRVs will be revised (an ACL is not a 

revised TRV – however, an ACL will have to be approved by staff). In order to modify a UCL, 

the licensee would submit a request to the Commission to review and approve. 

The Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate within the Division of 

Waste Management and Environmental Protection is responsible for overseeing licensed 

uranium-recovery operations. Additional information about the NRC’s oversight of licensed 

uranium-recovery operations is provided on the NRC’s public web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/uranium-recovery/inspections.html. 

10) The response to Comment No. RP032-022 provided within this Appendix B discusses the 

locations of wellfields within the proposed Ross Project and potential Lance District satellite 

areas.

In Section 3.2. of its license application, the Applicant stated that aquifer restoration would begin 

approximately 6 – 12 months after operation has been completed in the wellfield modules, 

which would occur concurrently with operation of other wellfield modules. Figure 1.3-1 of the 

Applicant’s ER and Figure 2.6 of this SEIS both provide the projected Ross Project schedule, 

including the timing of the aquifer-restoration phases for each proposed mine unit. However, it 

should be noted that, although the ER figure indicates that operation of Mine Unit 1 and Mine 

Unit 2 would begin concurrently, Condition No. 10.19 of the Draft License states that the 

Applicant shall confine its operations to wellfields within Mine Unit 1 until use of the three 

industrial wells, “19XX18,” “22x-19,” and “789V” have ceased operation or have diminished to 

an acceptable level that has been reviewed and verified by NRC staff. Therefore, the timing of 

the development and restoration of each wellfield module cannot be provided with accuracy at 

this time, and it is also cannot be stated at this time whether all wellfield modules undergoing 

restoration would be hydrologically upgradient of wellfield modules in which uranium recovery 

would be ongoing. However, as stated in the response above to Question 9, prior to operation, 

the NRC would verify the accuracy of the water-quality data of each wellfield module.

11) The term “baseline recovery well” is not used in the SEIS. The process to establish 

“baseline” (i.e., post-licensing, pre-operational) water quality is discussed in FSEIS Section 

2.1.1.1, Condition No. 11.3 of the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, and in this 

Appendix B in response to Comment No. RP032-036.

Comment: RP024-218

The commenter noted that the statement in DSEIS Section 2.2.3, which indicated that the 

permeate stored in the surface impoundments would be reused as “lixiviant or process water,” 

ignores the primary use of permeate, which is injection into wellfield modules undergoing RO 

treatment with permeate injection.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-54

Response: The NRC staff has revised the text in FSEIS Section 2.2.3 to clarify that re-used 

permeate could be injected into wellfield modules as they undergo RO treatment. 

Comment: RP032-038 

The commenter noted the statement in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.3, "The pumping rates used would 

depend on the hydrologic conditions at the Ross Project, and the duration of the aquifer sweep 

and the volume of water removed would depend on the volume of the aquifer affected by the 

ISR process." The commenter then asked: 1) for an explanation of the specific existing, 

planned, or expected hydrologic conditions at the Ross Project that will affect the pumping 

rates, duration, and volume of water removed during aquifer sweep; 2) why these particular 

hydrologic conditions have not already been ascertained or modeled based on the results of 

pre-licensing site investigations; and 3) how the hydrologic uncertainties affect the forecast 

efficacy of the NRC's efforts to ensure environmentally protective aquifer restoration. In 

addition, the commenter asked for: 4) a detailed and adequate NEPA discussion that relates the 

prevailing uncertainties in hydrologic knowledge of the Ross Project and potential development 

in the Lance District to the Applicant's ability to achieve, and the NRC's ability to enforce the 

ground-water protection standards; 5) the range of potential environmental outcomes, in terms 

of the restoration of the relevant baseline water quality concentrations, arising from uncertainties 

in hydrologic knowledge of the Ross Project and the Lance District; and 6) for the likelihood of 

achieving representative sets of post-mining water quality concentrations for the relevant 

constituents that must be monitored and controlled to ensure public health and safety and 

minimize harmful environmental impacts and the irretrievable commitment of natural resources 

(based upon the record of previous and ongoing ISR operations in the NSDWUMR and within 

Wyoming).

Response: The sentence referenced from DSEIS Section 2.1.1.3 refers to the rate, duration, 

and volumes of water removed by the ground-water sweep during restoration. The purpose of 

ground-water sweep is twofold: 1) to reduce the total concentrations of salts in ground water to 

levels that are amenable to the ground-water treatment equipment, and 2) to capture any 

lixiviant that moved away from the edge of the production area. 

1 and 2) The hydrologic conditions that may affect the pumping rate are the porosity and

permeability. The duration of the sweep and volume of water removed by the ground-water 

sweep depend upon the extent of ground water affected by lixiviant. The level of detail on the 

hydrological conditions that would affect the pumping rate would not be known until the wellfield 

hydrologic test data package is developed and operational data are collected on the hydrologic 

conditions, if the License is granted. The level of hydrologic detail that ultimately would 

influence the pumping rate during aquifer restoration is not necessary for impact analysis in the 

SEIS because of the overall requirement that restoration achieve ground water protection 

standards. There is no reason to ascertain or model, based on the results of pre-licensing, sitecharacterizations investigations, greater hydrologic detail than presented in the license 

application (Strata, 2011a; Strata, 2012b). 

3) Variation or uncertainties in the hydrologic conditions would not affect NRC's requirements for 

aquifer restoration that meets ground-water protection standards. Additional information on the 

hydrologic conditions would be included in the wellfield hydrologic-test data package currently 

discussed in Draft License Condition 10.13 and described in response to Comments RP032-

037; RP032-042. Although the NRC staff has set limits for the Applicant on timing to complete 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-55

the aquifer restoration, the NRC does not impose timing for various phases of restoration 

efforts, within the overall aquifer-restoration phase for each wellfield. 

4, 5, and 6) There is no relationship between the current uncertainties in hydrologic knowledge 

of the Ross Project and the range of potential environmental outcomes, or the Applicant's ability 

to achieve and the NRC's ability to enforce the water-protection standards. This lack of 

relationship is a result of the Commission’s requirement that the Applicant would achieve waterprotection standards in all cases, as described in the response to Comment Nos. RP032-004, 

RP032-020, RP032-36, 032-041, and 041-006. Please also see the NRC’s response to 

Comment No. RP032-026 for a discussion of the requirements to consider uncertainties in 

operating parameters.

Please see the NRC’s responses to Comment Nos. RP032-002, RP032-067, and RP041-009, 

which describe the environmental-review process that the NRC staff would follow if Strata were 

to submit a license-amendment application to the Commission to expand its operation into any 

of the Lance District satellite areas.

Additional information related to aspects of ground-water restoration that are the subject of this

comment has been added to the FSEIS. Section 2.1.1.3 of the FSEIS has been revised to 

clarify the purpose of ground-water sweep in the overall sequence of activities for ground-water 

restoration. The results (i.e. the constituent concentrations) achieved by ground-water 

restoration of uranium-recovery wellfields located in NSDWUMR and within Wyoming that have 

been recently approved by NRC have been added to FSEIS Section 4.5.1.3. In addition, 

Appendix B1, which describes Commission’s process for approving and implementing ACLs has 

been added. 

Comment: RP032-039

The commenter referenced the following statements in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.3: “The Applicant's 

aquifer restoration plan calls for removing up to 0.5 pore volumes of water during ground-water 

sweep (Strata, 2011b). Additional pumping would occur in select areas that would be identified 

during facility operation. The pumping rate is estimated at 280 L/min [75 gal/min] from well[field] 

modules in the ground-water sweep stage.” The commenter stated that these statements 

disclose very little information about the likely range of environmental impacts from aquifer 

restoration activities. The commenter then asked a series of questions about ground-water 

quantity impacts that could be associated with aquifer restoration under the Proposed Action:

1) If an Applicant's aquifer-restoration plan would call for the removal of “up to” 0.5 pore 

volumes during ground-water sweep, does this mean that this number represents a hard-andfast regulatory limit on the amount of water that would actually be removed during ground-water 

sweep? 

2) Would the NRC provide a table showing the actual pore volumes removed from prior and 

ongoing uranium-recovery facilities in a) this GEIS uranium-milling region and b) within 

Wyoming that have undergone “aquifer restoration”?

3) Would the NRC provide a table showing expected and maximum allowable pore volumes per 

well[field] module (or other applicable unit for aquifer restoration) that would be removed in the 

course of aquifer-restoration activities during the Ross Project?
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-56

4) Would the NRC provide a discussion: a) comparing the environmental risks and benefits 

from high levels of pore-volume removal from the ore-bearing aquifer with the environmental 

risks and benefits of failing to attain Final License-specified TRVs (or other standards) for 

aquifer restoration; b) describing the methodology the NRC and/or the Applicant would employ 

to evaluate environmental-restoration decisions regarding this tradeoff and the point at which 

concerns regarding the consumptive use of ground water may trump the achievement of 

particular TRVs? (That is, does the NRC consider consumptive use when determining when to 

conclude aquifer restoration?)

5) Would the NRC provide pore-volume and gallons-withdrawn estimates for the potential Lance 

District development?

Response: The text quoted by the commenter was taken from DSEIS Section 2.1.1.3. The 

analysis of environmental impacts to ground water is presented in SEIS Section 4.5, and in 

particular, SEIS Section 4.5.1.3 provides an analysis of the potential impacts to water resources 

during the aquifer-restoration phase of the Proposed Action. When discussing consumptive-use 

impacts during aquifer restoration, the DSEIS stated the following: 

The magnitude of potential impacts to water quantity of the OZ aquifer and the

surrounding aquifers during the aquifer-restoration phase of the Proposed Action would 

be greater than from its operation because of the greater consumptive use of ground

water (Strata, 2011a). Ground water modeling estimates of the drawdown in the shallowmonitoring (SM) aquifer during both Ross Project operation and aquifer restoration were 

less than 5 m [15 ft]. The exempted OZ aquifer was predicted to experience significant 

drawdowns in three wells on the Ross Project area, with minor drawdowns in wells within 

3 km [2 mi] of the Project. The conservative regional impact analysis conducted by the 

ground-water modeling predicts a reduction in the available head in wells used for stock, 

domestic, and industrial use. Although these effects would be localized and short-lived, 

the Applicant would commit to provide an alternative source of water of equal or better 

quantity and quality, subject to Wyoming water-statute requirements, in the event that 

aquifer-restoration operations prevent the full use of a well under a valid water right 

(Strata, 2011a; Strata, 2012a). Consequently, the potential impacts of the Proposed 

Action’s aquifer-restoration phase to ground-water quantity of the confined aquifers would 

be SMALL to MODERATE.

As noted by the commenter, the DSEIS discussed the Applicant’s expected removal of 50 

percent of the wellfield-module pore volume (PV) (i.e., 0.5 PV) during ground-water sweep. As 

discussed in Section 6.1.4.2 of the Applicant’s license application (Strata, 2011b), for each 

wellfield module, the reverse-osmosis (RO) treatment with the permeate-injection phase is 

expected to remove 8 PVs, and the recirculation phase is expected to use 1 PV. Therefore, the

Applicant has indicated that it would remove a total of 9.5 PVs during the overall aquiferrestoration phase. 

The Applicant’s estimate of the number of pore volumes to be removed during aquifer 

restoration is not a regulatory limit. Similarly, the Source and Byproduct Materials License will

not include a maximum allowable pore-volume removal value. Therefore, a table with these 

values cannot be provided. However, as noted in the SEIS, the GEIS provides a discussion of 

the operational history at NRC-licensed ISR facilities (NRC, 2009b). Specifically, GEIS Section 

2.11.5 provides historical information regarding the quantity of ground water used at ISR 

facilities during the aquifer-restoration phase. As set forth in the response to Comment No. 024-

171, NRC staff found the Applicant’s estimate of 9.5 pore volumes to be acceptable because 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-57

the estimate was within the range currently used by the industry, and the Applicant has 

committed to minimizing inefficiences and adjusting the the estimate based upon future 

experience (NRC, 2014a). 

SEIS Section 5.7.2 provides an analysis of the potential cumulative impacts to ground-water 

resources during the aquifer-restoration phase of the Proposed Action. The NRC staff 

concludes that consumptive-use cumulative impacts to the area aquifers, including impacts due 

to the potential Lance District satellite areas, will not adversely impact nearby use of the groundwater resource because of the minimal mutual interference (i.e., minimal overlap of the cones of 

depression associated with drawdowns) from the Ross Project and the potential satellite 

facilities due to the distances between satellites, taking into account other reasonably 

foreseeable uses of the ground water resources, and the expected recovery of the water levels 

in the aquifer at each satellite following completion of the restoration activities. Therefore, the 

combined total volume of ground water that would be removed by these projects is not relevant 

to the Ross Project cumulative impacts analysis and is not presented in the SEIS. 

Comment: RP035-008

The commenter noted that the DSEIS states, “Following aquifer restoration, the Applicant would 

monitor the ground water by quarterly sampling to demonstrate that the approved standard for 

each constituent has been met and that any adjacent nonexempt aquifers are unaffected.” The 

commenter suggested that the FSEIS include specific direction for the Applicant’s determination 

of whether adjacent, nonexempt aquifers are protected and the mitigation measures that would 

be employed to address any impacts to these aquifers.

Response: The specific text quoted by the commenter is taken from DSEIS Section 2.1.1.3. 

This section of the FSEIS has been revised to include additional information regarding the 

Applicant’s aquifer-stabilization methods and related mitigation measures. Please see 

responses to Comment Nos. RP032-037 and RP032-042 for further information regarding the 

NRC’s requirements for the Applicant’s monitoring of potential excursions outside of the 

exempted portion of the ore-zone aquifer as well as response to Comment No. RP032-065 

regarding the proposed mitigation measures related to potential excursions.

B.5.9.7 Gaseous or Airborne Particulate Emissions

Comment: RP024-191

The commenter suggested that the NRC staff include a discussion in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.5 of 

the benefits that accrue by the Applicant’s employing pressurized, downflow IX columns.

Response: The NRC staff has revised the text in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.5 to note that the

Applicant’s use of pressurized, downflow IX columns would keep most of the radon trapped in 

pregnant lixiviant in the solution, rather than allow its release into the atmosphere of the CPP. 

This would minimize the potential radiation exposures of nearby occupational workers in the 

CPP. 

Comment: RP024-192

The commenter could not confirm the statement made in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.5 that, “The 

Applicant has committed that these discharges would meet all local, State, and Federal 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-58

requirements related to air quality as well as occupational health and safety” as appearing in 

Strata’s license application or its responses to the NRC’s Requests for Additional Information 

(RAIs). In addition, the commenter requested illumination on any local and state requirements 

for radon.

Response: The DSEIS statement was based upon the cumulative individual commitments of 

the Applicant in its license application to 1) adhere to the terms of its Air Quality Permit issued 

by the WDEQ/AQD, which reflect State requirements as well as EPA’s Federal regulations 

found at 40 CFR Part 61, the “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants” 

(NESHAPS), which include radon and other radionuclides; and 2) satisfy the requirements of 

NRC’s radiation-exposure regulations found at 10 CFR Part 20, which relate to occupational 

and public health and safety. (See SEIS Sections 3.7.3.1 and 3.7.3.2 for a discussion of 

Federal and Wyoming air-quality rules). FSEIS Section 2.1.1.5 has been revised to read, “The 

Applicant has committed that its air discharges would meet all State requirements as continued 

in its Air Quality Permit as well as the NRC’s 10 CFR Part 20 occupational health and safety 

requirements (Strata, 2012b).”

Comment: RP024-194

The commenter noted that the statement in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.5, Airborne Emissions, that 

potential radioactive particulate emissions would be “mitigated by design features to prevent 

releases into the atmosphere as described in this section of the SEIS” could be made more 

specific. 

Response: FSEIS Section 2.1.1.5 has been revised to explain more clearly that the potential 

for radioactive-particle emissions would be mitigated by specific design features of the lowtemperature, vacuum-dryer systems, which would mitigate releases into the atmosphere. The 

dryers are described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.2.

B.5.9.8 References

(US)NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” NUREG–1437. Washington, DC: USNRC, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. May 1996a. ADAMS Accession No. ML13106A241. 

(US)NRC. “Staff Technical Position, Alternate Concentration Limits for Title II Uranium Mills.” 

Washington, DC: USNRC. 1996b. ADAMS Accession No. ML091420242. 

(US)NRC, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Energy, and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. “Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM).” 

NUREG–1575. Washington, DC: USNRC. Rev. 1, 2000/Updates, 2001.

(US)NRC. “Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications, 

Final Report.” NUREG–1569. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2003a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML032250177. 

(US)NRC. “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS 

Programs.” NUREG–1748. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2003b. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML032450279. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-59

(US)NRC. “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Volumes 1, 2, and 3.” NUREG–1757. 

Washington, DC: USNRC. Vols. 1 and 2, 2006. Vol. 3, 2012. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML12048A683. 

(US)NRC. “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities, Volumes 1 and 2.” NUREG–1910. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2009b. ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML091480244 and ML091480188.

(US)NRC. “Staff Assessment of Ground Water Impacts from Previously Licensed In-Situ 

Uranium Recovery Facilities.” Memorandum from C. Miller to Chairman Jaczko, et al. 

Washington, DC: USNRC. July 10, 2009d. ADAMS Accession No. ML091770385.

(US)NRC. Safety Evaluation Report for the Strata Energy, Inc. Ross ISR Project, Crook 

County, Wyoming. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2014a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML14002A107. 

(US)NRC. “Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, No. SUA-1601.” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2014b. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A111. 

 

Rose, Arthur W., Herbert E. Hawkes, and John S. Webb. Geochemistry of Mineral Exploration. 

Second Edition. New York: Academic Press. 1979.

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Environmental Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata Energy, Inc. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130342, 

ML110130344, and ML110130348.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, Technical 

Report, Volumes 1 through 6 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 

2011b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130333, ML110130335, ML110130314, ML110130316, 

ML110130320, and ML110130327. 

WDEQ/AQD (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division). Permit to 

Construct, Air Quality Permit #12198. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/AQD. 2011. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML112770430.

B.5.10 Financial Surety

Comment: RP032-059

The commenter stated that the subject of financial surety is of concern because of a history of 

failures in efforts to adequately restore contaminated aquifers at ISR facilities. Therefore, the 

commenter asked the NRC to provide a full and comparative analysis of each and every original 

financial surety required by the NRC or relevant State agencies for ISR facilities, the basis for 

the initial surety requirement, the license conditions requiring each of these surety 

arrangements, the adequacy of the surety estimates for funding the entirety of ground-water 

restoration and decommissioning the facility, how often updates were required of each surety at 

each ISR mining site, and the entity that provided funding for continuing restoration if a surety 

was not adequate to meet the costs of restoration and decommissioning. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-60

Response: The adequacy of the Applicant’s financial assurance is evaluated as part of the 

NRC safety evaluation rather than as part of the environmental review. It is beyond the scope 

of this SEIS to provide an analysis of the operational history of ISRs. No changes were made to 

the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

B.5.11 Alternatives

Comment: RP016-009

The commenter stated that the site identified as Alternative 3: North Ross Project was 

unrealistic due to the fact that the respective current landowner has stated that the Applicant 

would not be able to purchase the land required under this Alternative. Therefore, the 

commenter noted that the only reasonable alternatives are the Proposed Action and the NoAction Alternative.

Response: Alternative 3 was considered to be a reasonable alternative under the site-specific 

environmental review given the Proposed Action and site conditions. Based on the purpose and 

need statement, Alternative 3 was found to be appropriate in this analysis, regardless of 

whether the land is currently available for purchase. As described in SEIS Section 2.1, the NRC 

staff considered a range of reasonable alternatives that included the Proposed Action and the 

No-Action Alternative. SEIS Section 2.2 also describes the other alternatives considered by the 

staff, and the reasons the alternatives were eliminated from detailed analysis. No changes were 

made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP017-010

The commenter stated that Alternative 3, the North Ross project site, is preferable over the 

other alternatives. The commenter recommended that, if the North Ross project site is not 

chosen as the preferred alternative, mitigation measures be applied to the chosen alternative to 

match the level of resource protection described in Alternative 3. The commenter also stated 

that the protection of resources—including surface water, ground water, and visual and scenic 

resources—are all of concern for Devils Tower.

Response: While the NRC staff considered possible reasonable alternatives to the Proposed 

Action in the SEIS as part of its NEPA analysis, the NRC only has the statutory authority to 

grant or deny the license application for the Proposed Action. The NRC cannot grant a license 

for a site analyzed as a reasonable alternative. That being said, overall impacts from both 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 (North Ross Site) are the same for surface 

water (SMALL), ground water (SMALL to MODERATE), and visual and scenic resource impacts 

(SMALL to MODERATE). The mitigation measures for ground water differ for Alternative 3 and 

Alternative 1 because of the difference in hydrology at the two sites. In Alternative 3, the depth 

to the unconfined shallow ground-water aquifer is greater, eliminating the need for a 

containment barrier wall (CBW). Due to the lack of a CBW that would be needed, the 

consumptive ground-water use under Alternative 3 would be less than the Proposed Action. 

With respect to surface water, storm-water control systems would be more involved at the North 

Ross site due to the two ephemeral drainages present, compared to only one stream at the 

Proposed Action site. Due to the topography surrounding the North Ross site, this Alternative 

would be less visible to neighboring properties and would shield them more from light pollution. 

However, under the Proposed Action, mitigation measures are in place to minimize these 

impacts. The Applicant proposes a number of mitigation measures under the Proposed Action 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-61

to limit light pollution. These can be found in Section 4.10.1.1. The Applicant would also 

mitigate visual impacts by phasing the construction activities. The impacts to visual resources 

are also expected to be short-term. The Applicant performed an additional viewshed analysis 

demonstrating that the Ross Project would not be visible from the base of Devils Tower or from 

the Visitor’s Center and that it would be unlikely that the Project area would be visible to 

climbers scaling the Monument due to the distance between the Project area and Devils Tower. 

(See SEIS Section 4.10.1.1 for more information). 

The NRC may impose best management practices (BMPs), mitigation measures, and 

management actions that avoid and reduce environmental impacts through license conditions 

within the limits of the authority granted by Congress. The appropriate mitigation measures for 

the Proposed Action have been described in surface water, ground water, and visual and scenic 

resource impacts, which can be found in Sections 4.5.1 and 4.10.1. No changes were made to 

the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: RP024-096

The commenter asked that Figure 2.6 be revised to more accurately reflect the schedule 

proposed by the Applicant (Strata, 2012a).

Response: The NRC agrees with this request and has made the revisions to FSEIS Figure 2.6.

Comment: RP024-376

The commenter noted that the DSEIS incorrectly suggested that the underlying aquifer would 

require restoration under Alternative 3: North Ross Project.

Response: The NRC staff has revised the text in FSEIS Section 4.2.3 to clarify that the 

underlying aquifer would not require restoration under Alternative 3.

Comment: RP032-061

The commenter stated that neither the ER nor the DSEIS contain evidence that other CPP 

location alternatives were screened for their environmental advantages and disadvantages prior 

to selecting the North Ross Project for detailed NEPA analysis. The commenter asked that the 

NRC explain why the Ross Project site and the North Ross Project site were deemed more 

reasonable than other potential CPP location alternatives, including the Barber site, and provide 

evidence that an environmentally-based screening process was used to identify environmentally 

preferred sites. 

Response: The Federal action and the purpose and need for the Federal action define the 

range of reasonable alternatives. By letter dated January 4, 2011, Strata submitted an 

application for an NRC Source and Byproduct Materials License that would allow Strata to 

construct and operate ISR wellfields and a processing facility at the proposed Ross Project 

area. Based upon the application, the NRC’s Federal action is the decision to either grant or 

deny a license. The purpose and need for the proposed Federal action does consider the 

Applicant’s goals and objectives to extract uranium from a particular location, which helps define 

reasonable alternatives to the proposed Federal action.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-62

Reasonable alternatives considered in a site-specific environmental review depend on the 

Federal action and site conditions, as required under 10 CFR Part 51. As stated in SEIS 

Section 2.1.3, the North Ross Project is included as Alternative 3 in this SEIS because of the 

expected differences in the depth of ground water between the north and south sites. However, 

the NRC staff’s decision to analyze the North Ross Site in this SEIS, along with the Ross 

Project, is not an indication that the NRC staff determined that the North Ross Site or the Ross 

Project site have been deemed to be more reasonable locations for the CPP than other 

locations.

While the NRC staff considered reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action in the 

environmental review, including the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2), the only action within 

the NRC decisionmaking authority is to approve or not approve the Applicant’s license 

application as submitted. The NRC under NEPA can examine a reasonable alternative to a 

proposed Federal action that the NRC may not have regulatory authority to impose. However, 

in order to be considered reasonable, an alternative must meet the purpose and need of the 

proposed project. The NRC will not accept an Applicant’s proposed purpose and need if it has 

been unduly narrowed to prevent NEPA consideration of reasonable alternatives, but the NRC 

also allows deference to a business decision of an Applicant when making this determination. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP041-008

The commenter stated that the NRC improperly rejected the North Ross Project alternative and 

that the DSEIS failed to include a range of alternatives commensurate with NEPA's 

requirements. Stating that the alternatives consideration is the heart of the NEPA process, 

designed to allow the agency to consider options that would reduce impacts to the human 

environment, the commenter noted that the NRC considered only three alternatives—one of 

which is the legally required No-Action Alternative. The commenter pointed out that DSEIS 

Section 2.1.3 detailed reasons why Strata rejected the North Ross Project location, but that the 

DSEIS also gave reasons, in DSEIS Section 4.5.3, why Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to 

ground-water and surface-water resources, including the Little Missouri. The commenter stated 

that the FSEIS needed to fully disclose the rationales behind the NRC rejecting this 

reasonable—and perhaps more protective—alternative. 

Response: The proposed Federal action as well as the purpose and need for the Federal 

action define the range of reasonable alternatives. As a regulatory agency, the NRC’s Federal 

action for the Ross Project, as defined in SEIS Section 1.3, is the decision to either grant or 

deny a license. As stated in SEIS Section 1.3, the purpose and need for the Proposed Action is 

to provide an option that allows the Applicant to recover uranium and to produce yellowcake at 

the Ross Project site. Alternative 3: North Ross Project, was not rejected; this Alternative was 

considered for detailed analysis (as explained in SEIS Section 2.1). The alternatives that were 

not considered for detailed analysis are listed in SEIS Section 2.2. SEIS Section 1.3 states the 

following about the NRC’s role in determining the location of an ISR facility: “This definition of 

purpose and need reflects the Commission’s recognition that, unless there are findings in the 

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

that would lead the NRC to reject a license application, the NRC has no role in a company’s 

business decision to submit a license application to operate an ISR facility at a particular 

location.”
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-63

The NRC staff concluded, as noted in FSEIS Section 2.4, that the applicable environmentalmonitoring program described in Section 6 and the proposed mitigation measures discussed in 

Section 4 would eliminate or substantially lessen the potential adverse environmental impacts 

associated with the Proposed Action. Therefore, the NRC staff’s recommendation to the 

Commission related to the environmental aspects of the Proposed Action, as stated in SEIS

Section 2.4, is that, unless safety issues mandate otherwise, a Source and Byproduct Materials 

License for the Proposed Action be issued as requested. The information requested to be 

added to the SEIS by the commenter is already included in the document. Therefore, no 

changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

B.5.11.1 References

10 CFR Part 51. Title 10, “Energy,” CFR, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for 

Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” Washington, DC: GPO. 

(US)NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, 

No. SUA-1601.” Washington, DC: USNRC. 2014b. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A111. 

 

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Environmental Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata Energy, Inc. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130342, 

ML110130344, and ML110130348.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, RAI Question 

and Answer Responses, Environmental Report, Volume 1 with Appendices. Docket No. 40- 

09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2012a. ADAMS Accession No. ML121030465.

B.5.12 Land Use

B.5.12.1 Ownership Issues, Surface, and Mineral Rights

Comment: RP024-372

The commenter requested clarification of DSEIS Section 4.2, where it is stated, “These potential 

impacts could be greater in the areas where there are higher percentages of private land 

ownership.” The commenter wanted the purported difference in potential impacts to privately 

owned land versus public lands clarified.

Response: The rationale behind the statement that the commenter quotes is the concept that, 

if public land were to be taken out of the public domain until the Ross Project has been fully 

decommissioned and restored, then any benefits that such public land offers would not be 

available until after Project decommissioning and site restoration (e.g., hunting, recreating). The 

NRC staff has revised the text in FSEIS Section 4.2 to clarify these different impacts.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-64

B.5.12.2 Amount of Land Affected and Type, Degree, and Duration of Potential Impacts

Comments: RP003-002; RP039-018

The commenters expressed concern about the loss of public land use as well as the risks to the 

public from uranium in general. The commenters were concerned about clean water, 

uncontaminated food supply, and increased cancer rates.

Response: As outlined in FSEIS Section 3.2, the majority (79.4 percent) of the Ross Project 

area is privately owned. The public land that would be disturbed covers a small area and there 

is no public path to this land (i.e., private land surrounds the public land). As noted in many 

sections of the FSEIS, including SEIS 4.2.1.4, the Ross Project area would be fully reclaimed 

and restored. This means no contamination of either chemicals or radioactiviy would remain 

once the Project ceases. Therefore, the NRC concludes that the impacts to public lands, 

including livestock grazing and recreational opportunities, are SMALL. No changes were made 

to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP024-366

The commenter disagrees with the statement in DSEIS Section 3.12.2.1 that Oshoto has “only a 

very small population (approximately 50 persons).” The commenter stated that Oshoto is a 

ranching community composed of ranches scattered throughout the area and suggested 

revising the statement as follows: “The Ross Project area is adjacent to the unincorporated 

ranching community of Oshoto.”

Response: The NRC staff has revised the text in SEIS Section 3.12.2.1 for clarity regarding 

the nature of the Oshoto community.

Comment: RP032-006 

The commenter quoted a passage from the DSEIS’s Executive Summary (page xxiv of the 

DSEIS), which stated:

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. The Ross Project area comprises a total of 

697 ha [1,721 ac] in the north half of the approximately 90-km2 [56-mi2

] Lance 

District. This area is currently used for livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, some 

agriculture, and some oil production. A total of 113 ha [280 ac] of land, which represents 

16 percent of the Ross Project area, would be disturbed during the construction of a 

CPP, surface impoundments, and other auxiliary structures such as storage areas and 

parking lots. The wellfields would be sequentially developed over the Ross Project 

lifecycle. All disturbed areas would be fenced and, thus, somewhat limit grazing by 

livestock, access by wildlife, and recreational opportunities. 

The commenter then asked the size of the total land area, including wellfields, which would 

remain fenced during construction, so that the basis for a “SMALL” impact was merited.

Response: As detailed in FSEIS Section 4.2.1.1, the maximum area that would be fenced at 

any time at the Ross Project would be less than 12 percent of the Project area (approximately 

83 ha [205 ac]). The NRC considers a SMALL impact, for the reasons outlined in GEIS Section 

4.3.1.1, because the amount of area disturbed by the construction would be very small in 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-65

comparison to the available land, the majority of the area would not be fenced, grazing would be 

restricted from only a small portion of the available land, and the open spaces for hunting would 

be minimally impacted by the fencing. The Executive Summary is meant to be a succinct 

abridgment of the impacts of the Proposed Action and not an exhaustive comparison of the 

impacts of different Project activities. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the 

information provided in this response.

Comment: RP032-007

The commenter referred to a statement in the Executive Summary, “No new facilities would be 

constructed that would result in additional land disturbance during operation, although well 

drilling would continue as the wellfields would be sequentially developed.” The commenter 

stated that the statement was misleading because wellfields and associated infrastructure would 

continue to be built throughout the majority of the operational period. 

Response: For the purposes of this FSEIS, "facility," as defined in the Executive Summary, 

means the portion of the Project that includes the CPP, chemical storage, warehouse, 

maintenance and administration buildings, impoundments and the deep-injection wells. Land 

disturbance would occur during operations through the construction of additional 

wellfields. Although this disturbance, which includes all of the construction activities associated 

with wellfield development, is included in the estimate of the total land that will be disturbed, the 

NRC agrees that the sequencing of land disturbance could be clarified in the Executive 

Summary. The FSEIS’s Executive Summary has been revised to clarify this information. 

Comment: RP032-079

The commenter referred to Table 4.1 in the DSEIS, which presented a summary of the acreage 

disturbed by different activities during construction of the Ross Project, and asserted that the 

impacts to land use would be greater than the area of land that would be disturbed by the 

uranium-recovery facility and wellfields. In addition, the commenter questioned the estimate of 

impacts due to construction of the pads associated with the already-permitted five UIC Class I 

deep-disposal wells, which Table 4.1 lists as having individual areas of 76 m x 76 m [250 ft x 

250 ft].

Response: As outlined in FSEIS Section 4.2.1.1, the discussion of land-use impacts focuses 

on the total amount of land disturbed over the entire lifecycle of the Ross Project (approximately 

16 percent), and the amount that would be fenced at any one time (approximately 12 percent). 

Although this land would be fenced, it would still be available for some current uses, such as oil 

and gas production, wildlife habitat, and some livestock grazing. As discussed in the GEIS, 

land-use impacts are judged to be SMALL when they range from 50 – 750 ha [120 – 1,900 ac], 

and the Ross Project area would be within that range. 

The NRC staff agrees with the commenter about the area of land disturbance resulting from five 

76 m x 76 m [250 ft x 250 ft] pads constructed at the sites of the UIC Class I wells. As a result, 

Table 4.1 in the FSEIS has been corrected from 2 ha [5 ac] to 3 ha [7 ac] of land disturbance 

per deep-disposal well. Other references to the total land disturbance as a result of the pads 

constructed at the deep-disposal have also been corrected throughout the FSEIS. Potential 

impacts to geology and soils, ground water, and ecology that may be related to the acreage of 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-66

land disturbance are evaluted in FSEIS Sections 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6, respectively. (Comment No. 

RP032-023 also addresses this discrepancy and corrects the calculation.)

Comments: RP036-006; RP036-055

The commenters noted that, although there are no public roads to the BLM parcel, the parcel is 

accessible by foot through an adjacent State-owned parcel and, therefore, could be accessible 

to the public.

Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter and has edited the text in FSEIS Section 

3.2.2 to clarify that the BLM parcel is not accessible by public roads; however, the parcel is 

accessible by foot. 

Comment: RP036-019

The commenter noted that the land-use impacts would be less if the Ross Project were to be 

constructed at Alternative 3’s North Site because there is no current dryland crop agriculture or 

livestock pasture there to be impacted (see DSEIS Section 4.2.3). The commenter requested 

that the NRC staff claify the land-use impacts between Alternatives 1 and 3, particularly in terms 

of agricultural land use and livestock pasture.

Response: The text in FSEIS Section 4.2.3 has been clarified to note that there would be 

fewer impacts to dryland crop agriculture and livestock pasture in Alternative 3, but that, taken 

together, all impacts would be quite similar to Alternative 1. The NRC concluded that the landuse impacts in Alternative 3 would be generally the same as Alternative 1. Because of the 

proposed mitigation measures described in FSEIS Section 4.2.3, the land-use impacts resulting 

from both Alternatives would be SMALL, despite their small differences in the types of 

agricultural and habitat land use. FSEIS Section 4.2.3 has been edited for clarity.

Comments: RP036-044; RP036-045

The commenter requested clarification regarding the future land use related to oil and gas 

development in the land-use cumulative-impacts study area. The commenter also requested 

that a reference be provided for the estimate of disturbance at each drilling location, as the 

cumulative-impacts aalysis of land use uses 1.11 ha [2.75 ac] as the average disturbance 

caused by drilling and well installation. However, the commenter stated that it is unclear 

whether that size refers to an existing well pad that has been partially decommissioned and the 

area reclaimed, or whether it refers to a pad surrounding a well that is in current production. 

The commenter further stated that the DSEIS does not adequately address the cumulative 

impacts of oil and gas development vis-à-vis long-term habitat fragmentation. 

Response: SEIS Section 5.4 explains that oil and gas production in the Ross Project area has 

decreased by 60 percent, and the BLM indicates that the number of producing wells will 

decrease in the coming years (BLM, 2009e). Therefore, the cumulative impacts from oil and 

gas activity will actually decrease in the future, compared to the 2010 levels included in the 

GEIS. The NRC has added a reference (BLM, 2009e) for the well-pad disturbance area in SEIS 

Section 5.4. In addition, the potential cumulative impacts to habitat fragmentation at and near 

the Ross Project are discussed in FSEIS Section 5.8.1, Terrestrial Ecology. Also see Comment 

Nos. RP036-017, RP036-021, RP036-027, RP036-032, RP036-047 through -051, and RP039-

010.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-67

B.5.12.3 References

(US)BLM. Update of the Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Past and 

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities. Prepared for BLM High Plains 

District Office and Wyoming State Office. Fort Collins, CO: AECOM. 2009e. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13014A657.

WWC Engineering. Permit to Mine Application, Ross ISR Project, No. TFN 5 5/217: Submittal 

of Mine Plan Replacement Page per the Joint Stipulation Resolving EQC Docket No. 12-4803. 

October 24, 2012. ADAMS Accession No. ML12299A040.

B.5.13 Transportation

Comments: RP003-003; RP005-001

The commenters noted concern about the increased traffic on local roads.

Response: The NRC recognizes that there would be a significant increase in traffic on local 

roads, particularly during the 12 – 18 months of construction-related activities. As discussed in 

FSEIS Section 4.3.1.1, numerous mitigation measures would be initiated by the Applicant and 

Crook County to help reduce these impacts. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the 

information provided in this response.

Comments: RP005-003; RP005-004; RP005-005; RP006-001; RP008-001; RP009-001

The commenters expressed concern about the maintenance of local roads, given the increase 

in traffic.

Response: As detailed in SEIS Section 4.3.1.1, the Applicant has entered into an MOU with 

Crook County that contains road maintenance commitments (Strata and Crook County, 2011). 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comments: RP016-004; RP032-080

The commenters requested additional information on the specific location of the CPP and 

whether moving the CPP to an alternate location could reduce transportation impacts.

Response: The location of the CPP for the Proposed Action is shown in SEIS Figures 2.4 and 

2.5. The NRC staff evaluated the transportation impacts of the Ross Project, including 

consideration of the number of vehicles that would be accessing the Project area per day. If the 

CPP were to be moved to an alternative location, that move would not diminish the number of 

vehicles per day associated with Project construction or operation. Furthermore, the Applicant 

needs to also consider the location of the CPP in conjuction with other site attributes (e.g., 

topography) as well as its location relative to the uranium-recovery wellfields. Although the 

Applicant’s moving the CPP within the Ross Project area might slightly shorten the distance to 

the Plant for trips from some locations inside the Project area, it might not have any impact on 

trips originating from outside the Project area, as those vehicles might turn into the area at what 

would be the same access road and then take a right turn rather than a left turn to the CPP. 

Nonetheless, relocation of the CPP would not significantly alter the transportation impacts as
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-68

the same number of vehicles would still travel the same Crook County and local roads. No 

changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comments: RP016-005; RP024-495

The commenters stated that the description of the New Haven and D Road roadbeds is correct 

in SEIS Section 3.3, but is inconsistent in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.

Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter and has revised SEIS Section 4.7.1.1 

accordingly.

Comment: RP016-006

The commenter provided several examples of mitigation measures proposed by the Applicant, 

but expressed concern over enforcement of mitigation measures.

Response: The NRC notes that many of the mitigation measures are memorialized in the MOU 

with Crook County, signed by the Applicant on April 6, 2011; this MOU is an agreement that 

stays in place throughout the life of the Ross Project. The MOU requires a single point of 

authority contact with respect to road issues, dust control, enforcement of speed limits, 

education of employees, compliance with weight limits, etc. This MOU is an agreement that 

stays in place throughout the life of the Ross Project. Other mitigation techniques, e.g., daylight 

deliveries and construction activities, benefit safety for the company as well as maintain positive 

community relations. The Applicant has made these commitments in good faith and has stated 

they will implement these mitigation measures. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the 

information provided in this response.

Comment: RP017-025

The commenter advised that the NPS promotes valuable and laudable protection of 

soundscapes (the human perception of the natural acoustical environment in units managed by 

NPS) and suggested that the NPS Acoustical Toolbox may be of use in reducing noise impacts, 

levels, and vibration.

Response: The noise mitigation measures committed to by the Applicant are found at SEIS 

4.8.1.1 through 4.8.1.4. These measures include nighttime drilling and equipment operations 

restrictions; speed limit enforcement; road maintenance; daytime delivery of materials; and 

restrictions on compression brakes, loud engines and exhaust systems. Many of the concepts 

in the NPS Toolbox are incorporated into both the design of the CPP and in BMPs, such as 

keeping the doors closed to the CPP whenever possible, "first move forward" policies, etc. 

Carpooling will be encouraged to minimize the noise of commuting traffic. No changes were 

made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP024-379

The commenter questioned the conclusion that the impacts to local roads would be 

MODERATE to LARGE, given the extensive mitigation measures proposed by the Applicant.

Response: The GEIS rated the potential impacts to local roads as SMALL to MODERATE, 

based on the assumption that ISR activities in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region would 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-69

not bring significant increases in daily traffic (NRC, 2009b, pg 4.3-3). The GEIS further states 

that "[r]oads with the lowest average annual traffic counts would have higher (MODERATE) 

traffic and potential infrastructure impacts." However, the GEIS based this analysis on a 

minimum all-vehicle traffic count in the region of 340 vehicles per day, and an average of 900 

vehicles per day. Compared to 340 vehicles per day, the increase resulting from an ISR project 

that contributes 400 vehicles per day during construction, as is projected for the Ross Project, 

would represent a 117 percent increase in traffic. Because of the low traffic count near the 

Ross Project prior to construction, the increase is actually 400 percent. This is a significant 

increase compared to the analysis in the GEIS, and therefore the classification of LARGE is 

appropriate. After construction, when the traffic count decreases, the increase in traffic will be 

more similar to that discussed in the GEIS. Therefore the impact during operation was 

classified as SMALL to MODERATE. Responses to similar comments are included at Comment 

Nos. RP024-019, RP024-020, RP024-056, RP024-057, RP024-220, RP024-221, and RP024-

472. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP024-380

The commenter requested that the mitigation measures in the SEIS include the potential 

implementation of a park-and-ride system.

Response: The NRC staff included the possibility of employee carpooling or a park-and-ride 

system in SEIS Section 4.3.1.1. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information 

provided in this response.

Comments: RP024-517; RP024-518

The commenter questioned the speed ranges cited for examination of noise levels on roads in 

the vicinty of the Project area. Specifically, the concern was that the speeds cited in a U.S 

Department of Transportation (USDOT) study for heavy trucks and passenger vehicles were 

much greater than the posted speed limits in the vicinity of the Ross Project area, which are “55 

mi/hr” for cars and “45 mi/hr” for trucks on D Road and “45 mi/hr” on New Haven Road. The 

commenter also stated the the speed limit range for heavy trucks does not match the 

information presented in the USDOT report. The commenter suggested revising the statement 

to reflect noise levels at the current posted speed limits.

Response: The NRC acknowledges that the upper end of the speed ranges cited as examples 

by the USDOT were greater than the speed limits in the vicinity of the Ross Project. However, 

the intent of the USDOT comparison, and its conclusion that heavy trucks generate more noise 

than passenger vehicles within the same speed range, is valid. The statement has been 

revised to cite the lower speed range, which is more consistent with the speed limits on D Road 

and New Haven Road. USDOT findings are consistent with the results of the noise level 

monitoring study conducted by the Applicant at nearby residences. In this study, the maximum 

recorded noise level at the residence was generated by a bentonite truck at 73.4 dBA. The text 

in FSEIS Section 3.8 has been revised to highlight the fact that the noise measured during the 

passing of a bentonite truck in the Applicant’s noise study was lower than either of the ranges 

for medium and heavy trucks.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-70

Comment: RP024-639

The commenter requested clarification on cumulative impacts to the transportation system 

within its designated study area, in particular, the local roads and the NRC’s evaluation of the 

impacts of the Ross Project.

Response: The cumulative impacts discussed under “Transportation,” SEIS Section 5.5, 

include the impacts from all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFAs). 

These RFFAs include coal-bed methane (CBM) production projects, oil and gas production 

operations, surface-coal mining, uranium recovery, and other developments and 

projects. Given the number of planned and potential projects in the transportation cumulativeimpacts study area, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts to the transportation system by 

the Ross Project itself, particularly to the local- and county-road network, would be MODERATE 

to LARGE. Even with the SMALL impacts to the Interstate-highway system, the cumulative 

impacts would be MODERATE due to the potentially significant increase in traffic volumes on 

local roads. The discussion in SEIS Section 5.5 has been clarified in the SEIS as a result of this 

comment.

Comment: RP032-081

The commenter stated that the conclusion in DSEIS Section 4.3.1.2 that increasing the 

shipment of resins received at the CPP daily from one (as assumend in the GEIS) to four (as 

proposed by the Applicant) would not affect the risk of accidents is unsubstantiated. The 

commenter also stated that the increased risk arising from shipping four times the yellowcake 

output obtainable from the Ross Project alone is not even evaluated. 

Response: The SEIS does not state that there would be no increased risk arising from an 

increase in the number of resin shipments. The SEIS states that the risks in either case would 

be small. The NRC staff substantiates this conclusion in SEIS Section 4.3.1.2. This Section of 

the SEIS states, “[a]lthough the number of shipments proposed by the Applicant is higher than 

the one truck per day assumed in the GEIS, the other three factors evaluated in the GEIS would 

ensure that the probability of an accident that involves uranium-bearing IX resin would be small. 

Compliance with the applicable NRC and USDOT regulations for shipping IX resins would also 

reduce the risk of accidents involving these shipments.” Regarding yellowcake shipments, the 

SEIS evaluates, in Section 4.3.1.2, the impacts from accidents resulting from shipments of 

yellowcake. The analysis assumes that there would be 75 shipments of yellowcake per year. 

This number of shipments of yellowcake is based on the maximum annual production rate, 

which includes yellowcake produced from toll milling. The SEIS concludes that impacts due to a 

potential accident involving the transportation of yellowcake during the operations phase of the 

Ross Project would be SMALL. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information 

provided in this response.

Comments: RP024-240; RP035-027

The commenters asked for clarification regarding the transportation route from Interstate (I)-90 

to the Ross Project area and asked that a figure be added to better illustrate the local 

transportation routes. One commenter wondered if the scale of DSEIS Figure 3.4 could be 

changed to a larger scale.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-71

Response: The description in SEIS Section 3.3 is correct. Although the Project site is north of 

I-90, one must first travel south from the Interstate to get to the proper access roads. From I-90 

eastbound, one turns right on US 14/16 for approximately 1/3 of a mile, heading south, then 

turns west on WY 51 and continues to Bertha Road (County Road [CR] 12), and then turns 

north to pass under I-90. Please refer to SEIS Figure 2.1 for an additional illustration of the 

local transportation route. In preparing the SEIS, the NRC staff used the figures that are 

included in the license application. Thus, the two figures, FSEIS Figures 2.1 and 3.4, taken 

together provide the NRC’s best possible maps. The respective scales could not be changed.

Comment: RP036-020

The commenter requested clarification on the transportation mitigation measures, and whether 

or not the mitigation measures identified in SEIS Section 4.3.1.1 would be applied throughout 

the Project life.

Response: As stated in SEIS Sections 4.3.1.2, 4.3.1.3 and 4.3.1.4, the mitigation measures 

outlined in SEIS Section 4.3.1.1 (construction) would also be implemented in subsequent 

Project phases. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this 

response.

Comment: RP036-046

The commenter noted that the mitigation measures proposed for traffic impacts resulting from 

the Ross Project should be required of other projects in the Lance District.

Response: Specifying mitigation measures for future projects in the vicinity is beyond the 

scope of the Ross Project SEIS. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information 

provided in this response.

B.5.13.1 References

(US)NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for InSitu Leach Uranium Milling Facilities, Volumes 1 and 2.” NUREG–1910. Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2009b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML091480244 and ML091480188.

(US)NRC. Safety Evaluation Report for the Strata Energy, Inc. Ross ISR Project, Crook 

County, Wyoming. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2014a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML14002A107. 

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.) and Crook County. Memorandum of Understanding for 

Improvement and Maintenance of Crook County Roads Providing Access to the Ross ISR 

Project. Sundance, WY: Crook County. 2011. ADAM Accession No. ML111170303.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-72

B.5.14 Geology and Soils

B.5.14.1 Soil Disturbance Concerns

Comment: RP032-084 

The commenter asked for the NRC staff’s justification underlying its statement in DSEIS Section 

5.6 that “[t]he Nubeth area was restored and these past activities are consequently no longer 

relevant for the geology and soils cumulative-impacts analysis.” 

Response: The area impacted by the Nubeth Joint Venture (Nubeth) research and 

development operation was small (approximately 3 ha [7 ac] and only one 5-spot well pattern). 

Final approval of Nubeth’s decommissioning was granted by the appropriate regulatory 

agencies (including the NRC) in 1983 through 1986 (ND Resources, 1985a; ND Resources, 

1985b). Nubeth’s decommissioning included the removal and transport of 165 tons of 

contaminated soil offsite (ND Resources, 1985a). After the soil was removed, a gammaradiation survey of the area was conducted; the survey encompassed Nubeth’s processing 

facility, wellfields, and storage surface impoundment. Soil samples were collected and analyzed 

for radium-226 and uranium. Based upon the gamma survey and soil analyses, the levels of 

radiological parameters in soil from all areas were found to be within the local background. 

Following verification of the soil surveys by the NRC, stockpiled topsoil was applied and leveled, 

and the vegetation was reseeded. Based upon the final regulatory approval as well as the data 

that are available for review, the NRC staff concluded that there are currently no impacts to the 

local soils within the Ross Project area resulting from the Nubeth operation. No changes were 

made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP032-085

The commenter referred to the following statement made in SEIS Section 5.6: “These impacts 

would dissipate quickly once site restoration is complete, within five years or less; therefore, the 

time period for this geology and soils cumulative-impacts evaluation is 19 years from the 

licensing of the Ross Project, or the year 2032.” The commenter then inquired as to the basis 

for the NRC’s conclusion that the geology and soils impacts by the Ross Project would dissipate 

quickly once the area has been reclaimed and restored. The commenter also asked for 

examples of geology and soil disturbances that are expected at the Ross Project in addition to 

previously observed instances in similar projects and their observed recovery times. In light of 

the data the commenter asks for, the commenter wondered whether a “five-year recovery 

buffer” is conservative.

Response: The basis for the NRC’s conclusion that impacts to geology and soils would 

dissipate quickly once area reclamation and restoration is complete is discussed in the impact 

assessment found in SEIS Section 4.4.1. Impacts to geology and soils would be SMALL after 

mitigation by meeting reclamation and restoration requirements. Site reclamation and 

restoration would be conducted by the Applicant both as individual wellfields are retired (after 

successful aquifer restoration) and during the final Project decommissioning phase. All potential 

impacts to the geology and local soils would be mitigated. Mitigation techniques that would be 

implemented by the Applicant include rapid topsoil replacement from soil piles (created during 

Project construction and wellfield development) as well as deliberate reseeding of disturbed 

land with native vegetation varieties. The Applicant would accomplish this restoration within one 

season of a wellfield’s decommissioning. As described in SEIS Section 4.2.1.4 revegetation 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-73

would be completed in accordance with an approved restoration action plan, which is required 

by Applicant’s Permit to Mine issued by WDEQ. Oversight and approval by State regulatory 

agencies would ensure that the reclamation and restoration of all impacted soils within the Ross 

Project area are conducted in compliance with applicable requirements. In addition, Strata’s 

license application included a RAP as Addendum 6.1-A to its TR, which would be implemented 

during Project decommissioning.

The five-year recovery buffer was selected by the NRC as a reasonable timeframe, which would 

allow the re-establishment of biota that assist in the development of a natural soil structure as 

well as regrowth of mature native vegetation. The NRC based the five-year timeframe on 

guidance by the University of Wyoming that notes successful reclamation may take up to five 

years in environments similar to that at the Ross Project (Norton and Strom, 2013). The 

timeframe for recovery of impacts to geology would be within the five-year timeframe since the 

impacts to geology are primarily from drill holes and wells and those impacts would be stabilized 

immediately upon plugging and abondoning the wells and holes. No changes were made to the 

SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

B.5.14.2 Miscellaneous Geology and Soils Comments

Comments: RP015-003; RP026-001; RP026-002; RP028-002

The commenters expressed concern about impacts to the Madison aquifer from the UIC Class I 

deep-injection wells.

Response: The NRC staff finds that impacts to the Madison-Formation aquifer are highly 

unlikely. As described in SEIS Section 3.4.1.2, the Deadwood and Flathead Formations that 

would receive liquid byproduct material through the UIC Class I injection wells are separated 

from the Madison Formation by at least 120 m [400 ft] of impermeable rock (i.e., the Red River 

Formation and the Icebox Shale). In addition to the confining properties of the 120 m [400 ft] of 

impermeable rock, the Applicant’s monitoring of the injection pressure, as required by the UIC 

Class I Permit, would allow its detection of loss of the well casing’s integrity, as discussed in 

SEIS Section 4.5.1.2. In the event that a UIC Class I well loses integrity, waste injection into 

that particular well would be suspended for well repair, thus preventing impacts to the aquifers 

above the Deadwood and Flathead Formations. The NRC staff has revised the text in SEIS 

Section 3.4.1.2 to provide further information regarding the thickness of rock separating the 

Madison Formation from the Deadwood and Flathead Formations. No change was made to the 

SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comments: RP024-247; RP024-248

The commenter suggested that the NRC staff add more detail in FSEIS Section 3.4.1.2 in its 

description of the thickness of the alternating layers within the lower and upper units of the Fox 

Hill Formation as well as the mineralization of the Fox Hills Formation and Lance Formation and 

the overlying confining unit.

Response: To minimize redundancy in the SEIS text, the level of detail requested by the 

commenter is included in SEIS Section 3.5.3, “Ground Water,” but it was not repeated in SEIS 

Section 3.4.1. A referral to SEIS Section 3.5.3 has been added to FSEIS Section 3.4.1. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-74

Comment: RP024-254

The commenter requested that the statements describing the six faults mapped by Buswell 

(1982) be revised. The commenter stated that more contemporary studies completed by the 

Applicant have invalidated the presence of the faults.

Response: The NRC staff agrees with the comment and revised the text in SEIS Section 3.4.4 

to revise the six faults mapped by Buswell (1982). The statement in FSEIS Section 3.4.4, 

“These faults are due to heterogeneity of the lithology among the shale and sandstone intervals 

within the upper Cretaceous Formations” has been revised to read, “Instead, it appears that the 

variability in stratigraphic elevations is due to heterogeneity in thickness of the various shale and 

sandstone intervals within the upper Cretaceous Formations.”

Comment: RP032-070

The commenter asserted that the data and discussion on ground-water quality in DSEIS Section 

3.5.3 was vague, disconnected, and inadequate. The commenter specifically noted that data 

from existing wells completed in the Lance and Fox Hills aquifers outside of the previous Nubeth 

research and development project are not included in DSEIS Tables 3.6 and 3.7.

Response: The NRC assumes that the commenter is referring to the water-quality data from 

the 29 water-supply wells that are outside the Ross Project area, since the Nubeth operation 

occupied only a small portion of the area of the Ross Project. The water-quality data from the 

29 water-supply wells are described in FSEIS Section 3.5.3. Because the NRC received 

several public comments requesting the water-quality data from the 29 water-supply wells as 

well as water-quality data from Project monitoring wells, the NRC staff has added an Appendix 

C to the FSEIS, which includes all water-quality data generated by the Applicant through its 

sampling and analysis efforts. The map indicating the location of the 29 water-supply wells, 

which were monitored for ground-water quality by the Applicant for the license application and 

are proposed for continued monitoring during life of the Proposed Action, has been added as 

Figure 3.16 to FSEIS Section 3.5.3. Additional ground-water-quality data collected for the 

Nubeth project have also been added to FSEIS Table 3.7, and more supplemental discussion of 

the water-quality data after the aquifer restoration of the Nubeth project has been added to 

FSEIS Section 5.7.2. Please see the NRC staff’s responses to Comment Nos. RP032-071, 

RP032-077, RP035-035, RP032-018, and RP032-072 for further information regarding groundwater quality in water-supply wells. 

Comment: RP032-008

The commenter noted the statement in the Executive Summary of the SEIS, “Operation: The 

impact [on ground water] would range from SMALL to MODERATE (depending upon whether 

excursions occur).” The commenter asked why, if a major excursion were to occur and remain 

undetected for an extended period, for example, would the impact not be “LARGE”?

Response: The statement referenced by the commenter was taken from the Executive 

Summary of the DSEIS, which was intended to summarize SEIS Section 4.5.1. In, particular; 

the impacts of the Ross Project on ground-water quality throughout the Ross Project’s lifecycle 

are presented in that SEIS Section. As described in SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1, 2.1.1.2, 4.5.1.2, and 

4.5.1.4, monitoring wells would be placed around the perimeter of each wellfield as well as in 

the aquifers both overlying and underlying the target ore zone according to Condition Nos. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-75

10.13 and 11.5 in the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License for the Ross Project (NRC, 

2014b). This placement of ground-water wells is designed to provide timely detection of 

horizontal and vertical excursions (NRC, 2014b). In developing the required spacing between 

ground-water wells and the distance to the monitoring-well perimeter ring, the NRC has taken 

into account the respective aquifer’s characteristics so as to minimize the possibility that an 

excursion would not be detected. Corrective actions indicated by Draft License Condition No. 

11.5, in the event of an excursion, would ensure that the excursion impacts are mitigaged and 

do not become LARGE. 

The texts in the SEIS Sections referenced above have been revised to clarify the NRC’s 

analyses of ground-water impacts, including the parameters, methodology, and conclusions of 

these analyses. These revised texts discuss the requirements that would be included in the 

Final License, as currently included conditions in the Draft License for the Ross Project, which 

are intended to increase the probability that excursions would be detected in a timely manner

(NRC, 2014b). In addition, the text now discusses the respective Draft Source and Byproduct 

Materials License Conditions intended to avert excursions more completely and describes the 

Draft License Conditions that discuss corrective actions were an excursion to occur. Please see 

the response to Comment No. RP032-033 for additional information on actions required of the 

Applicant that would mitigate the consequences of an excursion so that the impacts would not 

be LARGE, were the Ross Project to be licensed by the NRC. 

B.5.14.3 References

Buswell, M.D. Subsurface Geology of the Oshoto Uranium Deposit, Crook County, Wyoming,

M.S. Thesis, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. Rapid City, SD: South Dakota 

School of Mines and Technology. 1982.

ND Resources. Final Decommissioning Report for Nubeth R&D Solution Mining 

Project. Crook County, WY: ND Resources, Inc. March 1985a. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13274A058. 

ND Resources. Final Decommissioning Report for Nubeth R&D Solution Mining Project 

Volume 2. Crook County, WY: ND Resources, Inc. March 1985b. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13274A126. 

Norton, Jay and Calvin Strom. Reclamation Considerations for Oil and Gas Lease Contracts on 

Private Lands. University of Wyoming Extension Reclamation Issue Team and the Wyoming 

Reclamation and Restoration Center. Laramie Wyoming, April 2013.

(US)NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, 

No. SUA-1601.” Washington, DC: USNRC. 2014b. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A111. 

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Technical Report, Volumes 1 through 6 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata. 2011b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130333, ML110130335, 

ML110130314, ML110130316, ML110130320, and ML110130327. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-76

B.5.15 Ground-Water Resources

B.5.15.1 Concerns about ISR and Ground-Water Contamination

Comments: RP003-001; RP004-001; RP016-003; RP029-001

The commenters expressed concern about the potential for contamination of water resources in 

the neighborhood of the Ross Project.

Response: NRC licensing and regulatory requirements for ISR facilities at 10 CFR Part 40, as 

well as NRC’s requirement that licensees obtain all necessary permits and licenses from the 

appropriate regulatory authorities prior to operating their facility, generally serve to limit the 

potential for contaimination of water resources outside the areas of the wellfields in ore-zone 

aquifers. As described in SEIS Section 4.5, the impacts to water resources would be SMALL 

except for the MODERATE impacts to the ore-zone aquifer during the operation and restoration 

phase. The monitoring network for ground water, which would be required by the Source and 

Byproduct Materials License and, which is currently discussed in Draft License Condition Nos. 

10.13 and 11.5 and also described in SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1 and 6.3.2, ensures prompt 

detection of leaks, spills, and excursions that may cause short-term impacts to water resources

(NRC, 2014b). However, the mitigation measures described in Draft License Condition No. 11.5 

would limit these impacts, and corrective actions would quickly remediate any releases (NRC, 

2014b). NRC regulations require that ground-water quality within the production zone (i.e., the 

ore zone of the exempted aquifer) be returned to the standards identified in 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). Restoration of the ground water in the ore zone of a particular 

wellfield would eliminate that wellfield as a source of potential impacts to ground-water 

resources in the vicinity of the Ross Project. In addition, as described in the SEIS Section 

2.1.1.7, the NRC requires the Applicant to post a finacial surety that would cover the anticipated 

and delayed aquifer-restoration costs (as well as facility decontamination and decommissioning 

costs) to comply with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion (9). The NRC would review the 

adequacy of this instrument annually. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the 

information provided in this response.

Comments: RP024-013; RP024-161; RP024-169; RP024-170; RP024-425

The commenter recommended revising several statements in the DSEIS to include more 

specific information about: 1) the applicability of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5) to 

ground-water restoration and wellfield decommissioning; 2) the conclusions of the NRC staff 

with respect to its evaluation of ground-water impacts outside the exempted aquifers (NRC, 

2009d); and 3) the role of wellfield balance in an operator’s averting and detecting excursions. 

The commenter asked that the concept of “baseline conditions,” in particular, be discussed 

further. The commenter also asked that the “purpose of aquifer restoration” be clarified in the 

FSEIS text. DSEIS Sections specifically identified by the commenter included the following: the 

Executive Summary, Section 2.1.1.3, and Section 4.5.1.2, Ground Water. 

Response: The NRC staff generally agrees with the suggested revisions. The following 

statement was added to FSEIS Section 4.5.1.3: “The purpose of aquifer restoration is to return 

the ground-water quality at a specified point of compliance, generally defined as the boundary of 

the exempted aquifer, to the ground-water protection standards specified at 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A. The restoration of an exempted aquifer to meet the standards in Criterion 5B(5)(a) 

would ensure that a present or potential future USDW outside of the exempted aquifer would be 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-77

protected (NRC, 2003b). Criterion 5B(5) of Appendix A requires that the concentration of a 

given hazardous constituent at the point of compliance must not exceed: 1) the NRC-approved 

concentration of that constituent in ground water (5B(5)(a)); 2) the respective numeric value in 

the table included in Paragraph 5C of Criterion 5B(6), if the specific constituent is listed in the 

table and if the level of the constituent is below the value listed (5B(5)(b)); or 3) an ACL the 

NRC establishes for the constituent (5B(5)(c)).” 

The purpose of aquifer restoration has been clarified in FSEIS Section 2.1.13 in this way: “The 

purpose of aquifer restoration is to restore the ground-water quality at the point of compliance 

within the exempted aquifer to the ground-water protection standards specified at 10 CFR Part 

40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5), so as to ensure no hazard to human health or the 

environment.” By Criterion 5B(4), the NRC staff can consider the existence of an exempted 

aquifer as defined by EPA but only in determinations of either 1) to exclude a constituent from 

the ground-water protection monitoring program, or 2) an ACL. Per definitions in Appendix A, 

the compliance period for which the ground-water protection monitoring program would be 

performed is from the time the Commission sets the ground-water protection standards until 

license termination. Thus, the ground-water protection program is continuous throughout 

operation, aquifer restoration, and possibly the post-closure (post-reclamation) period as 

determined by the NRC. 

Historically, the NRC staff have assigned the point of compliance as referenced in 10 CFR Part 

40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5) as the boundaries of the EPA-defined exempted aquifer; during 

operation, the wells used to monitor the point of compliance are those monitoring wells in the 

excursion-monitoring program. During site reclamation and restoration, until complete site 

closure, the wells that would be used by the Applicant to monitor the point of compliance are 

predominantly the wellfields’ post-licensing, pre-operational monitoring wells, although 

monitoring for compliance continues at the wells in the excursion-monitoring program. Criterion 

5B(1) states that hazardous constituents entering the ground water from a licensed facility must 

not exceed the established ground-water protection standard beyond the point of compliance. 

To achieve this requirement, Criterion 5B(6) provides that, although Criterion 5B(5)(a) poses no 

incremental hazard and Criterion 5B(5)(b) limits the hazards to acceptable levels, a licensee’s 

meeting these criteria might not be achievable. Therefore, the ground-water protection standard 

would then be based upon Criterion 5B(5)(c), an ACL. For the use of an ACL to be acceptable, 

the licensee must demonstrate that the ACL does not present a significant hazard. 

Additional details about the ground-water protection standards as discussed in this response 

have been added to FSEIS Sections 2.1.1, 2.1.1.2, 4.5.1.2, and 4.5.1.3. A summary of the 

conclusions from the NRC’s review of ground-water impacts outside the exempted aquifers has 

been added to FSEIS Section 4.5.1.3 (NRC, 2009d). Please also see the NRC’s responses to 

Comments Nos. RP024-013, RP024-161, RP024-169, RP024-170, RP032-020, RP032-036, 

and RP032-041. Finally, the NRC has added Appendix B1 to this Appendix in the FSEIS to 

offer additional information on the NRC’s process for applying 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criteria 5B(5) in general and ACLs in particular. 

Comment: RP024-221 

The commenter recommended that the potential magnitude of ground-water impacts during the 

operation and aquifer-restoration phases of the Ross Project in DSEIS Section 2.4 be changed 

from “MODERATE” to “SMALL to MODERATE.” 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-78

Response: Although the NRC staff concluded that ground-water impacts during operation and 

aquifer restoration would be SMALL to MODERATE (See SEIS Sections 4.5.1.2 and 4.5.1.3), 

the NRC staff does not agree that the commenter’s suggested revision to the text in DSEIS 

Section 2.4 is appropriate. At the beginning of DSEIS Section 2.4, the text stated: “Potential 

adverse impacts to all environmental resource areas are expected to be SMALL, with the 

exception of... .” Therefore, following this statement, DSEIS Section 2.4 provided detailed

information about resource areas with MODERATE and LARGE impacts and did not specifically 

address SMALL impacts. 

DSEIS Section 2.4 provided the NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation regarding the 

Proposed Action, based on the findings in the DSEIS, and provided a detailed summary of the 

DSEIS findings. However, it should be noted that, Section 2.4 of the FSEIS provides the NRC 

staff’s final recommendation regarding the Proposed Action but does not include the detailed 

summary of the SEIS findings, which were the subject of this comment. No changes to the 

SEIS were made beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP032-025

The commenter highlighted the following statement in SEIS Section 2.1.1.2: “Comparison of the 

Applicant’s expected concentration ranges of chemical constituents in the pregnant lixiviant with 

the typical lixiviant chemistry presented in Table 2.4-1 of the GEIS shows consistency between 

the Ross Project and the GEIS, except for higher concentrations of uranium and vanadium that 

could be present in the pregnant lixiviant at the Ross Project (Strata, 2011b; NRC, 2009b).” The 

commenter asked what would account for this discrepancy and would the varying 

concentrations be a result of differing ISR processing techniques, or would they result from 

differing ore bodies underlying the Ross Project and/or the Lance District from which uranium 

would be recovered? The commenter requested that the FSEIS provide a discussion of the 

environmental impacts of these higher concentrations relative to aquifer restoration, radiation 

exposures, and waste-disposal techniques.

Response: The concentrations of uranium and vanadium in a lixiviant are primarily determined 

by the grade of the ore being recovered. Table 2.4-1 of the GEIS presents typical lixiviant 

concentrations from an alkaline lixiviant, which is the same type proposed for the Ross Project. 

The range of uranium and vanadium concentrations presented as “typical” for lixiviant in the 

GEIS are < 0.01 – 500 mg/L and < 0.01 – 100 mg/L, respectively. By comparison, the 

Applicant has estimated typical lixiviant would contain uranium and vanadium concentrations as 

< 1 – 700 mg/L and < 1 – 400 mg/L. Compared to the typical lixiviant described in the GEIS, the 

slightly higher estimated concentrations of uranium and vanadium in the Ross Project’s lixiviant 

could indicate a higher than typical ore-grade.

The higher range of concentrations estimated by the Applicant for lixiviant uranium and 

vanadium does not affect the NRC staff’s environmental-impact assessment. Ground-water 

restoration would still remove the residual lixiviant from the wellfields such that, independent of 

the initial water quality, aquifer restoration would continue until the ground-water quality is 

returned to the standards identified in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). Also, 

radiation exposures would be of minimal or no concern under normal facility-operating 

conditions because Project workers or the public would not generally come in contact with the 

lixiviant, regardless of the concentration of radioactive species it may contain. Please refer to 

the NRC staff’s Ross Project SER Section 7.3.2 for a full analysis of potential radiation 

exposures in the case of accidents (NRC, 2014a), as well as SEIS Section 4.13.1, which 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-79

discusses the health and safety of occupational workers and the nearby public. The IX process 

proposed for the Ross Project at the CPP would remove the uranium and vanadium, as the two 

resources of economic value, from the lixiviant. After removal of these resources, the byproduct 

waste water from the process would be depleted in uranium and vanadium; and, therefore, the 

impacts of waste disposal are not related to the levels of uranium and vanadium initially in the 

lixiviant. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comments: RP032-043; RP032-044

The commenter noted that the DSEIS stated:

If the oxidized (i.e. the more soluble) state is allowed to persist after uranium recovery is 

complete, metals and other constituents such as arsenic, selenium, molybdenum, 

uranium and vanadium could continue to leach and remain at elevated levels. To 

stabilize these constituent concentrations, the pre-operational oxidation state in the ore 

zone must be reestablished as much as possible. 

The commenter also noted that the DSEIS stated:

The Applicant would reinitiate the entire aquifer restoration phase if stabilization 

monitoring determines it is necessary. Both WDEQ and the NRC must review and 

approve all monitoring results before aquifer restoration would be considered to be 

complete.

The commenter then asked a series of questions regarding these statements:

1) For the purposes of the SEIS analysis, what has the NRC deemed to be “elevated levels” for 

the above-named constituents? 

2) Would the NRC provide the range of historically and geotechnically indicated minimum, 

maximum, and most-likely (i.e., expected) elevated levels for each of the above named 

constituents that could result from the NRC's decision to grant a source and byproduct materials 

license, and discuss the scientific and technical basis for the information provided? 

3) What is the pre-operational oxidation state in the proposed ore zones of the Ross Project and 

the potential Lance District development shown in SEIS Figure 2.6? Would the pre-operational 

oxidation state of these ore zones differ from their pre-licensing baseline state? If so, please 

identify the known and likely factors contributing to this difference. If not, why would the NRC 

not employ the measured, pre-licensing baseline oxidation state of the ore zone as the value to 

be reestablished as much as possible?

4) How much is “as much as possible”? What would be the metrics that the Applicant would 

employ, and/or those that the NRC would enforce, to establish that “the pre-operational 

oxidation state in the ore zone” has been reestablished as much as is possible? How would the 

NRC go about independently confirming or otherwise verifying the authenticity, accuracy, and 

completeness of the monitoring results that it would review and approve for the Ross Project 

and other potential Lance District development? 

5) Would “as much as possible” be less that the TRVs specified in the Applicant's license 

application? If so, what elevated concentrations of the “dissolved metals” enumerated on page 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-80

2-34, line 33-34 of the SEIS would be deemed acceptable for terminating the aquiferstabilization phase during aquifer restoration under the Ross Project’s to-be-issued license?

6) What are the specific environmental-monitoring benchmarks that would determine whether it 

is necessary to “reinitiate the entire aquifer-restoration phase” for the Ross Project and the 

potential Lance District satellite areas? Which of these standards or criteria would be 

considered binding upon the NRC and the Applicant, and which could be abandoned or 

modified at will using the NRC’s enforcement discretion? Would the NRC please provide the 

approved standard for each constituent that would be used to conduct this quarterly monitoring, 

and the standards for its determining that any adjacent, nonexempt aquifers are unaffected. 

What does “adjacent” mean in this context? Which official or officials within the NRC would be 

entrusted with the responsibility and authority to approve monitoring results and declare aquifer 

restoration to be complete? 

7) For how long would the license, if issued, require the Applicant to monitor the ground water 

by quarterly sampling to demonstrate that the approved standard for each constituent were met 

and that any adjacent nonexempt aquifers were unaffected?

Response: The quoted text from DSEIS Section 2.1.1.3 was taken from the GEIS, and, in both 

documents, the text is located within the discussion of stabilization following aquifer restoration. 

The subject paragraphs within DSEIS Section 2.1.1.3 that discussed aquifer stabilization have 

been revised to clarify the commitment made by the Applicant as stated in the license 

application, the review by the NRC staff of the Strata’s license application in the SER, and the 

current conditions of the Draft License (Strata, 2011b; NRC, 2014a; NRC, 2014b). The specific 

revisions to these paragraphs are described in the responses to Comments Nos. RP024-172 

and RP024-173.

1) The statement in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.3 referred to by the commenter was a description of 

the aquifer-restoration process. The use of the phase, “elevated levels” in this statement in the 

FSEIS means concentrations of a given constituent that would not meet ground-water protection

standards. 

2) The NRC staff does not compile the routine monitoring data collected by ISR licensees during 

ground-water restoration that would be necessary to produce a range of historically and 

geotechnically indicated minimum, maximum, and most-likely concentrations of constituents 

during ground-water restoration. To perform the data analysis requested by the commenter 

would be outside the scope of this SEIS. 

3) In the SEIS and the GEIS, the term “pre-operational” within the discussion of the preoperational oxidation state is the same as the post-licensing, pre-operational state. Preoperational oxidation state refers to the condition of low levels of oxygen in the ground water 

that exists before the introduction of lixiviant. As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1, the uranium 

ore is deposited in “roll-fronts,” which form in geologic time when the geochemical condition 

within an aquifer changes from oxygenated to oxygen-deficient, which in turn causes uranium to 

precipitate as a coating on sand grains. As discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.3, other 

parameters that respond to the changing conditions caused by introduction of lixiviant are 

arsenic, selenium, molybdenum, and vanadium. The oxidation state can be inferred by the suite 

of elements and minerals present in the ground water during restoration. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-81

4) and 5) The phrase, “as much as possible” in the subject statement, “To stabilize these 

constituent concentrations, the pre-operational oxidation state in the ore zone must be 

reestablished as much as possible,” refers to the geochemical reactions within the aquifer. 

Attainment of the pre-operational oxidation state of the aquifer would result in a decrease in 

concentrations of those parameters that respond to oxidation conditions described in the 

response to part 3 of this comment. There is no quantitative measure to the phase “as much as 

possible” since the ground-water protection standards apply to constituent concentrations and 

not oxidation conditions. However, if an application for an ACL is received by the NRC, 

consistent with the “as low as reasonable achievable” philosophy, NRC staff would evaluate 

whether the licensee did as much as possible to achieve the lowest possible concentrations of 

water-quality parameters during ground-water restoration. The ground-water protection

standards are discussed in FSEIS Sections 2.1.1.3 and 4.5.1.2 and in the responses to 

Comment Nos. RP024-013, RP024-161, RP024-169, RP024-170, RP032-020, RP032-036, and 

RP032-041. 

6) and 7) Re-initiation of aquifer restoration would be required of the Applicant if the monitoring 

data were to show a lack of compliance with the ground-water protection standards approved by 

the NRC as described in SEIS Sections 2.1.1.3 and 4.5.1.2 and in the response to Comment 

No. RP032-020. In the SEIS, the term “adjacent aquifer,” means “the aquifers immediately 

above, below, and surrounding the production aquifer.” Condition No. 11.1 of the Draft License, 

an extract of which is provided in this Appendix B in response to Comment No. RP032-037, 

addresses monitoring, recording, and bookkeeping requirements. With respect to the 

requirements and extent of aquifer-restoration-stability monitoring, Condition No. 10.6 of the 

Draft License for the proposed Ross Project states the following:

The licensee shall conduct sampling of the parameters included in the baseline [in this 

SEIS, “post-licensing, pre-operational”] sampling under LC 11.3 during the restoration 

stability period in accordance with Section 6.1.2.5 of the approved application. The 

sampling consists of eight samples during a 12 month period. The sampling shall include 

the specified production zone aquifer wells used to define the baseline [in this SEIS, “postlicensing, pre-operational”] levels. The Applicant shall continue the stability monitoring 

until the data show, for all parameters monitored, no statistically significant increasing 

trend, which would lead to an exceedance of the relevant standard in 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5).

(Note that the words “will” and “shall” are used in the Draft License to denote specific 

requirements.)

As stated in GEIS Section 2.5, “The EPA, or the State authorized to implement the EPA’s

Underground Injection Control [UIC] program, reviews any aquifer-restoration plans for 

compliance with the applicable terms and conditions of the UIC-permit requirements. The NRC 

staff reviews any aquifer-restoration plans for compliance with the license to protect human 

health, safety, and the environment (NRC, 2009b).” 

The NRC’s Project Manager is responsible for reviewing and overseeing the NRC staff’s review 

of the information submitted by the Applicant. The Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery 

Licensing Directorate within the Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection is 

responsible for overseeing licensed uranium-recovery operations. As discussed in the 

responses to Comment Nos. RP024-013, RP024-161, RP024-169, RP024-170, and in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.3, the compliance period for which the ground-water protection monitoring 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-82

program would be performed is from the time the Commission sets the ground-water protection

standards until the respective license’s termination. Thus, the ground-water protection program 

is continuous throughout the operation, aquifer-restoration, and possibly the post-closure (i.e., 

post-reclamation) phases as determined by the NRC.

Comment: RP035-034

The commenter suggested that the NRC staff revise the summary of the operational monitoring 

program presented in Table 6.1 of the SEIS in Section 6.2, Radiological Monitoring, to include 

the location, analytical parameter, sampling frequency, and number of sample locations as well 

as the expected range of values for radionuclides based upon pre-licensing, sitecharacterization water-quality data. It was noted that the data the commenter suggests adding 

to Table 6.1 are summarized in the DSEIS Section 3.5.3, Table 3.6.

Response: In response to other comments (Comment Nos. RP032-018, RP032-070, RP032-

071, RP032-072, RP032-077, and RP035-035) all data obtained by ground-water monitoring by 

several parties, including Nubeth, for all constituents have been added to the FSEIS as 

Appendix C. A map depicting the location of the 29 water-supply wells now discussed in FSEIS 

Section 3.5.3, which were also monitored for ground-water quality, has been added to the 

FSEIS as Figure 3.16. Other maps indicating the locations of monitoring wells that would be 

sampled within the Project area are shown on SEIS Figure 3.15 in Section 3.5.3. However, no 

changes were made to Table 6.1 as the information in that table and in Section 6 describe the 

operational environmental monitoring program. The data in Appendix C are a different set than 

data that will be accrued by the Applicant’s monitoring the operation, aquifer restoration and 

decommissioning phases. 

Comment: RP039-011

The commenter requested that, if any polluted water would reach South Dakota and/or 

Montana, the NRC discuss those water-quality issues over the border as well as any 

“assimilative capacity concerns.”

Response: The direction of ground-water flow in all of the aquifers below the Ross Project area 

is to the west, toward the axis of the Powder River Basin. Therefore, water flow to South 

Dakota or Montana is not plausible. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the 

information provided in this response.

B.5.15.2 Importance of Water and Consumptive Water Use

Comment: RP024-652 

The commenter requested clarification of the following statement in the DSEIS: “It is likely that 

ground-water drawdowns at the uranium-recovery wellfields in the Lance District would overlap 

spatially and temporally.” The commenter pointed out that minor overlap is possible, but it 

would be imperative that the Applicant minimize the overlap so as to ensure that interference 

between wellfields does not occur.

Response: The NRC staff agrees with the commenter’s suggestion that, although minor spatial 

overlap of ground-water drawdown from different wellfields could potentially occur, the overlap 

would not be great. The schedule for development of the Ross Project shown in Figure 2.6 of 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-83

the FSEIS suggests that operations at other uranium-recovery projects in the Lance District 

could occur concurrently with the Ross Project as well. In addition, as described in FSEIS 

Section 5.7.2, extrapolation of the ground-water model performed for the Ross Project indicated 

a potential for overlap of ground-water drawdowns from wellfield development. The NRC staff 

agrees that minimizing overlap would be necessary for the Applicant to conduct effective 

uranium recovery as well as successful ground-water restoration. The statement noted by the 

commenter was deleted from FSEIS Section 5.1.2 and has been replaced with a paragraph that 

provides the additional information contained in this response. 

Comment: RP032-040

The commenter noted DSEIS Section 2.1.1.3 statement, “The Applicant proposes to use 

ground-water sweep selectively (for example, around the perimeter of the wellfield) rather than 

throughout the entire well module to minimize the consumptive use of ground water.” The 

commenter asserted that the statement was ambiguous as to what the environmental baseline 

accounting unit for aquifer restoration would be. The commenter asked that the NRC clarify if 

that unit would be a wellfield, an entire well module, or a group of several well-modules. 

Response: The accounting unit is that component which would be used by the Applicant and 

the NRC to establish and apply water-protection standards. The Applicant proposed that “mine 

unit” be the accounting unit and, as noted in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1, the Applicant proposed that 

two such units would be established within the proposed Ross Project: one unit north and one 

unit south of the Little Missouri River. The NRC allows licensees flexibility in achieving the 

ground-water standards by their implementing various aquifer-restoration techniques. However, 

for the NRC staff to approve an aquifer restoration as successful (i.e., to accept that the 

aquifer’s water quality meets all water-quality target concentrations), the entire unit must be fully 

restored. 

Note that the term "well module" was used in error in the DSEIS; the correct term is "wellfield 

module.” The FSEIS has been revised to correct this error throughout its text. The NRC’s 

approval of aquifer restoration would be done on a wellfield-by-wellfield basis or on a grouping 

of wellfields within a single unit. 

B.5.15.2.1 Exploratory Drillholes, Abandoned Wells, and Old Mines

Comments: RP007-001; RP010-001; RP010-002; RP011-002; RP013-002; RP014-002; 

RP015-002; RP016-001; RP016-002; RP018-001; RP019-002; RP020-004; RP025-001; 

RP028-001; RP029-002; RP030-002; RP034-002; RP039-013; RP040-004; RP041-010; 

RP042-002 

The above commenters all expressed concern regarding the thousands of abandoned drillholes 

from prior uranium-exploration activities in the Ross Project area. Many commenters stated that 

these drillholes should be plugged prior to operation of the Ross Project, so that ground-water 

contamination would not occur. 

Response: Condition No. 10.12 of the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License would

require the Applicant to attempt to locate all historical drillholes (i.e., boreholes) within the 

perimeter-well ring at each wellfield and properly plug (i.e., properly “abandon”) the drillholes 

prior to operation. In the unlikely event that Strata does not locate all the abandoned drillholes, 

monitoring wells would be installed to detect any excursions that might occur, including those 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-84

that might occur as a result of unplugged drillholes (see FSEIS Section 2.1.1.1) (NRC, 2014b). 

In response to this comment, FSEIS Section 4.5.1.2 has been revised to provide additional 

information regarding the requirements for plugging and abandoning historic drillholes in the 

Ross Project area.

Comment: RP024-031

The commenter questioned the statement in the DSEIS’s Executive Summary, “After uranium 

recovery operation is complete, unidentified, improperly abandoned wells (i.e., from previous 

subsurface explorations not associated with the Applicant or its activities) could continue to 

impact aquifers above the ore-zone and adjacent aquifers by proving hydrologic connections 

between aquifers.” The commenter noted that Condition No. 10.12 of the Draft Source and 

Byproduct Materials License requires the Applicant to locate and abandon all historical drillholes 

located within the perimeter-well ring for each wellfield (NRC, 2014b). In addition, the 

commenter pointed out that the Applicant committed in its license application to properly plug 

and abandon all drillholes and wells from its own activities (i.e., drillholes from ore zonedelineation efforts and geotechnical investigations, ground-water monitoring wells used for prelicensing site characterization, and injection and recovery wells from uranium-recovery 

activities) within the perimeter-well ring of each wellfield as well as to conduct pumping tests 

that would verify hydrologic isolation in each wellfield prior to each wellfield’s operation. 

Therefore, the commenter stated that the potential impacts from historical drillholes would be 

less under the Proposed Action than the No-Action Alternative (i.e., Alternative 2). 

Response: The commenter’s statement that the potential environmental impacts from historical 

drillholes would be less under the Proposed Action than the No-Action Alternative is not relevant 

to the SEIS text in the Executive Summary, as the information in the Summary is meant to be a 

succinct abridgment of the impacts of the Proposed Action and not an exhaustive comparison of 

the impacts of different Alternatives. The impacts of the historical drillholes under the Proposed 

Action and other alternatives are discussed in SEIS Sections 4.4.1.4, 4.4.2, and 4.4.3. Potential 

impacts to water quality by movement of lixiviant through improperly abandoned drillholes are 

discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.1. The commenter is correct, however, that Draft License 

Condition No. 10.12 does address historical drillholes. 

Draft License Condition No. 10.12 states that, “Prior to conducting tests for a hydrologic-test

data package, the [L]icensee will attempt to locate and abandon all historical drillholes located 

within the perimeter-well ring for the [w]ellfield. The [L]icensee will document such efforts to 

identify and properly abandon all drillholes in the hydrologic-test data package.” The NRC staff 

notes that the commenter indicated that the Applicant would be required to locate and abandon 

all historical drillholes located within the perimeter-well ring for each wellfield, whereas Draft 

License Condition No. 10.12 states that the Applicant “will attempt to locate and abandon all 

historical drillholes located within the perimeter-well ring for the [w]ellfield [emphasis added].” 

Therefore, when the NRC staff analyzed the potential impacts to ground-water resources during 

the decommissioning phase in SEIS Section 4.5.1.4, the NRC conservatively accounted for the 

potential for unidentified, improperly abandoned historical wells to be present. No changes 

were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. However, in 

preparing the FSEIS, the NRC staff has included more of the applicable, explicit references to 

the specific numbers of the Draft License Conditions, including Draft License Condition No. 

10.12. The NRC was finalizing the Draft License at the same time that the DSEIS was in the 

final publication-review stage, and it was not available for explicit citation as it was for the 

FSEIS.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-85

Comment: RP024-176

The commenter noted the following statement in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.3: “All injection, recovery, 

and monitoring wells and drillholes would be plugged and abandoned in place according to 

applicable regulations after ground-water restoration is approved by the NRC and WDEQ 

(WDEQ/LQD, 2005).” The commenter suggested that the NRC staff delete “and drillholes” from 

the statement, because under Condition No. 10.12 of the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials 

License, all drillholes associated with the Applicant's activities (i.e., drillholes from ore-body 

delineation efforts and geotechnical investigations), as well as all historical drillholes within the 

perimeter-well ring of each wellfield, would be plugged and abandoned prior to uraniumrecovery operation (NRC, 2014b). 

Response: The NRC staff has revised the FSEIS text in Section 2.1.1.3 by deleting the phrase, 

“and drillholes” from the noted statement.

Comment: RP032-060

The commenter asked how many previous drillholes are believed or known to exist on the Ross 

Project site and the area encompassed by future potential Lance District development. The 

commenter also asked how many of these holes have been located and plugged to-date (May 

9, 2013) by the Applicant.

Response: Previous drillholes known to exist within the Ross Project site are due to the Nubeth 

pilot project. The total number of Nubeth exploration holes known to exist within the Ross 

Project site is 1,483 (Strata, 2014c). As of May 9, 2013, 625 Nubeth exploratory drillholes have 

been located and 86 have been plugged by Strata (Strata, 2014c). The requested information 

for the future potential Lance District development is not currently available and is outside the 

scope of the license application. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information 

provided in this response.

 

B.5.15.2.2 Control of Operational Impacts, Excursion of ISR Solutions, and History

Comments: RP011-003; RP012-002; RP013-005; RP014-004; RP015-004; RP019-004; 

RP020-005; RP020-006; RP021-002; RP022-001; RP023-004; RP029-003; RP030-004; 

RP031-001; RP034-004; RP039-015; RP040-006; RP041-003; RP041-004; RP041-005; 

RP042-004 

The commenters expressed concern regarding the record of spills, excursions, surfaceimpoundment and pipeline leaks, spills, and lixiviant excursions at ISR facilities. In addition, 

they also expressed concern regarding the potential failure of aquifer restoration, noting that no 

other uranium-recovery project has yet to restore an aquifer to pre-operational water quality. 

Response: As discussed in GEIS Section 2.11.2, the NRC staff has reviewed the record of 

spills and leaks at operating ISR facilities as well as the requirements for an operator’s reporting 

incidents of releases and implementing corrective actions (NRC, 2009b). The analysis of 

impacts to soil, surface water, and shallow ground water from spills and leaks are provided in 

the SEIS Sections 4.4.1.2 and 4.5.1.2. As described in these sections of the SEIS, impacts to 

soil and water resources would be mitigated by the operational controls that would be in place to 

reduce the likelihood of releases, in addition to the requirements for reporting and taking 

corrective action. The NRC’s assessment determined that the impacts that could result from 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-86

leaks and spills from pipes and from the surface impoundments at the Ross Project would be 

SMALL. 

The NRC staff has compiled information on the history of excursions in GEIS Section 2.11.4. 

SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 describe the operating practices that the NRC requires of 

licensees that are designed to minimize the likelihood of impacts from excursions. The history 

of excursions at licensed ISR facilities was considered in the impact analysis in SEIS Section 

4.5.1.2. Please see the NRC’s responses to Comment Nos.032-030, 032-033, 032-034, 032-

037, 032-042, and 035-041 for additional information on required mitigation measures to avert 

excursions and correct them, if they were to occur. 

The NRC staff’s conclusions regarding potential environmental impacts to ground water 

following aquifer restoration for the proposed Ross Project are provided in SEIS Section 4.5.1.3. 

The NRC is aware of the potential for some water-quality constituents in the ground water within 

the ore zone of the exempted aquifer to be greater than the post-licensing, pre-operational 

concentrations (NRC, 2009d). However, the constituent concentrations within the uraniumrecovery area at the completion of aquifer restoration must meet the standards listed in 10 CFR 

Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). These standards are described in the NRC’s responses to 

Comment Nos. RP032-004, RP041-006, RP024-162, RP024-013, RP024-161, RP024-169, 

RP024-170, RP024-425, and RP032-020. As discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1, a licensee is 

required to have a UIC Class III Permit from the EPA or an EPA-authorized State agency before 

operating NRC-licensed uranium-recovery wellfields. This permit must exempt that portion of 

the aquifer that will undergo uranium recovery from the classification as a USDW; therefore, 

restoration of the exempted aquifer is performed for the purpose of protecting the ground water 

outside the exempted aquifer.

In response to the commenters concerns that no uranium-recovery project has yet to restore an 

aquifer to pre-operational water quality, the NRC staff examined ground-water data from the 

NRC-licensed ISR facilities for which NRC recently approved aquifer restoration (COGEMA’s 

Irigaray/Christensen Ranch facility, Power Resources Inc.’s Smith Ranch/Highland Uranium 

Project facility, and Crow Butte Resources’ Crow Butte facility). The NRC staff has approved 11 

wellfield restorations at these 3 facilities. Aquifer-restoration activities are also continuing at 

wellfields for which restoration has not yet been approved by the NRC. The aquifer-restoration 

data show that pre-operational concentrations are attainable for many parameters (i.e., 50 to 70 

percent of the 35 parameters commonly monitored), but the pre-operational concentrations

have not been attained 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, and vanadium) as well as radium-226 (NRC, 2009c). However, for 

the approved aquifer restorations, ground-water quality in the exempted aquifer met all 

regulatory standards for the respective State’s or EPA’s UIC program and had the water-quality 

values designated for its class of use prior to uranium-recovery operation. In addition, waterquality modeling shows that concentrations decrease over time due to natural attenuation and 

that drinking-water standards are met at the perimeter of the exempted aquifer. Therefore, the 

impacts to ground water outside of the exempted aquifer for each of the approved aquifer 

restorations do not pose a risk to human health and the environment. This information on NRCapproved aquifer restorations at the NRC-licensed uranium-recovery facilities has been added 

to FSEIS Section 4.5.1.3. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-87

Comment: RP032-064

The commenter referenced the following statement in the SEIS Section 2.1.1.2: “If a vertical 

excursion occurs, then the Applicant's injection of lixiviant would cease, and for any excursion, 

corrective action would be initiated.” The commenter questioned why the Conditions in the Draft 

Source and Byproduct Materials License for the Ross Project would require cessation of lixiviant 

injection only in the case of a "vertical excursion," rather than all excursions (NRC, 2014b). 

Response: As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.2, GEIS Section 4.11.4 documented that 

vertical excursions tend to be more difficult to recover than horizontal excursions. Historically, 

the source of a vertical excursion is something other than built-up pressure, which is generally 

the source of horizontal excursion and an attribute of the uranium-recovery process that can be 

readily adjusted (i.e., the pressure relieved). Pressure relief would reverse horizontal 

excursions. The probable cause for a vertical excursion is a failed casing in a nearby injection 

well. Therefore, immediate cessation of lixiviant injection is a prudent corrective action to 

prevent more from escaping. For a horizontal excursion, although cessation of injection is not a 

requirement, reducing the rate of injection might be performed in combination with increased 

pumping. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this 

response.

Comment: RP032-033

The commenter referred to the following statement in SEIS Section 2.1.1.2: “If an excursion 

cannot be recovered within 60 days of confirmation (measured by a concentration of more than 

20 percent of any excursion indicator), the Applicant would be required either to terminate 

lixiviant injection within the wellfield until aquifer cleanup is complete (for horizontal excursions) 

or to increase the surety for the ISR project by an amount sufficient to cover the full third-party 

cost of correcting and remediating the excursion.” 

Then the commenter asked several questions about excursion confirmation and subsequent 

actions: Is confirmation of an excursion the same as initially detecting it? What constitutes 

confirmation of an excursion for the purpose of triggering a licensee's 24-hour notice 

requirement to the NRC? How soon after confirmation of a vertical excursion would lixiviant 

injection be required to cease? How soon following the 60-day period for retrieving a horizontal 

excursion would the Applicant have to decide whether to terminate lixiviant injection within the 

wellfield or increase the surety?

In addition, the commenter noted that SEIS Figure 2.4 showed contiguous and overlapping 

wellfields and asked questions about exursions as applied to adjacent wellfields: If a horizontal 

excursion affects a neighboring wellfield that is under construction or an area designated for 

future wellfield development, would that count as an excursion? Can a hydrologic cone of 

depression designed to prevent lixiviant excursions encompass multiple, contiguous wellfields 

such that the area monitored for excursion becomes enlarged to cover multiple wellfields?

Response: Responses to the commenter’s questions about excursion confirmation and 

subsequent actions are provided in the NRC staff’s responses to Comment Nos. RP032-037 

and RP0032-042 as well as in FSEIS Sections 2.1.1.2 and 4.5.1.2. These responses describe 

the criteria for the Applicant’s monitoring for and detecting, confirming, and correcting 

excursions as set forth in Condition No. 11.5 of the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials 

License (NRC, 2014b). For purposes of this SEIS, confirmation is equivalent to verification of 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-88

the UCL exceedence for two of the three sampling events associated with the initial detection of 

exceedence. If the initial detection is confirmed (verified) by the second or third sampling event, 

then the well is placed on excursion status, which begins the time period for the license 

conditions’ reporting requirements.

As described in the NRC staff’s response to Comment No. RP032-064, after a well is placed on 

excursion status for a vertical excursion, by license condition, the Applicant will cease 

production immediately in the area surrounding that particular well. The production in that area 

will not be re-initiated until the Applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the NRC staff 

that the continued operations are safe. Injection of lixiviant would be stopped at 60 days if the 

horizontal excursion has not been corrected or the surety is not adjusted to account for any 

corrective actions that will be needed.

As established in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1, the Applicant proposed perimeter monitoring wells at a 

distance of approximately 120 m [400 ft] from the edge of each wellfield to allow the detection of 

potential horizontal excursions in advance of an excursion affecting the surrounding aquifer. A 

horizontal excursion is the movement of lixiviant outside of the perimeter-well ring of a wellfield 

regardless of the use or planned use of the adjoining area. For abutting wellfields that are 

sequentially operated, the perimeter-well ring for the initial wellfield would likely contain 

temporary wells in the area in which the two wellfields abut. After production begins in the 

abutting wellfield, excursion monitoring at the temporary monitoring wells in the initial wellfield 

perimeter well ring would be discontinued and a new perimeter-well ring would be established 

combining the remaining wells in the initial wellfield perimeter-well ring with new wells in the 

perimeter-well ring surrounding the abutting wellfield. If a temporary well for the initial wellfield 

goes on excursion status during its sole operation, that area would be incorporated into the 

combined wellfield when the abutting wellfield begins operation and thus the excursion status 

for that temporary well would no longer be applicable. The area between abutting wellfields 

would become part of the wellfield area and subject to restoration requirements. If an excursion 

were to occur in a temporary well or extend to an area of a subsequent wellfield prior to or 

during its construction, the water quality of that area would not be included in the post-licensing, 

pre-operational data for the subsequent wellfield. The Applicant would be required to obtain 

sufficient, representative samples from areas unaffected by any operations for any subsequent 

operations.

Finally, the commenter raises the point of potential mutual interference of abutting and/or 

nearby wellfields. Mutual interference occurs when the cone of depression from operations at 

one wellfield affects ground-water flow at another wellfield. Mutual interference would not result 

in a large excursion over multiple wellfields; however, it may result in the potential migration of 

ground water from an abutting wellfield, though that abutting wellfield has maintained its inward 

gradient. In those cases, the mutual interference may eventually result in an excursion at the 

abutting wellfield. This situation would be more likely to occur when one wellfield is in 

restoration and the bleed (and resulting cone of depression) is larger than the normal bleed at a 

nearby wellfield in operation or another phase of restoration. No matter what the cause for the 

excursion, the Applicant would be required to perform corrective actions for an excursion 

whether or not it occurred during operation or restoration, or, attributed to pumping at that 

particular wellfield or by mutual interference. In determining the appropriate corrective action, 

the Applicant would have to evaluate the root causes of the excursion.

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-89

B.5.15.2.3 Aquifer Exemptions and Post-Licensing, Pre-Operational Water Quality

Comment: RP024-143

The commenter recommended clarifying that while the aquifer exemption requires EPA 

approval as an amendment to Wyoming’s State plan under the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA), the UIC wells are approved solely by WDEQ/WQD as the State has “primacy” for such 

wells under the same statute.

Response: The NRC has revised the “What are underground injection control permits” text box 

in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1 to clarify the regulatory requirements for aquifer exemptions and UIC 

wells as a result of this comment.

Comments: RP032-003; RP041-012

The commenters referenced the following statement taken from the DSEIS Executive Summary: 

“The ore zone [OZ] is that portion of the aquifer that has been permanently exempted by the 

EPA from requirements as an underground source of drinking water under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act [SDWA].” One commenter noted that the geographic extent and boundaries of the 

OZ that has been permanently exempted is not given with any precision in the SEIS and that 

the NRC has not disclosed the status of the aquifer exemption. Another commenter asked that 

the SEIS disclose the status of the aquifer exemption process, fully describe the scope of the 

exemption (preferably through a map or diagram in the SEIS), and explain how the exemption 

does or does not affect how the NRC determines and assesses impacts related to water quality 

and quantity. The commenters asked that the FSEIS describe how the aquifer exemption will 

be expanded or if additional aquifer exemptions will be needed for future ISR projects in the 

Lance District. One commenter asked if the NRC is aware of any SDWA exemption proposed 

or granted that covers some or all of the potential satellite areas discussed in the SEIS. The 

commenter also asked for the basis of the Applicant's confidence in building a CPP facility that 

is four times the size of that needed for the Ross Project and twice the size of the facility 

analyzed in the GEIS.

Response: At the time the DSEIS was issued, the aquifer exemption had not been granted. 

The aquifer exemption process is now described in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.1. The Applicant 

submitted the Statement of Basis for exemption as a source of drinking water and 

reclassification of the portion of the aquifer proposed for uranium recovery as Appendix D12 to 

its application submitted to WDEQ/LQD for a Permit to Mine. On May 15, 2013, the EPA 

approved the exemption of the aquifer per the request by WDEQ in accordance with the 

Underground Injection Program and the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Wyoming 

and the EPA (EPA, 2013). Table 1.2 in the FSEIS has been updated to include the status of 

reclassification and exemption approval. The horizontal area of the exempted aquifer is defined 

as the area within the perimeter monitoring wells around each wellfield plus an approximately 

30-m [100-ft] buffer outside the monitoring wells (EPA, 2013). This area of the exempted 

aquifer is approximately the area of the wellfields that contains the allowance for future drilling 

as shown in SEIS Figure 2.4. The NRC would require an aquifer exemption for amendments to 

the license boundary to include satellite areas. The EPA specifies that the exemption approved 

on May 15, 2013, only applies to the Ross Project’s location and area described in the 

Applicant’s Application to WDEQ for its Permit to Mine. Because Condition No. 12.1 in the Draft 

Source and Byproduct Materials License for the proposed Ross Project would require clear 

delineation of the approved aquifer-exemption areas and boundaries for the Class III wells 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-90

before approving operations at any wellfield, the DSEIS considered an approved exemption in 

the impact analysis (NRC, 2014b). In addition to updating SEIS Table 1.2, NRC has revised the 

FSEIS, adding to Section 2.1.1.1 the new sentence “However, the maximum area of the 

wellfields would not exceed the total area of the exempted aquifer; this area has been approved 

as 500 feet from the outer edges of the wellfields indicated in SEIS Figure 2.4 (EPA, 2013)”. 

The NRC staff is not aware of any SDWA exemption proposed or granted that covers some or 

all of the potential satellite areas discussed in the SEIS. The NRC does not assess applicants’ 

confidence in the economic viability of their proposed projects.

Comment: RP032-018

The commenter requested a map depicting the name, location, and targeted aquifers of all preexisting wells and monitoring wells that contributed pre-licensing, site-characterization waterquality data. The commenter also requested information on the specific regulatory function of 

these pre-licensing, site-characterization measurements of water quality in the NRC's regulatory 

scheme to guard against aquifer degradation. The commenter asked if the pre-licensing water 

quality would be the standard by which lixiviant “excursions” outside the OZ and/or aquifer 

restoration to “pre-mining” conditions would be judged under the proposed license. 

Response: As described in NRC's Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction 

License Applications, NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003a), a license applicant, in support of its 

application, must provide pre-licensing, site-characterization information, including water-quality 

data from and in the vicinity of the site. NUREG–1569 provides an NRC-accepted list of 

constituents to be sampled and analyzed for determining water quality and a method for 

applicants to propose a list of constituents that may be more tailored to a particular location. 

NRC guidance dictates that, for an applicant to determine pre-licensing, site-characterization 

ground-water quality, at least four sets of samples, spaced sufficiently in time, should be 

collected and analyzed for each constituent. As documented in SEIS Sections 3.5.3 and 5.7.2, 

the pre-licensing, site-characterization water quality would be compared with water-quality 

standards and would be used to define pre-licensing, site-characterization conditions and to 

identify the cumulative impacts of uranium-recovery activities. In addition, the pre-licensing 

water-quality data are used to determine if the water quality varies seasonally. Also, in the 

event of a spill or MIT failure, the pre-licensing data can be used to determine when corrective 

actions are complete.

The pre-licensing, site-characterization water-quality data would not be used in an assessment 

of potential excursions. The water-quality data that would be used in that assessment would be 

collected from monitoring wells installed around, above, and below individual wellfields at a 

given site after licensing but before injection of lixiviant commences (i.e., post-licensing, preoperational data) (see the NRC’s responses to Comment Nos. RP032-019 and RP032-031). 

The Applicant has provided pre-licensing, site-characterization water-quality data, which are 

described in SEIS Section 3.5.3 and included in their entirety as Appendix C to the FSEIS. A 

map of the monitoring wells installed by the Applicant for pre-licensing, site-characterization 

water-quality data is presented in Section 3.5.3 as Figure 3.14. A map indicating the locations 

of the water-supply wells within a 3-km [2-mi] radius of the Ross Project, those that have been 

sampled for water quality, has been added to the FSEIS in Section 3.5.3 as Figure 3.16. The 

aquifers sampled by the wells are described in SEIS Section 3.5.3. The well designations (i.e., 

names or numbers) are noted in Figure 3.16 and described in the text of SEIS Section 3.5.3. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-91

The NRC staff has provided all of the pre-licensing, site-characterization water-quality data 

collected by the Applicant in Appendix C for the public’s ease in reading and understanding the 

FSEIS.

Comments: RP032-019; RP032-031 

The commenter referenced the following statement from DSEIS Section 2.1.1.1: 

Prior to commencing ISR operations, these wells would allow sampling and analysis of 

ground water and, in this SEIS, this type of monitoring is called “post-licensing, preoperational.” The resulting post-licensing, pre-operational data would be used to 

determine concentration-based levels that would permit identification of any excursions 

from the respective wellfields; these would be called the Ross Project’s upper control 

limits (UCLs). These post-licensing, pre-operational baseline values would be established 

for each separate wellfield (and they would be codified in the Applicant’s NRC license). 

The commenter asked:

1) What is the scientific and technical rationale for NRC’s using post-licensing, pre-operational 

data, rather than pre-licensing measurements, to establish baseline water-quality values to 

detect excursions? 

2) How is the potential problem avoided where each operational wellfield would degrade the 

post-licensing, pre-operational baseline water quality of subsequent downgradient monitoring 

wells targeting the same aquifers?

3) What assurance is there that the “post-licensing, pre-operational baseline” water quality is not 

impacted by the construction of other injection and recovery wells as well as by previous and 

ongoing exploratory drilling?

4) What information on the sequence for installing monitoring wells and establishing waterquality indicators that are used to detect excursions can the NRC provide?

In addition, the commenter inquired about additional methods used to detect excursions. The 

commenter asked additional questions related to ground-water monitoring required to detect an 

excursion by referencing the information provided in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1, “Water-quality 

indicators in the ground water from monitoring wells that would be established after wellfield 

installation would also be used to detect whether an excursion has occurred.” The commenter 

then queried:

5) Would the water-quality indicators, or the monitoring wells, or both, be established after 

wellfield installation?

6) Why would the monitoring wells be established after wellfield installation since monitoring 

wells are part of wellfield installation?

7) What prevents the prior drilling, construction, and pressure testing of previously constructed 

injection and recovery wells from impacting the baseline water-quality indicators?

8) What other methods would be used to detect an excursion?
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-92

The commenter also referred to the statement in SEIS Section 2.1.1.2, “The monitoring of water 

levels that would be performed would serve to avert a potential excursion.” Then the commenter 

opined that water-level measurements would be used to avert a potential excursion as opposed 

to detecting one that has already occurred.

Response: 1, 4, 5, 6) SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1 and 4.4.1.2 describe the requirements for the 

post-licensing, pre-operational installation of monitoring wells and water-quality data collection. 

The rationale for using post-licensing, pre-operational water-quality data to calculate UCLs for 

the detection of excursions is that the excursion monitoring program is part of the NRC-required 

ground-water detection monitoring program. The purpose of this detection monitoring program 

is to identify ground water impacted by uranium recovery if it is released to the environment 

outside the wellfields. To achieve this objective, a robust evaluation of the post-licensing, preoperational data is required in order to set appropriate threshold or action levels (i.e., UCLs). In 

the event that the UCLs are exceeded, a licensee must initiate actions to minimize and/or 

correct any impacts due to an excursion. 

The robust evaluations require detailed site-specific characterization of the hydrogeology and 

geochemistry of a specific wellfield. Once a licensee identifies an area that meets its production 

criteria, the production area (wellfield) properties are characterized and documented in the 

wellfield data package. In addition to geochemistry, the wellfield data package also 

demonstrates that the monitoring wells around, above and below the wellfields are properly 

located and establish the point of compliance. The location of monitoring wells and the 

collection of water-quality data must be specific to each individual wellfield and the boundaries 

of a wellfield and the configuration of injection and recovery wells would only be determined by 

the Applicant after it receives its Source and Byproduct Materials License from NRC. 

A significant number of monitoring wells and ground-water samples are required for calculation 

of the UCLs compared to the data required for the pre-licensing site characterization. The 

interested reader is directed to a compilation of the post-licensing, pre-operational data for three 

existing NRC-licensed ISR facilities at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/uranium/licensedfacilities/crow-butte/isr-wellfield-ground-water-quality-data.html; http://www.nrc.gov/infofinder/materials/uranium/licensed-facilities/willow-creek/isr-wellfield-ground-water-qualitydata.html; or http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/uranium/licensed-facilities/smith-ranch/isrwellfield-ground-water-quality-data.html. Also see the response to Comment RP032-020 which 

discusses the process required by the NRC of the Applicant to establish post-licensing, preoperational water quality; how these water-quality data would be used to establish UCLs; how 

the UCLs and ground-water monitoring would be used for the detection of excursions; and how 

the post-licensing process would be assessed in the NEPA review.

The water-quality indicators are proposed by the Applicant in its license application and 

approved by the NRC (Strata, 2011a; NRC, 2014b). Typical excursion indicators are chloride, 

specific conductance, and total alkalinity (NRC, 2009a). These parameters are generally 

appropriate as indicator parameters because they are more highly concentrated in lixiviants 

than in natural ground waters. As indicated by Draft License Condition No. 10.13, a hydrologictest data package would be submitted by the Applicant for the NRC’s approval. License 

Condition No. 10.13 would also require that the hydrologic-test data package document that all 

perimeter monitoring wells are screened in the appropriate geological stratum in order to 

provide timely detection of an excursion. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-93

2) The concern expressed by the commenter that operational wellfields could potentially 

degrade the post-licensing, pre-operational water quality of subsequent downgradient 

monitoring wells targeting the same aquifers is addressed by the requirements contained in the 

Draft License. Excursions, if present outside a wellfield, would be corrected by the Applicant’s 

pumping and recovering the impacted ground water. Therefore, impacted ground water would 

not generally migrate to adjacent wellfields or into an aquifer that has not been developed as a 

wellfield. In the unlikely event of an excursion impacting an adjacent wellfield that is currently 

being developed, the area of the aquifer that is impacted by the excursion would be avoided for 

the purposes of establishing the monitoring wells and collecting water-quality data for the UCLs. 

3 and 7) There would be minimal potential for water quality in monitoring wells to be impacted 

by the Applicant’s installation of injection and recovery wells or by its delineation wells. This is 

because no chemicals are used during the drilling of these wells that would impact the water 

quality, and the disturbance as a result of installation of drillholes, both operational and 

delineation, is localized.

8) In addition to regular sampling of the monitoring wells and the corresponding analysis of the 

samples for excursion indicators, water levels in the monitoring wells would be measured at 

each sampling event. (See also responses to Comment Nos. RP024-443, RP032-036, RP032-

037, RP032-041, and RP032-042 for information related to ground-water and water-level 

monitoring.) An increasing water level in a perimeter monitoring well has been shown to be an 

indication of a local flow imbalance within a wellfield, which could result in an excursion. An 

increasing water level in an overlying or underlying monitor well could be caused by the 

migration of lixiviant from the ore zone or by failure of the casing in an injection well. Due to the 

confining pressure of the ore-zone aquifer, pressure propagates quickly through the aquifer and 

water levels would be affected in the monitoring wells days before impacts to water quality 

would be detected (Strata, 2011b). As discussed in response Comment No. RP032-030, the 

Applicant’s measuring of the water levels in the monitoring wells would indicate hydrologic 

imbalances in the wellfields and could trigger corrective actions necessary to adjust the injection 

and recovery flow rates or a shutdown of individual injection wells before the excursion would be 

detected by water-quality monitoring. If a potential excursion were to be discerned by the 

Applicant’s obtaining water-level measurements, this would allow the ground water impacted by 

lixiviant to be “recovered” (i.e., withdrawn and treated) before it reaches the perimeter 

monitoring wells; thus, this type of monitoring would serve as early detection of an excursion. 

The NRC staff has revised the FSEIS by providing clarification of the requirements and the 

sequence of monitoring-well installation, post-licensing, pre-operational water quality collection, 

and development of excursion-indicator levels as well as adding information on Draft License 

Condition Nos. 10.13 and 11.3 to SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1, 2.1.1.2, 4.5.1.2, and 6.3.2. See also 

the NRC’s response to 4) of Comment No. RP032-030 regarding a change made in FSEIS 

Section 2.1.1.2 to a related statement.

Comment: RP032-020

The commenter submitted a multiple-part comment requesting information and asking questions 

about the process required by the NRC of the Applicant to establish baseline water-quality 

characterization after the Source and Byproduct Materials License is issued; how the baseline 

water-quality data would be used to establish UCLs; how the UCLs and ground-water 

monitoring would be used for the detection of excursions; and how the post-licensing process 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-94

would be assessed in the NEPA review. The individual comments grouped under Comment No. 

RP032-020 are summarized below.

1) The commenter referenced the following sentence in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.1: “Later, prior to 

actual uranium-recovery wellfield operation, but after the initial Source and Byproduct Materials 

License is issued for wellfield construction, the ground water in each wellfield would be analyzed 

for the post-licensing, pre-operational baseline concentrations of constituents specified by the 

NRC (NRC, 2003a).” The commenter asked if the “post-licensing, pre-operational baseline 

concentrations of constituents” referenced in the sentence above are the same as the UCLs 

subsequently described in the SEIS and, if not, why and how they differ? In addition, the 

commenter asked when and how the NRC would employ these “post-licensing, pre-operational 

baseline concentrations” to measure and mitigate adverse impacts on ground water?

2) The commenter requested that the SEIS provide a map indicating the sequence, timing, and 

sampling locations for the pre-operational water-quality baseline samples for each wellfield 

proposed or planned for development in the Ross Project as well the potential development in 

the Lance District.

3) The commenter noted that the pre-licensing, site-characterization concentrations provided in 

the DSEIS as Table 3.7 were frequently given as a range rather than a single value. The 

commenter asked how the data in SEIS Table 3.7 would be used to establish UCLs and to 

support ground-water monitoring. In addition, the commenter asked how baseline monitoring 

would be used to control excursions and to establish TRVs for aquifer restoration, and how the 

NRC would evaluate and compare the environmental-protection effectiveness of prospective 

UCLs and “post-licensing, pre-operational baseline concentrations” that have not yet been 

established.

4) The commenter requested additional information on the NRC’s rationale for its establishing 

UCLs after wellfield licensing and construction, rather than before.

5) The commenter noted that the use of TRVs in the Applicant’s ER (i.e., Strata, 2011a) and, 

although this term did not appear to be used in the SEIS, the commenter asked how TRVs 

relate to the terminology used in the SEIS and how the concept of a TRV would be used in the 

Ross Project. In addition, the commenter asked if a comparative analysis was performed for the 

SEIS on alternative TRVs and how NRC’s regulations and policies are incorporated into the 

analysis of reasonable alternatives.

6) The commenter requested clarification of the terms, "wellfield," "wellfield area," and "wellfield 

module" that are used in the SEIS. (See also NRC’s response to Comment No. RP032-040, 

which defines and clarifies the term, “wellfield module.”) In addition, the commenter asked how 

many wellfields were shown in Figure 2.4 of the SEIS, and if the shaded areas marked 

"Wellfield Perimeter Accounting for Future Drilling" in Figure 2.4 were used in the impact 

analyses of the Proposed Action and cumulative-impact analyses of the SEIS.

Response: 

1) The phrase, “post-licensing, pre-operational baseline concentrations of constituents” in the 

statement referenced by the commenter includes the water-quality data used to calculate the 

UCLs subsequently described in Section 2.1.1 of the FSEIS and in Appendix B1. The NRC’s 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-95

requirements and process employed to use the post-licensing, pre-operational concentrations to 

control impacts on ground water is described in the following paragraphs. 

In accordance with the GEIS (NRC, 2009b), the Applicant’s TR (Strata, 2011b), and Condition 

No. 11.3 in the Draft License for the Ross Project, monitoring wells would be required around 

the perimeter of each wellfield and in the overlying and underlying aquifers. As described in 

SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2, these monitoring wells would be sampled, and the results of 

the sample analyses (as concentrations of constituents specified by the NRC) would be used by 

the NRC to establish the post-licensing, pre-operational ground-water quality. 

Indicator parameters were selected from the constituents for which analyses have been and 

would be performed. SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 describe the process used by the NRC 

for development of UCLs for each indicator parameter. UCLs would be calculated from the 

post-licensing, pre-operational monitoring of the perimeter wells as well as the wells tapping the 

aquifers above and below the ore-zone aquifer. As indicated in Draft License Condition No. 

11.4, the default parameters for wells in the OZ and the overlying aquifer are chloride, 

conductivity, and total alkalinity. The default excursion parameters for wells in the underlying 

aquifer are sulfate, conductivity, and total alkalinity. These parameters are not subject to 

geochemical retardation in aquifers and would be the first parameters whose concentrations 

would increase due to an excursion of lixiviant. UCL values are calculated as the mean 

concentrations of the appropriate set of wells plus five standard deviations to account for spatial 

variability. 

Condition No. 11.5 of the Draft License discusses the requirements for the excursion-monitoring 

program in which samples would be regularly collected from the monitoring wells and analyzed 

for the indicator parameters. Measured concentrations in the monitoring wells that exceed the 

UCLs of the indictor parameters could indicate an excursion, which would then trigger additional 

monitoring, sampling, and analysis. The UCLs would be compared to monitoring data produced 

twice monthly. If the concentrations of any two excursion-indicator parameters were to exceed 

their respective UCL or any one excursion parameter was to exceed its UCL by 20 percent or 

greater, then the excursion criterion is exceeded and verification sampling would be done within 

48 hours. Upon confirmation of an excursion, the Applicant would notify the NRC, implement 

corrective action, and increase monitoring frequency. The NRC staff has revised FSEIS 

Sections 2.1.1.1 and 4.5.1.2 by including text from Draft License Condition No. 11.5 as a result 

of this comment.

2) The sequence of activities that establish post-licensing, pre-operational water quality is 

described in paragraph 1) of this response. A map of the proposed monitoring wells would be 

submitted to the NRC as part of the hydrologic-test data package required in advance of 

operation, and therefore is not yet available. Information on pre-operational water quality within 

the potential satellite areas in the Lance District is also not available. The NRC staff’s 

responses to Comment Nos. RP032-002, RP032-067, and RP041-009 describe the 

environmental-review process that the NRC would follow if the Applicant were to submit a 

license-amendment application to the NRC in order to expand its operation into any of the 

satellite areas. 

3) The ground-water-quality data provided in DSEIS Table 3.7 were expressed as a range of 

values because many of the measurements were less than the respective laboratory’s limits of 

detection, and values less than a detection limit are not amenable to calculating average values. 

However, additional data from Table 3.7 have been included in Table 3.6 in the FSEIS, which 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-96

has also been revised to include the minimum and maximum values as well as the average 

values where an average value is appropriate. 

The pre-licensing, site-characterization concentrations provided in the SEIS are not used to 

develop UCLs or ground-water protection standards for the site-specific ground-water detection 

monitoring program that is required for each wellfield pursuant to 10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A, 

Criterion 7A. The pre-licensing, site-characterization concentrations provided in the SEIS are 

used to evaluate whether or not the setting is amenable to ISR operations including whether or 

not seasonal fluctuations could affect subsequent sampling or the characterization of the 

geochemistry (e.g., whether or not the typical excursion parameters used at ISR facilities would 

be suitable for this setting, and what are cleanup targets should a spill or release occur in the 

future). 

Sampling to establish excursion UCLs and ground-water protection standards (TRVs) would be 

conducted as described in SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1, 2.1.1.3, and 4.5.1.2; and in response to 

Comment Nos. RP032-019, RP032-031 RP032-037; RP032-042. The UCLs and ground-water 

protection standards would be developed using strict statistical analysis for a site-specific 

ground-water detection monitoring program for each production area (i.e., wellfield or mine unit 

area) surrounded by a perimeter-well ring. In establishing these standards, the site-specific 

programs would also establish the point of compliance for which the standards apply. Please 

see responses to Comments RP024-013; RP024-161; RP024-169; RP024-170; RP024-425 for 

the wells assigned as the point of compliance.

The chemical analysis, well completion details, wellfield geometry, hydrogeologic evaluation and 

ground-water protection standards for operations (i.e., UCLs) and restoration would be included 

in a hydrologic-test data package completed prior to operations at a wellfield. Condition No. 

10.13 of the Draft License would require that each hydrologic-test data package be submitted to 

the NRC before conducting principal activities in a new wellfield. The data package for the first

wellfield would require verification by NRC staff to ensure the Applicant provides an analysis 

consistent with its commitments in the license application, license conditions and regulations. . 

The NRC staff would utilize the Applicant’s wellfield data package in the evaluation to determine 

whether the Applicant’s restoration of a wellfield after the uranium recovery operations are 

complete and meet the ground-water protection standards; and thus are protective of human 

health and the environment as an unrestricted use area. As noted in the SEIS, in responses to 

other comments in this Appendix, and in Appendix B1, the ground-water protection standards 

permit the use of an ACL established by the Commission. In the case of an ACL, the Applicant 

(then a “Licensee”) would be required to submit a license-amendment request to the NRC to 

approve and thus establish ACLs for those constituents that do not meet the standards in 10 

CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criteria 5B(5)(a) and (b).

A license-amendment request for an ACL would be evaluated by the NRC staff based upon the 

standards in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(6). In accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A, Criterion 5B(6), the NRC staff would only consider requests for an ACL(s) after a 

licensee has demonstrated that restoring the constituent at issue to post-licensing, preoperational or maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) (i.e., maximum contaminant concentrations) 

is not practical for a specific site. To determine whether a licensee has undertaken “reasonable 

restoration efforts,” the NRC staff would consider the aquifer-restoration methods applied and 

their effectiveness in achieving aquifer-restoration goals at a specific site. If the NRC concludes 

reasonable efforts were not applied, the licensee would be required to continue restoration 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-97

efforts until reasonable efforts have been demonstrated before a request for an ACL could be 

submitted.

The NRC staff has revised FSEIS Sections 2.1.1.1, 2.1.1.2, 2.1.1.3, 4.5.1.2, and 4.5.1.3, to 

provide greater clarification on the application of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). 

In addition, the NRC has attached Appendix B1, which discusses the requirements for ACLs 

established by 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5), to this Appendix B. Finally, ACL 

application-review procedures for the NRC staff are described in the NRC’s “Staff Technical 

Position, Alternative Limits for Title II Uranium Mills (NRC, 1996b) and NUREG–1724 (NRC, 

2000).

4) The responses to the previous portions of this Comment No. RP032-020 provide information 

on the process and the logical sequence of activities related to ground-water protection. The 

commenter's request to provide additional information on the rationale for previously established 

NRC policies is beyond the scope of this Ross Project SEIS. 

5) “TRV” is an industry term for ground-water protection standards that is not used by the NRC. 

Rather, ground-water protection standards for each wellfield are established per 10 CFR Part 

40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5)(a) as described in the response to 4).

The NRC staff did not conduct a comparative analysis of alternative ways of meeting the 

ground-water protection standards allowed under 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5), 

which establishes the ground-water protection standards required for aquifer restoration and 

allows three options for meeting these standards. Under Criterion 5B(5), the concentration of a 

hazardous constituent must not exceed one of three standards: a) the Commission-approved 

background [in this SEIS, “post-licensing, pre-operational”] concentration of that constituent in 

the ground water; b) the respective value given in the table in paragraph 5C of Criterion 5B(5) if 

the constituent is listed in the table and if the background [in this SEIS, “post-licensing, preoperational”] level of the constituent is below the value listed; or c) an ACL established by the 

Commission. Consideration of the technical feasibility and environmental benefits and costs of 

the optional ground-water protection standards of Criterion 5B(5) would be given at the time the 

NRC reviews a RAP submitted by a licensee. As reported in the NRC staff’s response above to 

this Comment No. RP032-020, 4), the NRC has revised the FSEIS by attaching Appendix B1 to 

this Appendix B and by integrating additional information into FSEIS Sections 2.1.1.3 and 

4.5.1.3 where the NRC’s process for applying 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criteria 5B(5) is 

discussed.

6) The terms “wellfield” and “wellfield area” are synonymous. As described in FSEIS Section 

2.1.1, a “wellfield module” is a group of wells within a wellfield connected with piping to a central 

collection facility called a “module building” or a “header house.” A wellfield would contain 

multiple modules. This comment identified an error in the DSEIS that has been corrected. In 

the Executive Summary and in Section 2.1.1.1, where this phase, “The Ross Project would host 

15 – 25 wellfield areas” occurs, the text has been corrected to read, “Ross Project would host 

15 – 25 wellfield modules.” (See NRC’s response to Comment No. RP032-040 as well for a 

discussion of wellfield modules and accounting units.)

Comments: RP032-036; RP032-041 

The commenter asked to be directed to the location in the SEIS that demonstrates the following 

or that an analysis be provided in the FSEIS that demonstrates the following:
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-98

1) The post-licensing, pre-operational constituent concentrations in ground water will fairly 

represent the baseline water quality of the target aquifer before wellfield development activities 

commence under the proposed Ross Project and the potential Lance District satellites; 

2) Aquifer restoration would restore the small segment of the mined aquifer within each wellfield 

to the NRC's post-licensing, pre-operational determination of baseline conditions, much less any 

scientifically credible representation of pre-ISR water quality; 

3) The NRC’s license required standards for aquifer restoration;

4) The integrated summation of the hundreds of individually variable wellfield target restoration 

values would actually restore the overall pre-mining water quality over the entire extent of the 

aquifer that has been mined and adversely affected by mining; 

5) There is reason to conclude from the record of previous NRC-regulated mining operations 

that the target restoration values, established post-licensing as wellfield expansion proceeds, 

will be achieved in practice prior to wellfield abandonment, and will ensure that the NRC 

protects public health and safety;

6) That Maximum Concentration Limits or ACLs will ensure adequate protection of the public 

health and safety and avoid, minimize, or mitigate other adverse environmental impacts.

Response: ISR facilities operate by first extracting uranium from specific areas called 

wellfields. After uranium recovery has ended, the ground water in the wellfield contains 

constituents that were mobilized by the lixiviant. Licensees shall commence aquifer restoration 

in each wellfield soon after the uranium recovery operations end (NRC, 2009b). Aquifer 

restoration criteria for the site-specific constituents are determined either for each individual well 

or as a wellfield average.

NRC licensees are required to return water-quality parameters to the standards in 10 CFR Part 

40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). As stated in the regulations: “5B(5)—At the point of 

compliance, the concentration of a hazardous constituent must not exceed—(a) The 

Commission approved background [in this SEIS, “post-licensing, pre-operational”] concentration 

of that constituent in the ground water; (b) The respective value given in the table in paragraph 

5C if the constituent is listed in the table and if the background [in this SEIS, “post-licensing, 

pre-operational”] level of the constituent is below the value listed; or (c) An alternative 

concentration limit established by the Commission.” It is outside the scope of this SEIS to 

evaluate the NRC’s regulations regarding aquifer restoration and to provide an analysis to 

demonstrate that the regulations are sound.

1) The post-licensing, pre-operational constituent concentrations discussed in this SEIS are 

equivalent to the Commission-approved “background concentrations of hazardous constituents” 

in ground water defined by 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). Condition No. 11.3 of 

the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License would require the establishment of postlicensing, pre-operational ground-water quality (NRC, 2014b): 

11.3 Establishment of Background Water Quality. Prior to injection of lixiviant in a 

wellfield, the licensee shall establish background [in this SEIS, “post-licensing, preoperational”] groundwater quality data for the ore zone, overlying and underlying 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-99

aquifers. The background [in this SEIS, “post-licensing, pre-operational”] water quality 

sampling shall provide representative baseline [in this SEIS, “post-licensing, preoperational”] data and establish groundwater protection standards and excursion 

monitoring upper control limits, as described in Section 5.7.8 of the approved license 

application and this license condition.

The data for each mine unit shall consist, at a minimum, of the following sampling 

analyses: 

A) Ore Zone. To establish a Commission-approved background [in this SEIS, “postlicensing, pre-operational”] concentration pursuant to Criterion 5B(5)(a) of 10 CFR Part 

40 Appendix A, samples shall be collected from production and injection wells at a 

minimum density of one production or injection well per two acres of wellfield production 

area, or, if a wellfield production area is sufficiently isolated from the other wellfield 

production areas in the Wellfield, a minimum of two wells. Wells selected for the baseline 

[in this SEIS, “post-licensing, pre-operational”] data will be the same ones used to 

measure restoration success and stabilization.

B) Perimeter Monitoring Wells. Samples shall be collected from all perimeter monitoring 

wells that will be used for the excursion monitoring program. The perimeter wells will be 

installed for a wellfield in accordance with information presented in Section 3.1.6 of the 

approved license application. In no case will the perimeter monitoring wells be installed 

outside of the exempted aquifer as defined by the Class III UIC permit issued by the 

WDEQ.

C) Overlying and Underlying Aquifers. Samples shall be collected from all monitoring 

wells in the first overlying and first underlying aquifer at a minimum density of one well 

per 4 acres of wellfield.

D) Sampling and Analyses. Four samples shall be collected from each well to establish 

background [in this SEIS, “post-licensing, pre-operational”] levels. The sampling 

events shall be at least 14 days apart. The samples shall be analyzed for parameters 

listed in Table 5.7-2 of the approved license application. The third and fourth sample 

events can be analyzed for a reduced list of parameters; the parameters that can be 

deleted from analysis are those below the minimum analytical detection limits (MDL) 

during the first and second sampling evens provided the MDLs meet the data quality 

objectives for the sampling.

E) Background Water Quality. For the perimeter ring monitoring wells (Section B) and 

monitoring wells in the overlying and underlying aquifers (Section C), the background [in 

this SEIS, “post-licensing, pre-operational”] levels shall be the mean values on a 

parameter-by-parameter, well-by-well, wellfield or sub-set of the wellfield basis, as 

deemed appropriate, in accordance with Section 5.7.8.1 of the approved license 

application. The UCLs for monitoring wells in the perimeter ring and overlying and 

underlying aquifers are established be License Condition [No.] 11.4. For the ore zone 

monitoring wells, the background [in this SEIS, “post-licensing, pre-operational”]

levels shall be established on a parameter-by-parameter basis using either the wellfield, 

sub-set of the wellfield or well-specific mean value. The established background [in this 

SEIS, “post-licensing, pre-operational”] value for each parameter shall be based upon 

the mean value plus a statistically valid factor to account for spatial variability in the data, 

in accordance with Section 6.1.1.1 of the approved license application.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-100

2) through 6) Condition No. 10.6 of the Draft License addresses the NRC’s required standards 

for ground-water restoration. 

10.6 Groundwater Restoration. The licensee shall conduct groundwater restoration 

activities in accordance with Section 6.1.5 of the approved license application. 

Permanent cessation of lixiviant injection in a production area would signify the licensee’s 

intent to shift from the principal activity of uranium recovery to the initiation of 

groundwater restoration and decommissioning for any particular production area. If the 

licensee determines that these activities are expected to exceed 24 months for any 

particular production area, then the licensee shall submit an alternate schedule request 

that meets the requirements of 10 CFR 40.42.

Restoration Standards. Hazardous constituents in the groundwater shall be restored to 

the numerical groundwater protection standards as required by 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). In submitting any license amendment application requesting 

review and approval of proposed alternate concentration limits (ACLs) pursuant to 

Criterion 5B(6), the licensee must also show that it has first made practicable effort to 

restore the specified hazardous constituents to the background [in this SEIS, “postlicensing, pre-operational”] or maximum contaminant levels (whichever is greater).

Restoration Stability Monitoring. The licensee shall conduct sampling of the parameters 

included in the baseline [in this SEIS, “post-licensing, pre-operational”] sampling under 

LC 11.3 during the restoration stability period in accordance with Section 6.1.2.5 of the 

approved application. The sampling consists of eight samples during a 12 month period. 

The sampling shall include the specified production zone aquifer wells used to define the 

baseline [in this SEIS, “post-licensing, pre-operational”] levels. The Applicant shall 

continue the stability monitoring until the data show, for all parameters monitored, no 

statistically significant increasing trend, which would lead to an exceedance of the 

relevant standard in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5).

Further guidance for the NRC’s evaluation of ACLs for uranium-recovery facilities is currently 

being developed for a revision of NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003a). Existing guidance for the NRC’s 

review of ACLs for conventional mills can be found in NUREG–1620, Standard Review Plan for

the Review of a Reclamation Plan for Mill Tailings Sites Under Title II of UMTRCA (NRC, 2003c). 

Further explanation of the ground-water protection standards found at 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5) were added to FSEIS Sections 2.1.1.1 and 4.5.1.3. (See also the 

NRC staff’s response to Comment No. RP032-020 for additional information on ground-water 

protection standards.) In addition, Appendix B1 has been attached to this Appendix to provide 

further information on ACLs.

Comment: RP032-066

The commenter referenced the following statement in SEIS Section 2.4, “Regarding ground 

water, the portion of the aquifer(s) designated for uranium recovery must be exempted as 

underground sources of drinking water before ISR operations begin.” The commenter then 

asked several questions:

1) Why is this exemption necessary if, as claimed in the same paragraph, “Strata would also be 

required to restore ground-water parameters affected by the ISR operations to levels that are 

protective of human health and safety?” In other words, if Strata must restore ground-water 

parameters affected by ISR operations to levels that are “protective of human health and 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-101

safety,” why is it necessary to exempt the aquifer in the future from serving as a potential source 

of drinking water? 

2) What are the levels for key constituents of the “restored” mined-out aquifer that the NRC 

deems “protective of human health and safety?” If these levels are truly protective of human 

health and safety, why can't the restored aquifer serve as a source of drinking water? If it can't 

serve this function, is it reasonable or legitimate to say that the aquifer has been "restored" to a 

level that is “protective of human health and safety,” including future uses that humans depend 

on, such as watering livestock and crop irrigation? 

3) The only way to decipher and make sense of this apparent contradiction, which arises from 

purposefully vague writing, is to interpret the phrase “restore ground-water parameters affected 

by ISR operations” as excluding the mined aquifer itself. Then the problematic phrase reduces 

to, "Strata will protect human health and safety as it relates to current and future uses of 

aquifers beyond the ore zone.” The commenter asked NRC to clarify what the referenced 

statement in Section 2.4 is intended to convey.

Response: The statement subject to the commenter’s questions is found in DSEIS Section 2.4, 

Preliminary Recommendation, which summarized with a bulleted and numbered list the key 

points of the impact analysis described throughout DSEIS Section 4. Please see the NRC’s 

responses to Comment Nos. RP024-013; RP024-161; RP024-169; RP024-170 for a discussion 

of the applicability of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5) to ground-water restoration 

and wellfield decommissioning. 

As discussed in Section 2.1.1.1 of the FSEIS, by EPA regulations, an exemption from protection 

as an Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW) in the SDWA is required prior to any 

injection for uranium recovery activities (see 40 CFR Part 146). The applicable criteria to permit 

the ore zone to be an exempted aquifer is a demonstration that it cannot now and will not in the 

future serve as a source of drinking water because of the mineralization. EPA’s requirement for 

an exempted aquifer for ISR operations is monitoring to ensure no fluid migration to the 

surrounding USDW’s. 

The WDEQ UIC program and its regulations are slightly more stringent than EPA’s. Wyoming 

requires operators to return the ore-zone water quality to the pre-mining class of use, which is 

generally livestock water supply or industrial uses. 

The water-quality levels for key constituents in the aquifer of the restored wellfields would be 

established by the ground-water protection standard as specified in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix 

A, Criterion 5B(5). To ensure protection of the ground water outside the exempted aquifer, the 

NRC requires that once uranium recovery is complete, ground-water quality at the point of 

compliance must not exceed the ground-water protection standard as specified in 10 CFR Part 

40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5) which would ensure protective of human health and safety 

beyond the exempted aquifer. Historically, the NRC staff has assigned the point of compliance 

at the boundaries of the EPA-defined exempted aquifer. During operation, the point of 

compliance wells are those monitoring wells in the excursion-monitoring program; during site 

reclamation and restoration, until complete closure, the compliance wells are principally the 

wellfields’ post-licensing, pre-operational monitoring wells located within the wellfields, although 

monitoring for compliance continues at the wells in the excursion-monitoring program. A 

detailed explanation of the constituents and their protective levels established by Appendix A, 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-102

Criterion 5B(5) is included in the response to Comment Nos. RP024-013, RP024-161, RP024-

169, and RP024-170. 

Additional text explaining the ground-water protection standards and how they are implemented 

has been added to FSEIS Sections 2.1.1.1, 2.1.1.3, 4.5.1.2, 4.5.1.3, and 5.4.1.3. Appendix B-1 

was also added to this FSEIS. This Appendix describes how ACLs are developed per the 

ground-water protection standards and how these standards ensure public health and safety.

DSEIS Section 2.4 provided the NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation regarding the 

Proposed Action, based on the findings in the DSEIS, and provided a detailed summary of the 

DSEIS findings. However, it should be noted that, Section 2.4 of the FSEIS provides the NRC 

staff’s final recommendation regarding the Proposed Action but does not include the detailed 

summary of the SEIS findings, which were the subject of this comment.

B.5.15.2.4 Impact Analysis for Ground-Water Use

Comment: RP024-216

The commenter requested clarification on the ground-water impacts of a “permanent mine pit,” 

given that the WDEQ would not allow an open-pit mined area to remain following site 

reclamation and restoration.

Response: Although not an accepted practice, WDEQ Rules and Regulations at Chapter 3,

“Noncoal Environmental Protection Performance Standards” do not specifically express a 

prohibition of an operator’s leaving mine pits at a closed site (WDEQ/LQD, 2006). 

Nevertheless, the NRC staff has revised the text in FSEIS Section 2.2.1 to indicate that there 

would be the potential for impacts from mine pits remaining from conventional mining, if such 

open pits were allowed.

Comment: RP040-008

The commenter expressed concerns about the consumptive use of ground water and requested 

that climate change be included in the impact analysis for ground-water use.

Response: The NRC staff did not explicitly include climate change in the consumptive-use 

analysis because the impacts of climate change on recharge to the aquifer are not known. 

Reduced precipitation that could result from climate change would not necessarily result in less 

recharge to the aquifer. Water levels currently measured in the Lance and Fox Hills aquifers do 

not exhibit seasonal variation or sensitivity to frequency and intensity changes to precipitation 

events. The Applicant's ground-water model determined that infiltration from the land surface to 

the aquifer is only approximately 0.2 – 0.56 cm/yr [0.07 – 0.22 in/yr]. Most of that precipitation is

lost to runoff, evaporation, and transpiration. The amount of precipitation available for recharge 

to the aquifer is primarily controlled by soil type and runoff conditions, and it could be little 

affected by the variation in the amount of precipitation. 

In response to Comment No. RP035-006, the NRC staff has added quantitative information on 

the estimated rates of consumptive use of ground water to FSEIS Section 4.5.1. During the 

period where uranium-recovery operation would be concurrent with aquifer restoration (i.e., 

during most of the Ross Project), consumptive use of ground water would be approximately 859 

L/min [227 gal/min], or approximately 3 percent of the ground water withdrawn from the 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-103

Project’s recovery wells. During the final two years of the Ross Project, during the period when 

aquifer restoration would occur without wellfield operation, consumptive use of ground water 

would be approximately 720 L/min [190 gal/min]. No changes were made to this SEIS beyond 

the information provided in this response.

B.5.15.3 Miscellaneous Ground Water Comments

Comment: RP024-030

The commenter noted the statement in the DSEIS’s Executive Summary, “With respect to the 

deep aquifers where injection of liquid byproduct wastes would occur, regular monitoring of the 

water quality of the injected brine is required by the permit; thus, the potential impacts of the 

Ross Project’s operation to ground-water quantity and quality in the deep aquifers would be 

SMALL.” The commenter suggested that the NRC staff modify this statement to indicate that 

potential impacts to deep aquifers would be limited by the water quality in exempted aquifers 

and the limited zone of influence, in addition to the monitoring requirements. 

Response: The NRC staff has revised the text in the Executive Summary in the FSEIS to 

address the commenter’s suggestion as follows: “With respect to the deep aquifers into which 

injection of liquid byproduct materials would occur, the WDEQ/WQD determined by way of its 

issuance of the UIC Class I Permit to Strata that, at the depths and locations of the injection 

zones specified in the UIC Permit, the use of ground water from the Flathead and Deadwood 

Formations is economically and technologically impractical (WDEQ/WQD, 2011b). In addition, 

Strata projected from regional water quality data from that the TDS in the Deadwood/Flathead 

Formations will likely be greater than 10,000 mg/L and therefore would not be suitable as a 

USDW (Strata, 2011b). Monitoring of lixiviant-injection pressures and water quality of the 

injected brine are required by the UIC Class I Permit; thus, the potential impacts of the Ross 

Project’s operation to ground-water quantity and quality in the deep aquifers would be SMALL.”

Comment: RP024-417

The commenter requested clarification on the DSEIS’s statement in Section 4.5.1.1 that “the 

analysis of impacts to ground water provided in the GEIS are applicable because the effects of 

the containment barrier wall (CBW) on shallow ground water are localized and the presence of 

the CBW would not affect the surrounding ground water.” The commenter noted that this 

statement was inconsistent with the subsequent text in that section, which stated that 

“Construction of the CBW could impact the quantity of water in the shallow aquifer because the 

CBW would isolate the shallow aquifer at the Ross Project facility.” 

Response: The commenter identified an apparent contradiction within DSEIS Section 4.5.1.1. 

The first statement referenced by the commenter has been revised in FSEIS Section 4.5.1.1 to 

read, “Although construction of the CBW during the Proposed Action is not part of the typical 

ISR design considered in the GEIS, the analysis of impacts to ground water provided in the 

GEIS are applicable because the effects of the CBW on shallow ground water are localized.” 

The impacts referred to in the second statement are localized within the shallow aquifer. 

Comment: RP024-435

The commenter suggested that a statement be added to the SEIS in Section 4.5.1.2 that 

describes the reason that the deep-monitoring (DM) aquifer was not included in the Applicant’s 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-104

ground-water hydrologic model. The commenter stated that, as indicated in the Applicant’s TR, 

Addendum 2.7-H, “the intervening shale between the two aquifers effectively isolates them from 

each other which means that any attempt to model the DM [deep-monitoring aquifer] would 

show negligible response to changes in the overlying OZ [ore-zone] aquifer.”

Response: The NRC staff acknowledges that the TR, Addendum 2.7-H, of Strata’s license 

application described the Applicant’s basis for its model (Strata, 2011b). However, the NRC 

staff does not agree that the suggested addition is necessary here, where the SEIS states that 

the Applicant used the top of the lower confining unit as the lower boundary in the model. No 

changes to the SEIS were made in response to this comment. 

Comment: RP024-437

The commenter noted that the statement, “The Applicant would continue geologic evaluation 

and hydrologic testing to characterize the integrity of the lower confining units, through 

observations of piezometric levels in the SM [shallow-monitoring] and DM [deep-monitoring] 

aquifers,” does not indicate that the upper confining unit would also continue to be evaluated. 

Response: The NRC staff has revised the text in FSEIS Section 4.5.1.2 to indicate that the 

upper confining unit would also continue to be evaluated.

Comment: RP024-464

The commenter referenced the statement in SEIS Section 4.5.1.4, “The Applicant’s 

implementation of BMPs and SOPs for the plugging and abandonment of its own wells during 

decommissioning of the Proposed Action would reduce the likelihood of shallow-aquifer 

contamination.” The commenter suggested modifying the statement as follows: “The 

Applicant’s implementation of BMPs and SOPs for the plugging and abandonment of its own 

wells during decommissioning of the Proposed Action and historical holes during wellfield 

development would reduce the likelihood of shallow-aquifer contamination.”

Response: The NRC does not agree that the suggested modification is necessary. Since 

SEIS Section 4.5.1.4 discusses decommissioning, only activities that would occur during 

decommissioning are included in that Subsection. Information regarding the well plugging that 

would occur during construction is included in SEIS Section 4.5.1.1. No changes were made to 

the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: RP024-649

The commenter requested that the NRC staff more clearly support the use of the 0 m [0 ft] 

elevation contour on the top of the Fox Hills Formation for the ground-water cumulative-impacts 

study area in DSEIS Section 5.7.2.

Response: As noted in SEIS Section 5.7.2, the depths of the City of Gillette’s wells that draw 

water from the Fox Hills Formation were used by the NRC staff to define the western edge of 

the ground-water study area used for the assessment of cumulative impacts. The Fox Hills 

aquifer is approximately 1,200 – 1,500 m [4,000 – 5,000 ft] deep and has an elevation of 0 m [0 

ft] at the locations of the City of Gillette’s wells. Information on the depth of the Fox Hills aquifer 

included in this response has been added to the FSEIS Section 5.7.2 to support the selection of 

the western edge of the cumulative-impacts study area. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-105

Comment: RP032-058

The commenter referenced the following statement from DSEIS Section 2.1.1.1: “The Applicant 

expects the production of ground water during operations and decommissioning of wells 

completed outside of the aquifer exempted for uranium recovery (Strata, 2011a). This ground 

water would be discharged under a temporary WYPDES Permit.” The commenter asked: 1) 

How many wells, of what type, into which formations, are covered now under the terms of this 

“temporary permit?” 2) How many wells will be drilled and covered by this permit in the future; 3) 

How long is the term of the renewed permit? 4) Where and how is the ground water 

"discharged" under the terms of this permit? 

Response: The WYPDES Permit is a temporary permit that requires renewal each year, and 

every WYPDES Permit that the Applicant is issued expires December 31 of the year the permit 

is issued (WDEQ/WQD, 2011a). The Permit applies only to ground water from wells that have 

not been put into operation of a wellfield and have not received lixiviant. The Permit authorizes 

the discharge of waste water associated with well development and testing activities from the 

Ross Project, but it does not specify the number of wells nor the depths or locations from which 

ground water can be discharged. However, as described in SEIS Section 2.1.1, the Proposed 

Action would consist of 1,400 – 2,200 recovery and injection wells plus monitoring wells. The 

wells would primarily be completed in the ore zones of the Lower Lance and Upper Fox Hills 

aquifers, but some monitoring wells would be completed in the aquifers underlying and overlying 

the ore-zone aquifers. The location of discharge is restricted to six unnamed, ephemeral 

tributaries to the Little Missouri River within the Ross Project area’s boundaries (WDEQ/WQD, 

2011a). The Permit requires that discharges are performed in a manner so as to prevent 

erosion, scouring, or damage to stream banks, stream beds, or other “Waters of the State” at 

the point of discharge. In addition, the Permit requires that there shall be no deposition of 

substances in quantities that could result in significant aesthetic degradation or in degradation of 

habitat for aquatic life, plant life, or wildlife, or which could adversely affect public-water supplies 

or those intended for agricultural or industrial use. The NRC has included additional information 

in the description of the Project’s liquid effluents in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.5 to provide the 

supplemental detail on the Applicant’s temporary WPDES Permit, as requested by the 

commenter. 

Comment: RP032-065

The commenter referenced the DSEIS Section 2.4 statement, “During operations there would 

be a MODERATE impact to ore-zone aquifer’s water quality due to excursions; however, with 

measures in place to detect and resolve the excursions, the impacts would be reduced. During 

aquifer restoration there would be a MODERATE impact to ore-zone-aquifer water quantity due 

to short-term drawdown (see SEIS Sections 4.5.1.2 and 4.5.1.3).” The commenter requested 

additional information on the following topics:

1) Regarding the DSEIS statement, “...however, with measures in place to detect and resolve 

excursions, the impacts would be reduced,” the commenter asked the NRC to please quantify 

the meaning of “reduced” in this context—from MODERATE to what? The commenter asked if 

the statement means that the impacts on the ore-zone aquifer would be no longer be 

"MODERATE," and, thus, they would be “SMALL.” The commenter also asked what "SMALL" 

means quantitatively in this context, expressed as a deviation from pre-licensing sitecharacterized levels. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-106

2) Regarding the following statement in DSEIS Section 2.4: “During aquifer restoration there 

would be a MODERATE impact to ore-zone-aquifer water quantity to short-term drawdown....” 

the commenter asked that the possible range of time that the NRC associates with “short-term” 

drawdown of an aquifer be discussed, and why this length of time would impose only a 

“MODERATE” environmental impact on current and potential future users of the aquifer be 

explained. The commenter asked if a “restored” aquifer’s failure to recharge fully after thirty 

years would be a “MODERATE” impact. 

3) The commenter asserted that the NRC’s conclusions in DSEIS Section 2.4 indicate nothing 

about water-quality impacts during and after restoration. Therefore, the commenter asked if 

there are no water-quality impacts arising from and/or enduring past the aquifer-restoration 

phase of the Ross Project. 

4) The commenter stated that since it is well known that there are such lasting impacts, when 

expressed as prolonged deviations from pre-operational baseline levels for key constituents 

whose concentrations determine the relative human potability and other uses of ground water, 

the commenter asked that the NRC staff describe the deviations from baseline water-quality 

values expected at the Ross Project and potential satellite areas in the Lance District. 

Response: The statement referenced by the commenter is presented in Section 2.4 

“Preliminary Recommendation” in the DSEIS. DSEIS Section 2.4 provided the NRC staff’s 

preliminary recommendation regarding the Proposed Action, based on the findings in the 

DSEIS, and provided a detailed summary of the DSEIS findings. However, it should be noted 

that Section 2.4 of the FSEIS provides the NRC staff’s final recommendation regarding the 

Proposed Action but does not include the detailed summary of the SEIS findings, which were 

the subject of this comment. 

 

1) As noted in DSEIS Section 2.4, the NRC staff’s impact analyses to support the summary 

statement in DSEIS Section 2.4 were found in DSEIS Sections 4.5.1.2 and 4.5.1.3. As stated in 

DSEIS Section 4.5.1.2, “The short-term potential impacts of lixiviant excursions from uraniumrecovery operation to the OZ aquifer outside the exempted area would be SMALL to 

MODERATE. Detection of excursions through the network of monitoring wells, followed by the 

Applicant’s pumping of ground water to recover the excursion would reduce the long-term 

potential impacts to the OZ aquifer outside the exempted portion to SMALL.” Therefore, the 

reduction of impacts of lixiviant excursions to the OZ aquifer outside of the exempted area 

discussed in DSEIS Section 2.4 is a reduction from MODERATE short-term impacts to SMALL 

long-term impacts. As explained in SEIS Section 4.1, SMALL is a standard used in this SEIS to 

describe environmental effects that are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource considered. Before 

aquifer restoration would be approved by the NRC, the Applicant would be required to correct 

(“recover”) all excursions and meet ground-water protection standards within the wellfields. 

2) The analysis to support the NRC staff’s determination that during aquifer restoration there 

would be a MODERATE impact to ore-zone aquifer water quantity due to short-term drawdown 

is described in SEIS Sections 4.5.1.2 and 4.5.1.3. Short-term impacts are those that occur 

during operations and restoration, which is expected to be about six years. The hydrologic 

model of the ore-zone aquifer during the operation and aquifer-restoration phases predicted 

significant drawdowns in three wells within the Ross Project area. Minor drawdowns were 

predicted in wells outside the Project area but within approximately 3 km [2 mi] of the Project. 

(The hydrologic model was presented in Addendum 2.7-H of the Applicant’s TR [Strata, 2011b].) 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-107

FSEIS Section 4.5.1.2 reports the quantitative results of the drawdown predicted by the 

hydrologic model and explains that the most significant drawdown at the completion of 

restoration predicted by the model occurs in the well that supplies water to a structure that is 

currently used by the Applicant as its Field Office for the Ross Project and provides water to 

livestock. SEIS Section 4.5.1.2 further describes that a major variable in the predicted 

drawdown is the use of the Merit oil-field water-supply wells. To minimize the drawdown of the 

ore-zone aquifer, as indicated by Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License Condition No. 

10.19, wellfields would not be allowed south of the Little Missouri River until Merit’s use of the 

oil-field water-supply wells have ceased or diminished to an acceptable level (NRC, 2014b). 

Because the significant drawdown is predicted to be within the Ross Project area, Draft License 

Condition No. 10.19 would minimize the drawdown. This information was added to FSEIS 

Section 4.5.1.2. The time required for the aquifer to fully recharge is not necessarily the 

determining factor in assessing the impacts. The availability of water for the public is a key 

factor in impact assessment. The NRC staff determined that the potential impacts of the 

Proposed Action’s aquifer-restoration phase to ground-water quantity of the confined aquifers 

would be SMALL to MODERATE because the minor drawdown during operations and 

restoration in wells outside of the Project area would not affect the water available for public 

use, and because reversal of the drawdown would begin as soon as restoration is completed. 

 

3) The commenter is correct that the NRC staff’s summary in DSEIS Section 2.4 did not 

specifically address water-quality impacts during aquifer restoration. DSEIS Section 2.4 stated 

“Potential adverse impacts to all environmental resource areas are expected to be SMALL, with 

the exception of... .” DSEIS Section 2.4 went on to provide a detailed summary of impacts that 

were expected to be greater than SMALL (i.e. MODERATE and LARGE impacts). As described 

in SEIS Sections 4.5.1.3 and 4.5.1.4, the water-quality impacts during and after aquifer 

restoration would be SMALL. Therefore, a detailed summary of the water-quality impacts during 

and after aquifer restoration was not provided in DSEIS Section 2.4. 

4) The commenter asked that the NRC staff describe the deviations from baseline water-quality 

values expected at the Ross Project and potential satellite areas in the Lance District. As 

described in the response to Comment No. RP032-004, compliance with the regulations found 

in 10 CFR 40 Appendix A Criterion 5(B) would ensure that there are no deviations from 

Commission-approved post-licensing, pre-operational levels (baseline water quality) outside the 

exempted aquifer. Within the exempted aquifer, when restoration is complete, the water quality 

may deviate from the Commission-approved post-licensing, pre-operational levels but must 

meet water-quality numerical values given in Criterion 5(B)6 or an ACL for a given constituent. 

In response to Comment No. RP032-004, FSEIS Sections 2.1.1.2 and 4.5.1.2 have been 

revised to clarify these requirements and the associated process used by the NRC to determine

ground-water-restoration compliance. 

Comment: RP032-072

The commenter referenced the following statement in DSEIS Section 3.5.3: “Domestic wells 

are generally deeper than stock wells, ranging from 46 to 180 m [150 to 600 ft]. The limited 

information available on these wells has precluded a determination of which aquifer was 

supplying water to the domestic wells.” The commenter stated that the DSEIS’s inability to 

determine the aquifer tapped by the domestic wells seemed a little too convenient and thought 

that the domestic wells could easily include the Lance and Fox Hills Formations. The 

commenter asked for more information on the supply aquifers and water quality found in these 

domestic wells.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-108

Response: The depths of the water-supply wells within the 3-km [2-mi] buffer zone are found in 

the well-completion records at the Wyoming State Engineers Office (WSEO). No information on 

the stratigraphic unit or the aquifer tapped by these wells is included in the records on file at the 

WSEO. The question of whether the domestic wells tap water from the same aquifer as that 

proposed for uranium recovery is answered by a review of the depths of the wells compared to 

the depths of the proposed wellfields. As indicated in SEIS Section 2.1.1, the top of the ore 

zone is approximately 76 m [250 ft] deep at the eastern edge of the Project area and 200 m 

[650 ft] deep at the Project’s western edge. The increasing depth to the ore zone from east to 

west across the Project area is due to the stratigraphic dip into the Powder River Basin (see 

SEIS Section 3.4, Geology and Soils for additional information on the geology of the Project 

area). The thickness of the ore zone ranges from 30 m to 55 m [100 to 180 ft]. 

Based upon the depths of the water-supply wells, none of the domestic wells west of the Ross 

Project area (i.e., the downgradient flow direction) and its north-south projection are deep 

enough to intersect the unit in which the ore-zone aquifer is present, which is projected to be 

greater than 200 m [650 ft] deep on the western edge of the Project area. In other words, the 

domestic wells west of the Project area appear to tap ground water that is above the ore zone. 

East of the proposed Project area and its north-south projection (the upgradient flow direction), 

the wells that are identified as domestic are in the steeply dipping monocline section of the unit 

within which the ore-zone aquifer is located. The stratigraphic unit at the bottom of the wells 

cannot be estimated from the information that is available. North and south of the Ross Project 

area, there are no domestic wells sufficiently deep to intersect the top of the ore-zone aquifer. 

As described in SEIS Section 6.2.5, the Source and Byproduct Materials License would require 

that nearby water-supply wells within 2 km [approximately 1 mi] of an active uranium-recovery 

wellfield be monitored throughout the lifecycle of the Project. The locations of these watersupply wells (i.e., the 29 wells within 2 km [1 mi] that were monitored by the Applicant during its 

pre-licensing, site-characterization efforts) are shown in Figure 3.16 which has been added to 

this FSEIS. These wells will continue to be monitored during the lifecycle of the Project. The 

water quality of the water-supply wells is described in FSEIS Section 3.5.3. Appendix C, which 

contains all of the water-quality data submitted by the Applicant, has also been added to this 

FSEIS.

Comment: RP035-005 

The commenter noted that the DSEIS stated in Section 4.5.1.2 the following: “Impacts from 

consumptive use of ground water from the ore zone would be minimized by cessation of water 

withdrawals by the Merit oil-field water-supply wells. The ground-water model simulated a single 

operational sequence of wellfield development, recovery, and aquifer restoration. Different 

operational approaches could be more effective in reducing impacts, and the Applicant 

proposes to investigate these as wellfield installation and testing progresses.” The commenter 

stressed the importance of evaluating the range of impacts of consumptive ground-water use in 

the FSEIS. The commenter also recommended that the Record of Decision (ROD) include a 

requirement that “prior to operation, modeling that utilizes multiple operational wellfields is 

completed” as well as “a commitment to identifying and implementing mitigation measures that 

prevent excursions from concurrent operation of multiple wellfields.”

Response: The Applicant’s ground-water hydrologic model and the results that were presented 

in DSEIS Sections 4.5.1.2 and 4.5.1.3 are adequate to support the impact assessments of water 

quantity in this SEIS. As discussed in the NRC’s response to Comment No. RP032-065, the 

ground-water model of the ore-zone aquifer during the Project’s operation and aquifer-
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-109

restoration phases predicted significant drawdowns in three wells within the Ross Project area 

and minor drawdowns in wells outside the Project area but within 3 km [2 mi] of the Project. 

SEIS Section 4.5.1.2 noted that a major variable in the predicted drawdown is the use of the 

Merit oil-field water-supply wells. To minimize the drawdown of the ore-zone aquifer, as 

indicated by Condition No. 10.19 of the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, the 

Applicant would not install wellfields south of the Little Missouri River until Merit’s use of its oilfield water-supply wells has ceased or diminished to an acceptable level (NRC, 2014b). The 

effects of Draft License Condition No. 10.19 would minimize the drawdown of the aquifer. In 

addition, as described in the NRC’s response to Comment No. RP035-038, the ground-water 

dispute between Merit and the Applicant has been resolved by Strata’s amending its Permit to 

Mine application with the WDEQ to specify: 1) that all activities conducted under that Permit 

would be conducted in a manner to avoid any impact on the quality and quantity of ground water 

available to Merit from the Fox Hills aquifer under Merit’s ground-water permits issued by the 

WSEO and 2) if necessary, Strata would provide Merit with an alternative water source which is 

acceptable to Merit and which meets certain criteria (WWC, 2012).

 

Because reversal of the drawdown would begin as soon as aquifer restoration were to be 

completed, the NRC has determined that the potential impacts of the Proposed Action’s aquiferrestoration phase to ground-water quantity of the confined aquifers would be SMALL to 

MODERATE. An analysis of the cumulative impacts of consumptive ground-water use is 

provided in SEIS Section 5.7; the analysis concluded that cumulative impacts to ground-water 

quantity in the Lance and Fox Hills aquifers would be SMALL. 

The NRC staff reviewed the information provided by the Applicant and documented its findings 

in its SER (NRC, 2014a). SER Section 3.1.3.6 notes that the Applicant quantifies the impacts of 

the Ross Project in situ uranium-recovery activities based upon a maximum of 10 wellfield 

modules in operation at any one time during the Project’s lifecycle (i.e., concurrent operation of 

multiple wellfields). The NRC staff found, as presented in SER Section 3.1.3.5, that the 

Applicant made commitments to protect against unwanted vertical and horizontal migration of 

fluids (i.e., lixiviant). The NRC staff also found, as presented in SER Section 3.1.3.4, that the 

Applicant provided an acceptable description of the instrumentation and monitoring that would 

prevent and correct spills, releases, and/or excursions (NRC, 2014a). Therefore, the NRC staff 

finds that the concern raised by the commenter has already been addressed and documented 

by the NRC staff in the Draft License and the SER; the addition of the commenter’s suggested 

text is not warranted. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in 

this response.

Comment: RP035-006

The commenter noted that the DSEIS provided a good synopsis of the specific Project-phase 

environmental impacts. However, because the Project phases occur concurrently, the 

commenter stated that a full picture of surface- and ground-water environmental impacts at any 

one time at the Ross Project was difficult to understand. The commenter recommended adding 

a flow diagram or table that provides a water balance for each process/phase that would provide 

a more inclusive representation of the surface- and ground-water uses as well as the related 

impacts and mitigating measures.

Response: Supplemental information has been added to FSEIS Section 4.5.1 regarding the 

ground-water balance throughout the Project. New Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 in the FSEIS 

illustrate the water balance during three Project periods: operation only, operation concurrent 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-110

with aquifer restoration, and restoration only, respectively. In addition, FSEIS Table 4.9 has 

been revised to include water-balance and waste-disposal rates during the three periods in the 

four phases. 

Comment: RP035-011

The commenter asked how the collection of seepage within the CBW would affect downgradient 

ground water.

Response: As described in Section 2.1.1.1 of the SEIS, the CBW is a low-permeability barrier 

that is designed to prevent grount water flow through the unconsolidated sediments into the 

area of the processing plant from the regional ground-water aquifer outside the CBW. The 

water levels north of the CBW would be maintained lower than the water levels outside the 

CBW by ongoing pumping. As described in SEIS Section 4.5.1, the change caused by the 

barrier would not result in significant changes to ground-water outside the CBW and are thus 

not considered an impact. As noted in the response to Comment No. RP024-417, the CBW 

would cause localized impacts to the shallow aquifer. No changes were made to the SEIS 

beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP035-013

The commenter requested information about other wells in the Lance District that are in the 

Deadwood and Flathead Formations, which are targeted for the UIC Class I injection wells at 

the Ross Project.

Response: The UIC Class I Permit issued to the Applicant by WDEQ/WQD for deep-injection 

wells notes that there are no wells in the area of review that penetrate the confining units above 

the Deadwood and Flathead Formations (WDEQ/WQD, 2011b). The deep wells associated 

with the oil and gas industry are completed in the Minnelusa Formation. The top of the 

Deadwood and Flathead Formations are over 490 m [1,600 ft] below the bottom depth of the 

wells in the Minnelusa Formation. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information 

provided in this response.

B.5.15.4 References

(US)EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Aquifer Exemption Approval, Strata Energy 

Corporation, Ross ISR Project, Upper and Lower Fox Hills-Ore Zone Aquifer, Crook County, 

WY. Washington, DC: USEPA. May 15, 2013. ADAMS Accession No. ML13144A108.

(US)NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Staff Technical Position, Alternate Concentration 

Limits for Title II Uranium Mills.” . Washington, DC: USNRC. 1996b. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML091420242. 

(US)NRC, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Energy, and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. “Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM.” 

NUREG–1575. Washington, DC: USNRC. Rev. 1, 2000a/Updates, 2001.

 

(US)NRC. “Standard Review Plan for the Review of DOE Plans for Achieving Regulatory 

Compliance at Sites with Contaminated Ground Water under Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-111

Radiation Control Act (Draft for Comment).” NUREG–1724. Washington, DC: USNRC. 

2000b. ADAMS Accession No. ML003731007.

(US)NRC. “Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications, 

Final Report.” NUREG–1569. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2003a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML032250177. 

(US)NRC. “Standard Review Plan for the Review of a Reclamation Plan for Mill Tailings Sites 

Under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. Final Report. ” 

NUREG–1620. Washington, DC. USNRC: 2003c. ADAMS Accession No. ML031550569.

(US)NRC. “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities, Volumes 1 and 2.” NUREG–1910. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2009b. ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML091480244 and ML091480188.

 

(US)NRC. “NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2009-05, Uranium Recovery Policy Regarding: (1) 

The Process for Scheduling License Reviews of Applications for New Uranium Recovery 

Facilities and (2) The Restoration of Groundwater at Licensed Uranium In Situ Recovery 

Facilities.” Washington, DC: USNRC. 2009c. ADAMS Accession No ML083510622 

(US)NRC. “Staff Assessment of Ground Water Impacts from Previously Licensed In-Situ 

Uranium Recovery Facilities.” Memorandum from C. Miller to Chairman Jaczko, et al. 

Washington, DC: USNRC. July 10, 2009d. ADAMS Accession No. ML091770385.

(US)NRC. Safety Evaluation Report for the Strata Energy, Inc. Ross ISR Project, Crook 

County, Wyoming. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2014a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML14002A107. 

(US)NRC. “Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, No. SUA-1601.” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2014b. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A111. 

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Environmental Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata Energy, Inc. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130342, 

ML110130344, and ML110130348.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, Technical 

Report, Volumes 1 through 6 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 

2011b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130333, ML110130335, ML110130314, ML110130316, 

ML110130320, and ML110130327. 

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, RAI Question 

and Answer Responses, Environmental Report, Volume 1 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-

09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2012a. ADAMS Accession No. ML121030465.

WDEQ/LQD (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division). “Noncoal 

In Situ Mining,” Rules and Regulations, Chapter 11. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/LQD. 2005. 

WDEQ/LQD. “Noncoal Mine Environmental Protection Performance Standards.” Rules and 

Regulations, Chapter 3. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/LQD. 2006.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-112

WDEQ/WQD (WDEQ/Water Quality Division). Authorization to Discharge Wastewater 

Associated with Pump Testing of Water Wells Under the Wyoming Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System. Authorization #WYG720229. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/WQD. March 

2011a. ADAMS Accession No. ML13015A695. 

WDEQ/WQD. Strata Energy, Inc. – Ross Disposal Injection Wellfield, Final Permit 10-263,

Class I Non-hazardous, Crook County, Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/WQD. April 2011b. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML111380015. 

WWC Engineering (WWC). Ross ISR Project, Permit to Mine Application, TFN 5 5/217, 

Submittal of Mine Plan Replacement Page per the Joint Stipulation Resolving EQC Docket No. 

12-4803. October 24, 2012. ADAMS Accession No. ML12299A040.

WWC. “RE: Info Request.” Email to J. Moore, NRC, from B. Schiffer. Dated January 13, 

2014. Gillette, WY: WWC. 2014c.

B.5.16 Surface-Water Resources

B.5.16.1 Impacts to Surface Drainages and Surface Waters

Comment: RP017-003 

The commenter recommended that the FSEIS include a discussion of how the water would be 

stored or disposed of if the water quality did not meet the standards of the temporary WYPDES 

Permit that the Applicant would be required to possess during well development. 

Response: If the water quality does not meet the discharge standards of the WYPDES Permit, 

the Applicant would have to treat the water or dispose of the water in the UIC Class I deepdisposal wells that would be present at the Ross Project. The Applicant would manage the 

water that did not meet surface-discharge limits in a similar manner as it would manage any 

liquids produced from wells undergoing maintenance in active wellfields. For maintenance, 

ground water would be collected in a mobile storage tank parked at the well. The tank would 

then be moved to the CPP and the collected liquids would be emptied into the lined surface 

impoundments that would be located near the CPP, or they would be injected in a deepdisposal well (Strata, 2011b). As explained in the NRC’s response to Comment No. RP032-

015, water produced during well development and aquifer testing would likely meet Wyoming's 

WYPDES discharge standards. This is because the ground water discharged during the 

construction of the wells and initial testing of ground-water quality during pre-licensing, sitecharacterization efforts met the same Permit requirements and the same standards. No 

changes beyond those related to the specific description of the WYPDES Permit were made to 

the SEIS in response to this comment. 

Comment: RP017-021

The commenter noted that water-quality parameters to be analyzed by the Applicant during the 

Ross Project should include selenium and salinity in order to ensure that such constituents do 

not accumulate on the ground or get carried in overland flow in high concentrations that could 

impair surface waters. The commenter stated that this is particularly important for selenium, 

because the Ross Project is located in the upper Cretaceous Lance and Fox Hill Formations, 

which are high in selenium.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-113

Response: The WYPDES Permit No. WYG72022, issued by the WDEQ, does not contain an 

effluent limit for selenium; however the water quality data collected by the Applicant during prelicensing, site-characterization indicate that dissolved selenium is generally less than the lowest 

standard (aquatic life chronic value) of 0.005 mg/L for total recoverable selenium. As described 

in the response to Comment No. RP017-002, only ground water in the deep aquifer below the 

ore zone consistently contains selenium at concentrations above the standard of 0.005 mg/L. In 

addition, as discussed in the NRC staff’s response to Comment No. RP032-015, the Applicant’s 

annually renewed WYPDES Permit requires that discharges are conducted in a manner to 

prevent erosion, scouring, or damage to stream banks, stream beds, or other “Waters of the 

State” at the point of discharge. In addition, the Permit requires that there shall be no deposition 

of substances in quantities which could result in significant aesthetic degradation or in 

degradation of habitat for aquatic life, plant life, or wildlife, or which could adversely affect 

public-water supplies or those intended for agricultural or industrial use (WDEQ/WQD, 

2012). See also Comment Nos. RP017-003 and RP032-058 for additional information related to 

the Applicant’s WYPDES Permit. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information 

provided in this response.

Comment: RP024-411

The commenter recommended that the SEIS describe the BMPs proposed for the protection of 

water resources at the Ross Project in Section 4.5.1.

Response: The staff has revised the text in FSEIS Section 4.5.1 to include the following at the 

end of the paragraph:

These BMPs would include procedures for the Applicant to minimize surface-water 

impacts by limiting soil disturbance and compaction, diverting and controlling runoff, 

avoiding or promptly detecting and correcting accidental spills and leaks, and completing 

reclamation in a timely manner. Mitigation measures to minimize ground-water-quality 

impacts in the overlying and underlying aquifers include the Applicant’s properly 

abandoning exploration and delineation drillholes, limiting over-penetration during drilling, 

employing onsite engineering/geologic supervision during well drilling and development, 

using proper well construction techniques, implementing an approved mechanical 

integrity testing (MIT) program, and the excursion monitoring program. Potential groundwater-quantity impacts in the ore zone would be mitigated by the Applicant’s minimizing 

consumptive use (e.g., monitoring nearby stock and domestic wells, designing balanced 

wellfields, and minimizing the production bleed). Impacts to ground-water quality in the 

ore-zone aquifer would be mitigated by ground-water restoration, and excursion 

monitoring.

Comment: RP024-419

The commenter referenced the following statement from DSEIS Section 4.5.1.2: “Ground water 

produced from monitoring and testing wells outside the exempt (ore-zone or OZ) aquifer would 

be discharged according to a temporary WYPDES Permit, comparable to the permit obtained by 

the Applicant for development of its monitoring wells installed in 2010. This water would either 

infiltrate into the ground or add to the surface water in the Little Missouri River.” The commenter 

suggested describing the mitigation measures that the Applicant proposed to prevent discharge 

water from reaching surface waters in order to comply with its current temporary WYDES 

Permit. The Permit stipulates that “There shall be no deposition of substances in quantities 

which could result in significant aesthetic degradation, or degradation of habitat for aquatic life, 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-114

plant life, or wildlife; or which could adversely affect public water supplies or those intended for 

agricultural or industrial uses.”

Response: The mitigation measures proposed by the Applicant in its surface-water pollution 

prevention plan were described in DSEIS Section 4.5.1.2, a few paragraphs after the statement 

referenced by the commenter. In response to this comment, three modifications have been 

made to the paragraph noted by the commenter. The modified paragraph in the FSEIS Section 

4.5.1.2 now directs the reader to a discussion of WYPDES Permit No. WYG72022 in FSEIS 

Section 2.1.1.5. FSEIS Section 2.1.1.5 now explains that the WYPDES Permit does not allow 

degradation of habitat for aquatic life, plant life, and wildlife, nor does it allow discharges that 

would adversely affect public-water supplies or supplies intended for agricultural or industrial 

uses. The Section now notes that the mitigation measures proposed by the Applicant would 

ensure that habitat and water-supply degradation would not occur. See also response to 

Comment No. RP032-058 for a discussion of the temporary WYPDES Permit’s renewal.

Comment: RP024-421

The commenter noted that the Applicant would apply for and obtain an “Industrial General 

Permit for Storm Water Discharges” (“General Storm Water Permit”) from the WDEQ/WQD prior 

to construction and operation. The commenter further explained that the only requirement 

associated with this type of permit is that the operator periodically inspect the BMPs and 

complete documentation of the required inspections. The commenter also stated that the 

General Storm Water Permit would not establish numeric effluent limits.

Response: The text in FSEIS Section 4.5.1.2 has been revised, and the staff has included 

information on the requirements for a General Storm Water Permit.

Comment: RP032-015

The commenter referenced the statement in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.1, “The Applicant expects that 

the water produced during well development would meet Wyoming’s temporary Wyoming 

Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WYPDES) discharge standards, which would allow this 

water to be discharged directly to the ground surface (WDEQ/WQD, 2007).” The commenter 

asked the following questions: 1) What is the empirical basis for the Applicant's “expectation” 

and do the NRC and the EPA agree with the basis? 2) Would the WYPDES discharge 

standards be sufficiently protective so that the produced water would not cause any harm to 

wildlife, surface-water quality, or shallow aquifers if discharged directly to the ground surface? 

3) Would the NRC staff describe the NRC's licensing requirement in the event that the water 

produced during well development does not meet WYPDES discharge standards? 4) Would the 

NRC staff describe any contingency plans and capabilities that would be required under the 

proposed license for the Applicant’s safely disposing of the produced water from well 

development if the Applicant's expectation were proved to be incorrect?

Response: 1) The expectation that water produced during well development and testing would 

meet Wyoming's WYPDES discharge standards is based upon the fact that the ground water 

discharged during construction, installation, and initial testing of the wells prior to the license 

application’s being submitted (i.e., during pre-licensing, site-characterization efforts) met all 

WYPDES Permit requirements. Effluent limits (i.e., discharge standards) contained in Strata’s 

temporary WYPDES Permit apply to pH, total suspended solids, TDS, total uranium, and total 

recoverable radium-226. The pre-licensing water-quality samples collected from these 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-115

monitoring wells also generally met the discharge standards in the WYPDES Permit (see Table 

3.6 in SEIS Section 3.5.3 for pre-licensing, site-characterization water-quality data). 

2) The Applicant’s annually renewed WYPDES Permit requires that discharges are conducted in 

a manner to prevent erosion, scouring, or damage to stream banks, stream beds, or other 

“Waters of the State” at the point of discharge. In addition, the Permit requires that there would 

be no deposition of substances in quantities which could result in significant aesthetic 

degradation or in the degradation of habitat related to aquatic life, plant life, or wildlife; 

moreover, the discharges cannot adversely affect public-water supplies or those intended for 

agricultural or industrial use (WDEQ/WQD, 2013). Thus, any surface discharges the Applicant 

might make after permitting would be limited to those that do not harm wildlife, surface waters, 

and shallow aquifers.

3) and 4) The NRC does not have authority over the water produced during well development; 

ground water that has not been affected by uranium-recovery activities (i.e. that has not come 

into contact with lixiviant) is not regulated by the NRC. If such water were not to meet WYPDES 

discharge standards, then the Applicant would need to develop a plan that would be compliant 

with its WYPDES Permit. The Applicant is responsible for managing ground water produced 

from the wells in a manner that meets the requirements of the WDEQ. The NRC staff’s 

response to Comment No. RP017-003 discusses the actions proposed by the Applicant for 

disposal of ground water from wells outside of active wellfields that do not meet the discharge 

standards of its WYPDES Permit.

The NRC staff has revised the text in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.1 to address the commenter's 

questions by adding the supplemental information offered in this response. Also, please see the 

NRC’s response to Comment No. RP032-058 for additional information regarding the 

Applicant’s WYPDES Permit.

B.5.16.2 Wetlands

Comment: RP001-001

The commenter pointed out that an initial, pre-construction notification had been submitted to 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the Ross ISR Project—Phase I, where Phase I 

includes construction of access roads, the CPP and other components of the Project facility, 

and monitoring wells. The commenter stated that due to the potential for the Ross Project to 

adversely affect historical and cultural resources, the USACE could not verify a Section 404 

Nationwide Permit (“404 Permit”) for construction in “Waters of the U.S.” until such time as the 

NRC has completed its required evaluation of the impacts on historical and cultural resources in 

the 404 Permit’s area of potential effects (APEs) as well as its required consultation process. 

The commenter also noted that compensatory mitigation for wetland losses through an 

approved mitigation plan would be required by a 404 Permit and that other aquatic-resource 

losses could require mitigation through a 404 Permit or in compliance with Executive Order No. 

11990.

Response: The text in FSEIS Section 3.5.2 has been modified to indicate that USACE cannot 

verify a 404 Permit until the NRC has completed its evaluation of impacts on historical and 

cultural resources in the 404 Permit’s APE as well as its related consultation efforts.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-116

B.5.16.3 Miscellaneous Surface-Water Comments

Comment: RP024-271

The commenter suggested that the NRC staff revise the statement in DSEIS Section 3.5.1, “In 

addition to the permitted surface-water rights, there are at least 17 additional reservoirs within or 

adjacent to the Ross Project area, although none of these reservoirs was listed in the WSEO 

water-rights database, except for the Oshoto Reservoir (Strata, 2011a).” The commenter 

suggested that the discussion of Oshoto Reservoir be omitted, because the Reservoir is

permitted, and that the discussion regarding reservoirs within and adjacent to the Ross Project 

area not listed in the WSEO water-rights database be clarified.

Response: The NRC staff has revised the statement as noted by the commenter by deleting 

the following text: “except for the Oshoto Reservoir.”

Comment: RP035-009

The commenter noted the following paragraph in SEIS Section 4.5.1.1:

Potential impacts to the quantity of water in the shallow aquifers during construction of 

the Proposed Action would be caused by the quantity taken from the Oshoto Reservoir 

and the quantity involved in the installation of the CBW surrounding the facility (i.e., the 

CPP and surface impoundments). In the vicinity of the Oshoto Reservoir, the Reservoir 

stage (i.e., the volume of water it contains) and the shallow-aquifers’ water levels are 

closely related (Strata, 2012b). Although the Applicant anticipates an annual withdrawal 

of 4.6 ha-m/yr [37 ac-ft/yr] of water during construction, that volume is less than the 

permitted annual appropriation for the Oshoto Reservoir, 21 ha-m/yr [173 ac-ft/yr] (Strata, 

2012b). Any changes in ground-water levels due to water usage from Oshoto Reservoir 

would be small and restricted to the area around the Reservoir.

The commenter recommended that the FSEIS provide additional information regarding the 

impacts to shallow ground water and the potential for associated impacts to wetlands and 

springs around Lake Oshoto in relation to its water use and Project construction. 

Response: The impact analysis presented in SEIS Section 4.5.1.1 was based upon the 

understanding that the small changes in water-levels would not affect the hydrologic balance of 

the Oshoto Reservoir. Because the Reservoir would continue to contain a significant depth of 

water, the weight of the water (i.e., the pressure of the water) would sustain infiltration and 

support springs that maintain wetlands associated with Oshoto Reservoir. No changes were 

made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

 

Comment: RP035-028

The commenter noted that the Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) publishes a 

northeastern Wyoming water-plan report that shows the Oshoto Reservoir’s maximum capacity 

to be 339 acre-feet. The commenter stated that the information disclosed on the maximum 

capacity of the Oshoto Reservoir appears to be the current, annual water-rights appropriation 

and not the maximum capacity as stated.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-117

Response: The NRC staff agrees with the information provided by the commenter, that the 

capacity of the Oshoto Reservoir is 42 ha-m [339 ac-ft]. The FSEIS Section 3.5.1 has been 

revised to reflect the maximum capacity of the Oshoto Reservoir as indicated by the WWDC. 

Comment: RP035-038

The commenter noted that it had learned that, during the license-application period, a waterrights issue has arisen with other users of appropriated water from Oshoto Reservoir. The 

WSEO reported that a water-rights dispute had been lodged for adjudication on behalf of an oil 

company requiring water from Oshoto Reservoir for its use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) with 

water-flooding techniques. This commenter recommended that the FSEIS reassess any 

changes to cumulative impacts and mitigation measures resulting from the potential water-use 

conflict. 

Response: The dispute referrenced by the commenter was Merit’s request for hearing before 

the Wyoming Quality Council on Strata’s application for a Permit to Mine for the Ross Project. 

The request for hearing was based upon Merit’s concern that the Ross Project would diminish 

the quantity available and degrade the quality of the water in the Fox Hills aquifer, the aquifer 

that is used by Merit for EOR. Merit’s request for hearing expressed concern that surface water 

from the Oshoto Reservoir would not be a suitable replacement for ground water from the Fox 

Hills aquifer because of diminished water quality. The dispute was resolved by Strata’s 

amending its Permit to Mine application, which has now been submitted to WDEQ. The 

amendments include: 1) that all activities governed by Strata’s Permit to Mine would be 

conducted in a manner to avoid any impact on the quality and quantity of ground water available 

to Merit from the Fox Hills aquifer under Merit’s ground-water permits issued by the WSEO and 

2) if necessary, Strata would provide Merit with an alternative water source acceptable to Merit, 

one that meets certain criteria (WWC, 2012). No changes were made to the SEIS as a result of 

this comment beyond the information provided in this response.

B.5.16.4 References

(US)ACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Letter from P. Wolken, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Omaha 34 District, Wyoming Regulatory Office, to T. Simpson, Strata Energy, Inc. 

December 9, 2010.

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Environmental Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata Energy, Inc. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130342, 

ML110130344, and ML110130348.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, Technical 

Report, Volumes 1 through 6 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 

2011b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130333, ML110130335, ML110130314, ML110130316, 

ML110130320, and ML110130327. 

WDEQ/WQD (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division). 

Authorization Associated with Ground Water Well Pump Testing and Development. Well Pump 

Test for Uranium Wells Under the Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. 

WYG720229. February 2013. ADAMS Accession No. ML13015A695.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-118

WWC Engineering (WWC). Ross ISR Project, Permit to Mine Application, TFN 5 5/217,

Submittal of Mine Plan Replacement Page per the Joint Stipulation Resolving EQC Docket No. 

12-4803. October 24, 2012. ADAMS Accession No. ML12299A040.

B.5.17 Ecology

B.5.17.1 General Ecology

Comment: RP003-005

The commenter noted the proximity of his/her home to the proposed Ross Project and the 

wildlife that visit, and expressed concern that the risks to his/her home, the neighbors’ homes 

and the resident animals caused by the Project would exceed the value of the Project itself. 

Response: The SEIS has been prepared in accordance with the NRC guidance provided in 

NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003b), and it is consistent with the NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51

that implement NEPA. The wildlife analyses are supported by sufficient technical bases, both

tiered from the GEIS and based upon supplemental staff analyses. Section 7 of this SEIS 

provides an analysis of the costs and benefits of the Proposed Action and the Alternatives. No 

changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: RP017-002

The commenter recommended that the spill control BMPs that are discussed in FSEIS Sections 

4.4.1.2 and 4.5.1.2 be made available to reviewing agencies and other reviewers to assist them 

in ensuring that the prescribed measures would protect fish and wildlife resources in the event 

of spills or leaks. The commenter opined that the SEIS stated that appropriate spill control 

BMPs would be defined in the final license, and it is these that should be available. The 

commenter also noted that high selenium concentrations could occur in waste water from ISR of 

uranium ore as uranium-bearing geologic formations are usually associated with seleniferous 

strata. Accidental releases and spills of uranium-bearing water can result in the ponding or 

pooling of this water, which could be ingested by local wildlife such as migratory birds, thus 

exposing the wildlife to uranium, other radionuclides, and selenium. Releases or spills of 

uranium-bearing water could also reach surface waters, which could impact aquatic organisms 

inhabiting the affected waters.

Response: The mitigation measures and BMPs proposed by the Applicant to control impacts 

as a result of releases and spills were described in SEIS Sections 4.4.1.2 and 4.5.1. Currently, 

Draft License Condition No. 10.4 indicates that the Applicant would develop and implement 

written SOPs prior to uranium recovery operation for emergencies, potential accidents, and 

other unusual occurrences. These occurrences include significant damage to equipment or the 

facility, breaks in pipelines and spills, loss or theft of yellowcake or sealed sources, significant 

fires, and other natural disasters. The NRC staff reviewed the commitments by the Applicant to 

prepare a response plan for these emergencies, and it finds that the information is adequate 

because it meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and is consistent with current industry 

standard practices (NRC, 2014a). 

Regarding the commenter's concern about exposing local wildlife to selenium, the following 

factors apply: 1) the Applicant has committed to design features and operational practices to 

prevent and mitigate releases or spills of fluids potentially containing selenium (see FSEIS 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-119

Section 4.4.1.2); 2) the Applicant would be bound by WYPDES Permit No. WYG720229 to 

control discharge of ground water when drilling into the exempted aquifer (the Permit does not 

contain an effluent limit for selenium); 3) the Applicant has committed to reclaiming and 

restoring the mud pits it constructs during well and drillhole installation, usually within one 

construction season (see FSEIS Section 4.14.1.1); and 4) the 2010 water-quality data from the 

wells installed by the Applicant to characterize the ore-zone (OZ) aquifer and the aquifers above 

and below the OZ show that dissolved selenium was below 0.005 mg/L in all samples obtained 

from the aquifers above the OZ and in 22 of the 24 samples from the ore-zone aquifer. The 

dissolved selenium in the aquifer below the OZ ranged from less than 0.005 mg/L to 0.023 

mg/L. Thus, no changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this 

response.

Comment: RP024-118

The commenter suggested that the NRC staff, to be consistent with Strata’s license application, 

omit “wildlife and other intruders” from the following statement in Section DSEIS 2.1.1.1, Ross 

Project Wellfields: “The wellfields would be fenced to exclude livestock, wildlife, and other 

intruders.”

Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter. (See also Comment Nos. RP036-004, 

RP036-028, RP036-029, and RP036-034 which are also related to fencing.) The NRC staff has 

revised the text in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.1 as suggested by the commenter.

Comment: RP024-474

The commenter questioned whether an increased risk of soil erosion would be relevant to the 

potential impacts on the local ecology and suggested that the discussion in DSEIS 4.6.1.1 be 

omitted.

Response: Increased soil erosion has the potential to result in higher sediment loading in 

surface-water bodies, which in turn could impact aquatic species. The NRC staff, however, has 

edited FSEIS Section 4.6.1.1 to clarify the discussion related to soil-erosion impacts.

Comments: RP024-478; RP024-479; RP036-008; RP039-007; RP039-009

The commenters asked that the FSEIS discuss and clarify certain ecological information, 

including the wildlife and vegetation species identified in the Project area and along related 

transportation routes, the Powder River and Black Hills herd units for white-tailed deer, and the 

possible impacts to the ecology, particularly to protected species. One commenter suggested 

that elk would not be impacted because they were not observed during the wildlife surveys and 

the area is not considered crucial habitat or a migration corridor.

Response: The species identified at the Ross Project are discussed in SEIS Section 3.6, and 

protected species are specifically discussed in SEIS Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.1.4. No Federally 

listed threatened or endangered species have been identified in the Project area. Potential 

impacts to wildlife as a result of transportation activities are discussed in SEIS Sections 4.3, 

Transportation, and 4.6, Ecology. Measures to mitigate ecological impacts are also included in 

these two SEIS Sections. Given the mitigation measures described therein, the NRC staff 

concluded that impacts to wildlife and vegetation that result from all Project activities would be 

SMALL.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-120

The NRC agrees with the commenter, who correctly identified that the Ross Project is within the 

habitat of the Powder River and Black Hills white-tailed deer herd units. FSEIS Section 3.6.1.2 

has been revised to make clear that the white-tailed deer-herd units might be present at the 

Ross Project area. With respect to the occurrence of elk in the Project area, as documented in 

SEIS Section 3.6.1.2, elk have been recorded in the area by the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department (WGFD). Therefore, it is appropriate to discuss potential impacts to this species, 

and SEIS Section.3.6.1.2, Mammals, does so.

Comment: RP036-054

The commenter agreed with the SEIS’s conclusion of minimal impact to aquatic resources.

Response: The NRC acknowledges this comment. Due to the general nature of the comment, 

no changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

B.5.17.2 Impacts to Terrestrial Ecology and Wildlife

Comments: RP017-001

The commenters expressed concern with potential impacts to wildlife from elevated levels of 

selenium, other metals, salt and other chemicals in the liquids stored in the evaporation ponds.

Response: The surface impoundments (i.e., evaporation ponds) would be fenced in a manner 

that would exclude wildlife access, with the exception of avian species. The NRC staff 

acknowledge the risk to avian species posed by surface impoundments as described in SEIS 

Section 4.6.1.2. The Applicant has proposed mitigation measures to reduce this risk, which led 

to the NRC determination that the potential impacts to avian species posed by the surface 

impoundments would be SMALL. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information 

provided in this response.

Comments: RP017-008; RP017-023; RP036-002; RP036-025; RP036-031

The commenters requested additional discussion regarding impacts to bird species, including 

waterfowl. One commenter expressed concern about selenium concentrations in the waste 

water stored in the proposed surface impoundments at the Ross Project as well as the 

possibility that selenium bio-accumulation could occur in birds when they repeatedly alight on 

the impoundments. This comment was made in reference to Section 2.1.1.1 in the DSEIS.

Response: As documented in the GEIS, the NRC staff has concluded that when BMPs, such 

as avian deterrents, are used during the management of surface impoundments, such as those 

proposed by the Applicant, the potential ecological impacts resulting from waste-water 

management in uncovered surface impoundments is SMALL. In addition, there have been no 

reported impacts to wildlife as a result of birds’ landing, resting, and/or perching on 

impoundment surfaces or otherwise contacting the waste water in the surface impoundments at 

NRC-licensed uranium-recovery facilities (NRC, 2009b). As discussed in SEIS Section 4.6.1.2, 

the Applicant would use a radar-hazing system designed to reduce the birds’ alighting on the 

impoundments. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that the potential impact would be SMALL. 

In addition, although there is no straightforward exposure pathway that could result in significant 

biocentration by wildlife at the Ross Project, the small potential for selenium bioaccumulation as 

a result of accidental releases or spills at the Project is discussed in FSEIS Sections 4.4.1.2 and 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-121

4.5.1. See also Comment No. RP017-002 for additional information regarding selenium 

bioaccumulation. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this 

response.

Comments: RP036-004; RP036-028; RP036-029; RP036-034

The commenter noted that Section 2.1.1.1 in the DSEIS indicated that the wellfields would be 

fenced to exclude livestock, wildlife, and other intruders and that the wellfields were described 

as consisting of approximately 40 ha [90 ac]. In one comment, the commenter inquired 

regarding the design of the fencing and whether wire fencing, which would exclude livestock 

and wildlife, or more flexible fencing was proposed by the Applicant. It was noted that wire 

fencing might not effectively exclude wildlife. In another comment, the commenter pointed out 

that SEIS Section 4.6.1.1 indicated the big-game movement would not be significantly impacted 

by the Ross Project. The commenter requested that the type and design of fencing intended for 

use at the Ross Project be discussed in the FSEIS and that the FSEIS address whether the 

fencing would be completely exclusionary or wildlife friendly. The commenter noted that a 

wildlife-friendly fencing design could consist of a four-strand design, with a smooth bottom wire

at least 40 cm [16 in] off the ground, with barbed top wire no higher than approximately 110 cm 

[45 in] off the ground. Additionally, the commenter noted that WGFD suggestions regarding 

fencing are recommendations, not requirements.

Response: As stated in Section 4.2.1.2 of the DSEIS, less than 12 percent of the Ross Project 

area would be fenced at any one time, and the area proposed for wellfields was identified as 65 

ha [160 ac] in the license application. However, this entire area would not be engaged in 

uranium recovery at the same time (i.e., not all wellfields would be installed or operated at the 

same time; their development would be sequential). Twelve percent of the entire Ross Project 

area is approximately 83 ha [205 ac]. Thus, the NRC staff has assumed that there would be 

some areas where the exclusion of livestock, wildlife, and all other intruders would be necessary 

throughout the lifecycle of the Ross Project (e.g., due to safety, health, and security concerns, 

fencing around the surface impoundments and avian deterrents would be designed to prevent 

or deter intruders from accessing the impoundments). In its license application, the Applicant 

committed to working with WGFD on the fencing at the Ross Project. The license application 

stated that wildlife-friendly fencing would be used to allow big game and other wildlife to pass 

through as much of the Project area as possible. As discussed in the response to RP024-118, 

the SEIS has been revised to indicate that the wellfields would be fenced to allow wildlife 

passage. As a result of the Applicant’s commitment to installing fencing that allows wildlife 

passage and to working with the WFGD, as stated in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1, the NRC staff 

concluded that the resulting impact to wildlife and big-game movement would be 

SMALL. Section 4.6.1.1 in the FSEIS has been revised to clarify that fencing, which would 

permit wildlife passage, would be used in as much of the Project area as possible and that the 

Applicant would work with WFGD on the fencing’s design.

Comment: RP036-026

Referring to Section 4.6.1 of the DSEIS, the commenter expressed concern about how wildlife 

would be affected by the noise that would be generated by the proposed Ross Project and the 

presence of humans. The commenter indicated that because the noise could be significant, the 

resulting impacts on wildlife should be evaluated in the FSEIS.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-122

Response: The NRC staff recognizes that there could be impacts on local wildlife due to 

Project noise and acknowledges that the increased presence of humans could also have 

impacts on nearby wildlife. These impacts were addressed in the DSEIS in Section 4.8.1.1, 

under “Noise” rather than “Ecology.” The greatest noise levels would likely occur during the 

construction phase of the Ross Project, when the CPP, surface impoundments, and other 

structures would be constructed and the first wellfields would be installed and developed. It 

would be wildlife’s natural reaction to avoid the area during this time, when humans and noise 

are present, and there are no obstacles to the wildlife’s movement away from the proposed 

Project area. The NRC staff therefore finds that noise and human-presence impacts on wildlife 

would be SMALL. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this 

response.

Comment: RP036-030

The commenter noted the following statement in the DSEIS, Section 4.6.1.1, Terrestrial 

Species, Wildlife: “Species that occur in the area have shown the ability to adapt to human 

disturbance in varying degrees, and each also has a high reproductive potential and tend[s] to 

re-occupy and adapt to altered or reclaimed areas quickly.” The commenter requested that the 

scientific basis for this statement be cited or the statement be deleted in the FSEIS.

Response: The NRC staff has revised FSEIS text in Section 4.6.1.1, Terrestrial Species, 

Wildlife, deleting the statement noted by the commenter. 

Comment: RP039-008

The commenter requested that the NRC staff consider impacts to native plant communities and 

any aquatic habitats, including wetlands and any other areas of water-saturated soils, if waste 

water application to land were to be considered by the Applicant. The commenter also asked 

that the NRC consider bio-concentration of pollution in animals and any impacts to the food 

chain (human or animal).

Response: The Applicant did not include land application of waste water in its license 

application; thus, the NRC staff did not include any impact analyses of land application of waste 

water in Section 4 of the SEIS. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information 

provided in this response.

B.5.17.3 Mitigation and Timing

Comments: RP017-004; RP017-022; RP036-039

The commenters noted that fencing the surface impoundments and using avian deterrents were 

proposed in DSEIS Section 4.6, but that the sides of the impoundments would be 

steep. Wildlife that find their way into the impoundments could find it difficult to escape. The 

commenters suggested that the impoundments be fitted with escape ramps to prevent wildlife 

fatalities. 

Response: The Applicant has committed to fencing the surface impoundments and using 

netting to deter birds from landing on the impoundment surfaces, which would reduce the 

likelihood of wildlife’s accessing the impoundments. The Applicant has also committed to 

working with the WGFD on the fencing design. The NRC staff agrees that additional mitigation 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-123

measures could be warranted should the proposed mitigation measures be shown to be 

insufficient after surface-impoundment construction and operation begins. No changes were 

made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comments: RP024-660; RP024-727; RP032-010; RP032-011; RP036-001; RP036-023; 

RP036-024; RP036-035; RP036-038

The commenters submitted comments related to the mitigation requirements for impacts to 

ecological resources, including avian species, big game animals, small mammals and noxious 

weeds, and requested clarification of what mitigation measures would be required and what 

reporting would be necessary. In some cases, the commenters requested additional detail 

regarding specific mitigation measures. One commenter inquired as to whether or not adaptive 

mitigation would be implemented at the site.

Response: The NRC would establish site-specific license conditions for the Ross Project, but 

only within the limits of its authority. In addition, State agencies and other Federal agencies 

would establish permit conditions for the proposed Ross Project based upon their statutory and 

regulatory authority. Mitigation measures related to ecological impacts are included in SEIS 

Section 4.6; the measures outlined include those requested by other agencies, as well as those 

required by the WDEQ/LQD permit. The details of many of those mitigation measures, beyond 

those required in this SEIS, will be included in plans required by other permits. For example, 

the control of weeds would include timely reseeding, monitoring for the presence of noxious 

weeds, and spraying as necessary. These measures are discussed in SEIS Sections 4.6.1 and 

6.5.1. Additional details would be outlined in an approved WDEQ/LQD reclamation plan. As 

also outlined in SEIS Section 6.5.2.1, mitigation measures for the protection of wildlife will be 

evaluated on an annual basis, and changes recommended if necessary. Text in SEIS Sections 

4.6.1 and 5.8.3 was edited to increase clarity with respect to ecological mitigation and survey 

reporting.

B.5.17.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

Comments: RP017-006; RP017-009, RP024-659, RP036-009, RP036-010, RP036-016; 

RP036-053

The commenters clarified and updated information on the USFWS and WGFD lists related to 

threatened, endangered, and otherwise protected species. One commenter discussed its plans 

with respect to protected species, including Federally listed species and identified areas of the 

DSEIS that needed clarification with respect to the different species on the lists maintained by 

the State and Federal agencies. In addition, Wyoming noted that it had changed the name of 

the WGFD’s list from “Species of Concern” to “Species of Greatest Conservation Need.”

Response: In response to these comments, the NRC staff revised the text in FSEIS Section 

3.6.1.4, including Table 3.13, and in SEIS Section 5.8, to reflect the updated lists and plans with 

respect to protected species, including the Federally listed species. In addition, all references to 

the “Wyoming Species of Concern (WSOC)” list was changed to “Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need (SGCN)” throughout the FSEIS. Finally, the NRC staff clarified text in 

FSEIS Section 5.8.3 to state that, although the USFWS has designated the Greater sagegrouse as a “Candidate Species” under the ESA, since Wyoming issued EO 2011-5, the 

USFWS has endorsed the State’s conservation strategy, when fully supported and 

implemented, as a means to prevent a listing decision. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-124

B.5.17.5 Sage-Grouse

Comments: RP024-481; RP024-482; RP036-013; RP036-015; RP036-033; RP036-036; 

RP036-056; RP036-011; RP036-012, RP036-014; RP036-052

The commenters requested that information on the two sage-grouse leks in the vicinity of the 

Ross Project area be updated from 2010 information, and that text be clarified regarding the 

status of these leks in accordance with the Wyoming Governor’s 2011 Executive Order (EO) 

and the corresponding BLM guidelines. 

Response: The NRC staff has revised the text in FSEIS Section 3.6.1.4 (see Table 3.13) and 

FSEIS Section 4.6.1.1, Protected Species, to update the information on the two sage-grouse 

leks in the vicinity of the Ross Project. The Ross Project, however, is not located in a sagegrouse core area. The revisions the NRC staff has made include data from 2011 and 2012 as 

well as a reference to the 2011 EO.

B.5.17.6 Habitat Loss and Fragmentation

Comments: RP024-477; RP024-486; RP036-022

The commenters requested clarification of the revegetation requirements, specifically related to 

the type of seeds that will be used and the parties who will approve the seed mixture. One 

commenter added that a shrub component should be added to the revegetation plan to 

reestablish lost shrubland habitat.

Response: For the revegetation plan, the NRC recognizes that sagebrush is not specifically 

included in the Applicant's proposed seed mixture as described in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1; 

however, WDEQ/LQD and the landowners approve the seed mixtures of native plants and 

grasses, which may vary in species composition. At the time of decommissioning, the Applicant 

would submit an updated reclamation plan for approval, following review and approval by 

appropriate State and Federal agencies. Further, as stated in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1, 

WDEQ/LQD has the authority to determine the final revegetation for all the land within the 

proposed Project area. FSEIS Section 4.6.1.1 was clarified to include approval of the seed 

mixtures by the landowners. 

Comments: RP036-017; RP036-021; RP036-027; RP036-032; RP036-047; RP036-048; 

RP036-049; RP036-050; RP036-051; RP039-010

The commenters expressed concern about the cumulative impacts to sagebrush shrubland due 

to activities in the Powder River Basin, and the resulting habitat fragmentation. One commenter 

had numerous comments regarding potential impacts to sagebrush shrubland, the sequencing 

of reclamation, and the time required for reestablishment of this vegetation community. 

Response: The NRC staff recognizes the difficulty in re-establishing sagebrush shrubland, as 

discussed in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1. The Applicant has developed a Reclamation Plan as part of 

its WDEQ/LQD permit, which includes specific methods to minimize impacts to sagebrush 

shrubland vegetation. Although this vegetation community accounts for approximately 22 

percent of the total area of the Ross Project, the majority of impacts to vegetation will occur to 

upland grassland and hayfield areas (between 70 and 80 percent of the total disturbance will be 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-125

within these vegetation communities). Therefore, it is anticipated that the total impact to 

sagebrush shrubland will be less than between 20 and 30 ha [49 to 74 ac]. Although the 

phasing of construction activities over time will reduce the amount of surface area disturbed, the 

NRC staff recognizes that given the years needed to reestablish sagebrush shrubland, the 

phasing alone will not be enough to mitigate the impacts. Therefore, the Applicant has 

committed to additional mitigation measures, as discussed in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1, which 

include minimizing disturbances in sagebrush shrubland. The NRC has clarified that all of the 

proposed mitigation measures would be required in order to reduce impacts to vegetation at the 

Project.

The NRC has edited SEIS Section 5.8 to clarify that although reclamation has been conducted 

on one-half of the disturbed areas with the Powder River Basin, the vegetative communities 

may not yet be restored to functional habitat. Additionally, this section has been modified to 

recognize that although some vegetation communities could recover within five years of the 

initiation of restoration, it could take decades for the sagebrush shrubland community to 

recover, as discussed in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1. Additionally, SEIS Section 5.8.1.1 was revised 

to clarify the potential impacts to vegetation resulting from projects within the Powder River 

Basin. Based upon the information provided by the commenters, the cumulative impacts to 

vegetation was changed from SMALL to MODERATE.

B.5.17.7 Traffic and Noise Impacts 

Comment: RP017-013

The commenter expressed concern over the potential negative impacts of Ross Project-related 

noise on wildlife receptors. Concern was also expressed that construction equipment, CPP 

equipment, and trucks could increase low frequency noise in and around Devils Tower as a 

result of Ross Project activities, thereby negatively impacting visitor experience. The 

commenter requested that the “cumulative effects” of noise sources that may be in operation 

simultaneously be addressed.

Response: SEIS Section 4.6 discusses in detail potential impacts of Ross Project- generated 

dust and noise on the flora and fauna of the area. This discussion details potential impacts on 

wildlife. The NRC has also addressed the impact of noise on wildlife in its response to 

comments RP024-516, RP036-040, and RP036-041. The NRC has assessed the attenuation of 

noise with distance from a single or multiple sources on a multi-spectrum basis. The combined 

noise produced by multiple pieces of equipment (including trucks) in close proximity to one 

another was analyzed using standard charts for combining sound levels for equal and non-equal 

sources. Anticipated noise levels, even with predominant low frequency characteristics, will 

revert to ambient levels well before the 10 mile [52,800 ft] distant Devils Tower, due to 

attenuation of noise with distance.

Sound propagation from point source(s) was estimated by the inverse distance law, i.e., that 

sound pressure levels decrease by (-) 6 decibels (dBs) per doubling of distance from the 

source. SEIS Table 4.5 provides estimated damping effects on noise levels of construction 

equipment using the inverse distance law to represent workers, the nearest residence from the 

Ross Project boundary, and the proposed CPP site. As stated in SEIS Section 4.8.1.1, noise 

levels are expected to be the greatest during construction. However, even with certain 

equipment such as impact wrenches, the primary locations of these noises would be at least 

335 m [1,100 ft] from the nearest residence, and not expected to reach the 55 A-weighted 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-126

decibel (dBA) nuisance level. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information 

provided in this response.

Comments: RP024-019; RP024-020; RP024-220

The commenter asked that a range of impacts (i.e., SMALL to MODERATE) be inserted in the 

discussion of the Ross Project’s transportation impacts on local and county roads in the 

Executive Summary of the SEIS. 

Response: The NRC staff determined that the impacts to the local and county road network 

surrounding the Ross Project area would be MODERATE to LARGE during the construction, 

operation, and decommissioning phases of the Ross Project. With mitigation, however, these 

impacts would be ameliorated to SMALL to MODERATE. (Impacts to the Interstate highway 

system would be SMALL in all phases.) The “Transportation” section of the Executive Summary 

was revised to ensure that the magnitudes of the respective impacts are correctly stated. Table 

ExS.1 has also been revised to ensure clarity. Responses to similar comments are also 

included at Comments Nos. RP024-056, RP024-057, RP024-221, RP024-379, and RP024-472.

Comment: RP024-509

The commenter suggested striking the statement, “As noted in GEIS Section 3.3.1, most ISR 

facilities are proposed for undeveloped rural areas at least 16 km [10 mi] from the nearest 

communities,” because the nearest community is Moorcroft, approximately 35 km [22 mi] south 

of the Ross Project site.

Response: The SEIS statement from the GEIS provides information about ISR facilities 

generally. As the commenter notes, however, the Ross Project site is more than twice as far 

(35 km [22 mi]) from the nearest community of Moorcroft. Accordingly, the NRC added text to 

FSEIS Section 4.8 to clarify the distances to the nearest communities.

Comment: RP024-510

The commenter questioned whether the reference to DSEIS Figure 3.3 is correct, because it 

indicated that Figure 3.3 does not depict the residences near the Ross Project. The commenter 

suggested changing the reference to Figure 3.1, which depicts the four nearest residences to 

the Ross Project.

Response: The NRC staff agrees with the commenter. The FSEIS has been revised in 

Section 3.2 to refer the reader to Figure 3.1.

Comments: RP024-516; RP036-040; RP036-041

The commenters noted that SEIS Section 4.8 states that impacts to wildlife from noise would be 

small because wildlife would generally avoid areas where noise-generating activity is occurring. 

The commenters noted that although wildlife may avoid areas where disruptive construction or 

development noise is occurring, the SEIS should analyze avoidance as the impact, not the 

solution to the impact. Although noise may be temporary and may not entail the actual 

disturbance or long-term loss of habitat, it may constitute a short-term loss of habitat because 

the area of avoidance is unusable as a result of the noise conflict.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-127

Response: Impacts to wildlife from noise during construction would be temporary and of 

relatively short duration. The GEIS evaluated the potential impacts to wildlife as ranging from 

SMALL to MODERATE, depending on site specific conditions, including the availability of 

adjacent habitat and the presence of critical habitat. The amount of land impacted by the Ross 

Project (133 ha [280 ac]) is SMALL (see SEIS Section 4.2.1.1). Furthermore, the habitat within 

the Ross Project is not critical for any big-game species or migration corridors (see SEIS 

Section 4.6.1.1), and sage grouse have not been observed on the Ross Project site. There is 

adequate habitat adjacent to the site in the surrounding community, and the wildlife would return 

to the Project Area once the temporary noise activities had ceased. Finally, WGFD mitigation 

requirements would be implemented, as necessary, and as outlined in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1. 

Therefore, the overall impact to wildlife resulting from noise impacts would be SMALL. The 

SEIS was revised to reflect the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP024-672

The commenter questioned whether an increase in truck noise identified in the cumulative 

impacts had been double counted. 

Response: The NRC has clarified Section 5.11, indicating that the increase in truck noise was 

based upon the maximum yellowcake production rate of 1.4 million kg/yr [3 million lb/yr], which 

includes IX resin delivery from the Barber satellite area to the Ross Project's CPP, and that 

truck noise would not greatly increase due to the operation of additional Lance District satellite 

areas during overlapping phases, because the approximate number of vehicles—400—has 

already been considered in SEIS Section 4.8.

Comment: RP024-751

The commenter suggested that the NRC staff revise language in DSEIS Section 5.11 indicating 

that there could be some increase in noise because of the additional uranium-loaded resin 

shipments as such resin is shipped from potential satellite areas in the Lance District. The 

commenter indicated this statement seemed to be double counted because the previous 

statement in the same paragraph specifies that the total number of shipments described in the 

cumulative-impact analysis for noise presented in DSEIS Section 4.8 included “the truck 

delivery of uranium-loaded IX resins from the potential Barber satellite area to the Ross 

Project’s CPP.” 

Response: The NRC staff agrees that noise impacts could have been over-estimated. The 

noise levels discussed in DSEIS 4.8.1 were predicated upon the maximum yellowcake 

production rate of 1.4 million kg/yr [3 million lb/yr]. So, the next statement in the DSEIS, which 

suggested a potential increase in noise attributable to additional uranium-loaded resin trucks 

recovered at the Barber satellite area and trucked to the CPP, did indeed over-count the truck 

noise to and from the Ross Project area. The NRC staff has revised the arithmetic in the 

cumulative-impacts noise analysis in FSEIS Section 5.11 inasmuch as the maximum yellowcake 

production rate had already been evaluated in DSEIS Section 4.8.1. Therefore, the NRC has 

revised the analysis and subject paragraph for clarity, deleting the subject sentence. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-128

B.5.17.8 References

(US)NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing 

Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.” NUREG–1748. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2003b. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML032450279. 

(US)NRC. “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities, Volumes 1 and 2.” NUREG–1910. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2009b. ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML091480244 and ML091480188.

(US)NRC. Safety Evaluation Report for the Strata Energy, Inc. Ross ISR Project, Crook 

County, Wyoming. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2014a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML14002A107. 

(US)NRC. “Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, No. SUA-1601.” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2014b. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A111. 

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Environmental Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata Energy, Inc. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130342, 

ML110130344, and ML110130348.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, Technical 

Report, Volumes 1 through 6 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 

2011b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130333, ML110130335, ML110130314, ML110130316, 

ML110130320, and ML110130327. 

B.5.18 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality

B.5.18.1 Impacts to Air Quality

B.5.18.1.1 GHG and Climate Change

Comment: RP005-002

The commenter expressed concern with increases in fugitive dust created by additional traffic 

and fugitive dust inhalation by animals and humans who would be most exposed to it. The 

commenter noted that in the DSEIS the NRC staff concluded, based on the road dust estimates, 

that there is a potential for moderate dust emissions and impacts to the nearest residents. 

Therefore, short-term and intermittent air emissions may be visible to the residents near 

unpaved roads when vehicles travel on the roads. The commenter stated that the mitigation 

measures discussed in DSEIS Section 4.7.1.1 and in the Air Quality Permit to Construct issued 

by the WDEQ, and to which the Applicant has committed, should reduce but not eliminate Ross 

Project-related road dust, as well as minimize dust from pre-existing normal traffic levels.

Response: Based on the road dust estimates, the NRC concluded that there is a potential of 

moderate dust emissions and impacts to the nearest residents when trucks are 

passing. Therefore, short-term and intermittent visible air emissions are possible to the 

residents near unpaved roads when vehicles (particularly trucks) travel on them. The mitigation 

measures discussed in Section 4.7.1.1 and in the Air Quality Permit to Construct issued by the 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-129

WDEQ, and to which the Applicant has committed, should reduce but not eliminate Ross 

Project-related road dust, as well as minimize dust from pre-existing normal traffic levels. These 

mitigation steps include, but are not limited to, setting and enforcing appropriate speed limits, 

using chemical dust suppressants, encouraging employee carpooling, regular and unannounced 

WDEQ/AQD inspections, and twice-daily visual monitoring for effectiveness of duct control on 

access roads. A statement has been added to Section 4.7.1.1 regarding fugitive-dust mitigation 

measures to which the Applicant has committed for the nearest residences in its Air Quality 

Permit.

Comment: RP024-491

The commenter requested that greenhouse gas emissions from the Proposed Action be 

included.

Response: Greenhouse-gas emissions are discussed as a cumulative impact in SEIS Section 

5.10.2, and the discussion includes an estimation of the CO2 emissions resulting from the 

project (Table 5.6). No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this 

response.

B.5.18.2 Impacts to Devils Tower National Monument

Comment: RP015-005

The commenter stated that the proximity of the project to Devils Tower threatens the economics 

of the region and the health and welfare of visitors to the National Monument due to 

contamination, dust, noise, and truck traffic.

Response: The NRC acknowledges the uniqueness and value of Devils Tower. The analyses 

in the SEIS show that no impacts on the health and welfare of its visitors would occur due to 

contamination, dust, noise, and truck traffic. These analyses included identification of the 

predominant and high speed-wind event dispersion direction as to the south-southeast, 

combined with the channeling effects of the regional landscape (SEIS Section 4.7). 

GEIS Section 4.2.6 determined that uranium-recovery facilities are not, in general, major airemission sources, and that potential air-quality impacts of an ISR facility are small (NRC

2009b), if three conditions were met at a specific facility. These included particle and gaseous 

emissions being within regulatory limits, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

compliance for regional air quality, and that the facility would not be classified as a major source 

under New Source Review or Title V air-quality permit programs (SEIS Section 4.7.1). The 

Ross Project meets these three conditions.

The Ross Project will be subject to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations

(WAQSR), Chapter 3, Section 2(f) regulating fugitive dusts from point sources and to the 

WDEQ/AQD regulations on general fugitive-dust emissions. In the Ross Project Air Quality 

Permit Application, requirements for BMPs and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to 

mitigate fugitive dust and gaseous air emissions are described (WDEQ/AQD, 2011). These 

emissions would be limited in duration depending on the Project phase, as explained in SEIS 

Sections 4.7.1.1 through 4.7.1.4 and quantified in SEIS Table 4.5.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-130

Two studies are cited in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1 that reported deposition rates of mechanicallygenerated fugitive (road) dusts, finding that concentrations decline substantially with 110 – 150 

m [330 – 490 ft] from the road due to gravitational setting rates, vertical mixing, transport times 

and impacting nearby obstacles (e.g., vegetation). The studies conclude that there is a higher 

probability that mechanically generated particles, such as those generated by vehicles, are 

removed from the atmosphere close to their sources than windblown dusts. One of these 

studies also examines the settling rates of windblown fugitive dusts, concluding that PM10 

particles are deposited at a rate that is about an order of magnitude greater than PM2.5. The 

studies indicate that the majority of fugitive dust impacts would not extend beyond the 80-km 

[50-mi] radius around the Ross Project area.

Wind erosion is predicted to generate much less fugitive dust from exposed areas than vehicle 

use on unpaved roads (SEIS Table 4.5). However, stability class information (a measure of 

atmospheric turbulence) collected from the Ross Project meteorological station (Strata, 2011a) 

indicated that the class distributions were predominantly neutral (SEIS Section 4.7.l).

Relative to noise, the GEIS indicates that 300 m [1,000 ft] is the distance outside of which noise 

from construction would return to the usual conditions (SEIS Section 4.8). GEIS (Section 

4.4.7.1) stated that potential noise impacts would be greatest during construction (NRC, 2009b). 

Such noise would not exceed the 24-hour average sound-energy guideline of 70 dBA or the 

daytime average of 55 dBA, the level EPA identified as protective against interference of 

receptor activities and receptor annoyance (EPA, 1978). Table 4.6 in SEIS Section 4.8.1.1, 

shows how the noise level of heavy equipment falls to background at 760 m [2,500 ft] from the 

source. At 16 km [10 mi] distance, Devils Tower will not experience any noise from the Ross

Project. Thru-truck traffic should not create noticeable additional noise at Devils Tower, due to 

paved roads and the attenuation of noise over distance. No changes were made to the SEIS

beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP017-018

The commenter expressed concern that fugitive dust from the Ross Project site might reach a 

80-km [50-mi] radius of the project site, including Devils Tower. The commenter recommends 

adaptive management of fugitive dust minimization measures.

Response: In its Air Quality Permit Application, the Applicant elaborates on adaptive dust 

management, committing to BACT and BMPs to control fugitive dust at the source. An 

important component of adaptive management is visual observation on at least an hourly basis 

to monitor air quality in the Ross Project area and on a twice-daily basis along the primary 

access routes (see SEIS Section 4.7.1.1). In addition, regular inspections by WDEQ/AQD 

would be conducted. Other fugitive dust management techniques include, but are not limited to, 

roadway evaluation and improvement systems, leeward placement of stockpiles (where hills are 

available), prompt restoration of disturbed areas, application of water to exposed soils, chemical 

dust suppressants, speed limits, etc. Roadway-evaluation systems have been adopted as part 

of the MOU with Crook County (Strata and Crook County, 2011d). The performance-related 

approach is flexible in that provisions can be implemented quickly. Fugitive dust from the CPP 

has been estimated to be very small when BACT controls are applied. SEIS Section 4.7.1 

presents data from two studies of the settling distances and transport times of near-road fugitive 

dust (Countess et al., 2001). These data suggest that fugitive dust will not be deposited near 

Devils Tower. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this 

response.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-131

B.5.18.3 Miscellaneous Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality Comments

Comment: RP024-190 

The commenter suggested that the discussion of the non-radioactive particulate and gaseous 

emissions in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.5, Airborne Emissions, Non-Radioactive Emissions, be 

revised to be consistent with the Applicant’s ER at Section 4.6.1. 

Response: The discussion in the DSEIS deliberately did not include some of the smaller 

sources of non-radioactive particulate and gaseous emissions that are inventoried in the license 

application because Section 2 is a broad overview of the Proposed Action, less detailed than 

the impact analyses in Section 4 of the SEIS. Nonetheless, the NRC has revised the text in 

Section 2.0 to highlight the smaller sources identified by the commenter.

Comments: RP024-306; RP024-307; RP024-308; RP024-309

The commenter requested that the NRC staff clarify the speeds of the wind, the direction of the 

wind (as measured at the Ross Project area), and the period of record for the wind 

measurements depicted by the wind roses in DSEIS Figures 3.17 and 3.18.

Response: The text in FSEIS Section 3.7.1, which discusses the information conveyed by the 

subject figures, has been edited to clarify the results of wind monitoring at the Project area, 

including the discussion of the prevailing wind speeds, direction, and the pertinent records kept. 

Comment: RP024-492

The commenter stated that the statement in DSEIS Section 4.7 that “combustion emission and 

fugitive dust emissions from the Ross Project would be moved by the highest wind speeds to 

the south-southeast” is inconsistent with the Ross Project wind patterns. The commenter stated 

that the predominant wind direction at the Ross Project area is from the south and that, 

therefore, combustion engine and fugitive dust emissions would be moved to the "northnorthwest." 

Response: The prevailing wind direction at the site is southerly, except in May, when 

southeast winds prevail. Despite the southerly winds, the SEIS statement that the highest wind 

speeds tend to occur from the north-northwest is accurate. Therefore, no changes were made 

to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP024-493

The commenter noted that the text in DSEIS Section 4.7 regarding “unwanted vapor and 

gaseous emissions” was unclear, as was, in the opinion of the commenter, much of text 

regarding fugitive dust. The commenter recommended eliminating this text from that particular 

subsection (i.e., that Section’s introduction).

Response: The NRC staff agrees to a point; however, fugitive dust is a significant air 

pollutant. The intent of the discussion was to compare the significance of fugitive dust to other 

pollutants relative to other examples. Nevertheless, the potential confusion introduced by the 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-132

original wording is acknowledged. The text in FSEIS Section 4.7 retains the identification of 

fugitive dust as a significant air pollutant, but it has been revised for more clarity.

Comment: RP024-500

The commenter requested that Table 4.5, under “[Non-Radioactive Emissions Summary]

Construction Equipment and Truck Tailpipe Emissions,” be revised to include all of the 

transportation-related emissions detailed by the Applicant in its responses to the NRC’s RAIs on 

the license application (Strata, 2012a).

Response: The NRC has added the information requested by the commenter to FSEIS Table 

4.5. 

Comment: RP032-052

The commenter asked for a calculation of the CO2 equivalent emissions for the project, per 

pound of yellowcake. The commenter asked that the calculation include all sources of electricity 

and fossil-fueled consumption for the life of the Ross Project. 

Response: As documented in Section 5.10.2 of the SEIS, the maximum annual CO2 equivalent 

emissions for operations at the facility is 11,872 t [13,087 T]. The production of yellowcake is 

anticipated to be a maximum of 3,000,000 pounds per year, resulting in an estimated 8.7 

pounds of CO2 equivalent emissions per pound of yellowcake. This number only accounts for 

the emissions resulting from on-site plant operations, and does not include emissions from 

power plants providing electricity to the facility. Due to the interstate nature of the electrical grid, 

the actual source of the electricity for the plant is unknown, and therefore the CO2 emissions for 

the electricity to be supplied to the plant cannot be calculated. No changes were made to the 

SEIS as a result of this comment. 

Comment: RP039-019

The commenter asked that impacts from truck traffic, dust, and noise be minimized.

Response: The commenter’s concerns are addressed in the responses to Comment Nos. 

RP016-005, RP017-012, RP017-013 RP017-018, and RP024-495. 

B.5.18.4 References

Countess, R., W. Barnard, C. Claiborn, D. Gillette, D. Latimer, T. Pace, and J. Watson. 

“Methodology for Estimating Fugitive Windblown and Mechanically Resuspended Road Dust 

Emissions Applicable for Regional Air Quality Modeling” in 10th International Emission Inventory 

Conference Proceedings. Westlake Village, CA: Countess Environmental. May 2001. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13022A448.

(US)EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). “Protective Noise Levels: Condensed Version of 

EPA Levels Document.” EPA Report No. 550/9-79-100. ML13015A552. Washington DC: 

EPA. November 1978.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-133

(US)NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for InSitu Leach Uranium Milling Facilities. Volumes 1 and 2.” NUREG–1910. Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2009b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML091480244 and ML091480188. 

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Environmental Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130342, ML110130344, and 

ML110130348. 

Strata. Air Quality Permit Application for Ross In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project. Prepared for 

Strata Energy, Inc. Sheridan, WY: Inter-Mountain Laboratories, IML Air Science. 2011c. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML11222A060.

Strata and Crook County. Memorandum of Understanding for Improvement and Maintenance of 

Crook County Roads Providing Access to the Ross ISR Project. Sundance, WY: Crook 

County. April 6, 2011d. ADAMS Accession No. ML111170303.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, RAI Question 

and Answer Responses, Environmental Report, Volume 1 with Appendices. Docket No. 40- 

09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2012a. ADAMS Accession No. ML121030465.

WDEQ/AQD (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division). Permit to 

Construct, Air Quality Permit #12198. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/AQD. 2011. September 13, 

2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML112770430.

B.5.19 Historical and Cultural Resources

B.5.19.1 Potential Impacts to Cultural, Historical, and Sacred Places

Comments: RP024-041; RP024-042; RP024-058; RP024-085; RP024-086; RP024-222; 

RP024-322; RP024-522; RP024-523; RP024-524; RP024-525; RP024-527; RP024-529; 

RP024-532; RP024-534; RP024-536; RP024-537; RP024-538; RP024-539; RP024-540; 

RP024-542; RP024-680; RP024-681; RP024-682; RP024-683; RP024-684; RP024-689; 

RP024-690; RP024-691; RP024-692; RP024-693; RP024-694 

The commenter requested several revisions to the SEIS text within the sections on Historical, 

Cultural, and Paleontological Resources. The suggested revisions included justifying the 

statement that potential impacts to historical and cultural resources would be SMALL to LARGE, 

changing “eligible properties” to “potentially eligible properties,” and clarifying the consultation 

status and level of interest of certain Tribes. The commenter also recommended clarifying the 

information regarding the status of the traditional cultural properties (TCPs) survey and existing 

disturbance within the project area that could adversely effect these sites, and including more 

information on the possible outcomes of Section 106 consultation and the possible development 

of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize adverse effects. 

Response: The NRC and the BLM staffs’ Section 106 consultation activities for the proposed 

undertaking have continued since publication of the DSEIS. These activities have required 

significant revisions to SEIS discussions related to Section 106 consultation activities and 

historical, cultural, and paleontological resources. Many of these FSEIS revisions occur in 

sections of the DSEIS that the commenter addressed in its comments. When revising the text 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-134

to reflect the new information obtained through the post-DSEIS Section 106 activities, the NRC 

staff considered these comments.

Comment: RP024-535

The commenter suggested changing the word “mitigated” to “resolved” to be consistent with 

Section 106 consultation process.

Response: “Mitigation,” as used in an EIS, means avoidance, minimization (to limit the degree 

or magnitude of an action), rectification (to repair, rehabilitate, or restore), reduction, or 

elimination of potential impacts over time; it can also mean compensation. Mitigation with 

respect of NHPA also means the resolution of specific adverse effects to a historical and/or 

cultural property. Thus, “mitigation” is the proper word that the NRC intended to use. No 

changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information presented in this response.

Comment: RP037-001

The commenter brought to the attention of the NRC staff the concerns and frustrations of its 

Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO). A second letter was attached to the comment letter, 

one of which was written to the Advisory Council on Historic Properties (ACHP) and which 

discussed not only the Ross Project, but other ISR projects as well. 

Response: While many of the comments submitted by the commenter were not within the 

scope of this SEIS, which concerns only the proposed Ross Project, readers are invited to read 

the letter attached to the comment letter, which was dated March 20, 2013, at ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13196A371. Moreover, readers can access ACHP’s related letter to the NRC 

of May 3, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13196A368) as well as NRC’s response letter to the 

ACHP dated August 2, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13197A139).

B.5.19.2 Miscellaneous Historic and Cultural Comments

Comment: RP024-316

The commenter stated that the original text in DSEIS Section 3.9 was factually incorrect and 

does not contribute to an understanding of historical and cultural properties at the Ross Project 

area.

Response: The original text in the SEIS makes four relevant points. First, the text refers to the 

broad categories of property types that may be considered historic properties, including: sites, 

buildings, structures, districts or objects. Prehistoric archaeological sites considered potentially 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D of 36 CFR Part 

60.4 occur within the Ross Project area. 

Second, the SEIS text referred to the 1992 Amendments to Section 101 of the NHPA, which 

explicitly added TCPs as a property type that could be considered eligible for listing on the 

NRHP. TCP site and district properties eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A do 

occur within the Ross Project area. Third, the text cited the four NRHP criteria for evaluation 

cited in 36 CFR Part 60.4; however, two errors occurred in the text: 1) the four criteria should 

be identified as Criteria “a – d”, rather than “1 – 4,” and 2) “under Criterion 4(d),” that the DSEIS 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-135

text read as “yield or be likely to yield important information.” The correct citation for Criterion 

(d) is, “has yielded or may yield information significant to prehistory or history.” 

Fourth, the DSEIS text referred to assessements of site integrity as a requirement of the NRHP 

site-evaluation process. This part of the text is not clear, nor does it contribute to an 

understanding of historic properties in the Ross Project area. To clarify the information 

presented in the FSEIS text, the commenter recommended replacing the original text with the 

following text passage: “Historic properties are resources eligible for or listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places. To be eligible for listing, resources must exhibit integrity of setting, 

location, design, materials, feeling and association. Once integrity is established, a resource is 

evaluated for criteria of eligibility as defined in 36 CFR Part 60.4, of which it must meet at least 

one criterion. These criteria include: 1) association with significant events in the past, 2) 

association with the lives of persons significant in the past, 3) embodiments of distinctive 

characteristics of type, period, or construction, or 4) yield or be likely to yield important 

information.” 

The NRC agrees that the text change recommended by the commenter provides increased 

clarity and is more descriptive of the historic properties in the Ross Project area. However, the 

incorporation of the important points cited in the DSEIS text is also necessary to provide the 

most complete picture of the occurrence and significance of potential historic and cultural 

properties in the Ross Project area. Therefore, a new, combined text passage has been 

inserted to replace the text in FSEIS Section 3.9. 

Comment: RP024-319

The commenter suggested revising “additional shovel tests” in SEIS Section 3.9.2 to include all 

of the additional work completed by the Applicant.

Response: The FSEIS has been revised in Section 3.9 to include a description of the 

additional work completed by the Applicant.

Comment: RP024-321; RP024-675

The commenter suggested the NRC be consistent in its description of the APE for the Ross 

Project. The APE was defined in DSEIS Section 3.9 as “...the Ross Project site boundary and 

its immediate environs, which may be impacted by the Ross Project construction, operation, 

aquifer restoration, and decommissioning activities.” This differed from the description in DSEIS 

Section 5.12, which stated that the APE “includes the Ross Project’s boundaries as well as the 

area established for potential effects to TCPs.”

Response: The NRC staff agrees and has ensured that its references to the APE, as defined 

in the first quotation, are consistent in the discussions in FSEIS Sections 3.9 and 5.12.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-136

B.5.20 Visual and Scenic Resources

B.5.20.1 Light Pollution Concerns

Comment: RP017-012

The commenter expressed concern about the cumulative impacts related to light pollution at the 

Ross Project, air pollution (including fugitive dust), and visual and scenic impacts, particularly if 

potential satellite areas in the Lance District (including the proposed Kendrick, Richards, and 

Barber areas) would be under construction and/or operation in conjunction with the Ross Project 

area.

Response: The construction, operation, aquifer restoration and decommissioning of the Lance 

District (Kendrick, Richards, and Barber areas) would be developed in sequence after the 

construction of the Ross Project facility (e.g., CPP and the surface impoundments) has been 

completed and its operation initiated. If other satellite areas were to be developed within the 

Lance District, then the Applicant would be required to submit to the NRC a license-amendment 

application. In that application, the Applicant would be required to evaluate light and air 

pollution as consequences of its expansion in the Lance District. 

SEIS Sections 4.9 and 4.13 consider the cumulative impacts of the Ross Project on local air 

quality as well as on visual and scenic resources (including light pollution in general). As noted 

in SEIS Section 4.10.1.1, prior to the actual construction of the Ross Project, monitoring for 

potential light pollution would be conducted at eight sites around the Project area. Based upon 

the results of this pre-construction evaluation, a light-pollution monitoring plan would be 

prepared by the Applicant. This plan would finalize the locations for both continuous and 

intermittent light sources; in addition, it would provide a schedule for periodic checks on sky 

brightness during the construction and operation of the Ross Project to ensure worker safety 

and to measure, and to mitigate if necessary, obtrusive light emanating from the Proposed 

Action (Strata, 2012a). Please see the NRC staff’s responses to Comment Nos. RP035-015

and RP035-042 for further information on the potential cumulative impacts to air quality as a 

result of the Ross Project, and please refer to the other comments and responses in this Section 

B.5.20 of Appendix B. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in 

this response.

Comment: RP017-014

The commenter recommended that all mitigation strategies listed in DSEIS Section 4.10.1.1 be 

extended to include all components of the Ross Project, including the CCP, wellfields, roads, 

and structures. The commenter also recommended that these mitigation strategies be 

extended to the operation and aquifer-restoration phases of the Project.

Response: The NRC staff agrees with the commenter's recommendations. It has revised the 

text to clarify that the mitigation strategies noted in FSEIS Section 4.10.1.1 would be applied to 

all components of the Project, including the CPP, wellfields, roads, and structures, and that they 

would be continued during the operation and aquifer-restoration phases, until the area has been 

reclaimed and restored.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-137

Comments: RP017-015; RP017-016; RP039-017; RP042-001

One commenter recommended a few additional actions in order to better address and mitigate 

artificial lighting. The discussion in the DSEIS focused on the glare of light in the direct vicinity 

of the CPP. However, the commenter noted that light pollution could also occur from “sky glow,” 

which has broader environmental implications. Sky glow (also known as “artificial sky glow,” 

“light domes,” or “fugitive light”) is the brightening of the night sky from human-caused light 

scattered in the atmosphere. This glow can greatly detract from the overall darkness of the 

night sky and can inhibit people’s ability to view celestial objects in the night sky. In a remote 

and dark environment, impacts can be detected at distances over 160 km [100 mi]. The 

commenter was pleased that the Applicant would address light pollution by conducting baseline 

monitoring for potential light pollution at eight sites near the Project area. The commenter 

indicated support for the Applicant’s proposal to prepare a light-pollution monitoring plan and the 

multiple mitigation measures proposed. The commenter encouraged the highest level of lightpollution mitigation possible, and requested the opportunity to cooperate on the final lightpollution monitoring plan and the mitigation measures to be used at the Ross Project, based 

upon the information obtained during pre-construction, baseline monitoring. Because the night 

sky is such a valuable resource at Devils Tower, and to ensure that the resource is protected, 

the commenter requested the Applicant conduct or sponsor light-pollution and night-sky 

monitoring at Devils Tower in addition to the proposed eight sites, or in substitution for one or 

more of the currently proposed sites. The commenter stated that the Applicant or the NRC 

should contact the commenter to identify optimum monitoring locations and protocols to reflect 

potential impacts on the night sky and the visitor experience. Two other commenters 

recommended adequately minimizing light pollution and other industrial impacts to landowners 

in the Oshoto area and to Devils Tower.

Response: The first commenter’s suggestions will be available for review by the Applicant in 

the FSEIS. As noted in SEIS Section 4.10.1, the respective impact analysis yielded the result 

that the visual and scenic impacts of the Ross Project would be SMALL throughout its lifecycle. 

Moreover, as outlined in SEIS Section 4.10.1.1, the Applicant would mitigate light-pollution 

impacts by designing lighting plans with an emphasis on the minimum lighting requirements for 

operation, safety, and security purposes; using light sources of minimum intensity (as measured 

in lumens) necessary to accomplish the light's purpose; specifying lighting fixtures that direct 

light only where it is needed (i.e., shine down, not out or up) in conjunction with shielding that 

further directs the light towards the respective work area; turning lights off when not needed at 

proposed intermittent light locations either manually, with timers, or occupancy sensors; 

adjusting the type of lights used so that the light waves emitted are those that are less likely to 

cause light-pollution problems such as those attendant with high-pressure sodium lamps; fitting 

building windows with shutters, where appropriate, to block light emissions, including the CPP 

and other buildings; using natural and/or in situ screens to reduce perceptible light (i.e., locating 

buildings and other facility components to take advantage of the natural topography and any 

trees; and evaluating the results of the light-pollution monitoring to ensure that, as necessary, 

the mitigation measures suggested previously have been implemented successfully (Strata, 

2012a). No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP017-024

The commenter noted that, while the light- and noise-pollution impacts of the Ross Project were 

discussed in the DSEIS with respect to nearby residences, Devils Tower is also sensitive to the 

effects of anthropogenic light and noise and should be included in the analysis.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-138

Response: Visual impacts to receptors at Devils Tower are discussed in FSEIS Section 

4.10.1.1. The NRC staff has added supplemental text to the FSEIS in Sections 4.8, Noise, and 

4.10, Visual and Scenic Resources, to further describe the impacts of anthropogenic light and 

noise at Devils Tower.

B.5.20.2 Visual Impacts

Comment: RP017-017

The commenter noted that daytime visual impacts are a concern for Devils Tower. The main 

feature of the Monument is the 264-m [867-ft] rock monolith, Devils Tower. The rock formation 

is sacred to many Native American tribes and climbed by 5,000 to 6,000 rock climbers a year.

Response: Daytime visual impacts are discussed in SEIS Section 4.10.1. Mitigation to reduce 

daytime visual impacts can be found in SEIS Section 4.10.1.1. The fact that the Tower is 

sacred to many Native American tribes is discussed in SEIS Section 3.9.1.2. No changes were 

made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comments: RP017-019; RP024-547

One commenter stated that the viewshed-impact analysis in the DSEIS with respect to Devils 

Tower shows that visitors at ground level would not be able to see the CPP. However, the 

commenter noted that climbers on Devils Tower would be able to see the CPP and that there 

may impact to the visitor experience to climbers since few structures are visible from the Tower. 

Another commenter noted that pictures were taken by the NPS with a telephoto lens from the 

top of Devils Tower in September 2011 (see ADAMS Acession No. ML11320A307). The Devils 

Tower viewshed analysis concluded that the Ross Project would not be visible from the base of 

Devils Tower or from the Visitor’s Center, but that the Project area could be visible to climbers 

scaling the Tower.

Response: The NRC staff does not use photos taken with a telephoto lens in its visual-impact 

analyses. The NRC staff evaluates visual impacts from the perspective of the human eye. Text 

in FSEIS Section 4.10.1.1 has been revised to clarify that it is unlikely that the Ross Project area 

could be visible to climbers scaling the tower due to the distance between the Project area and 

the Tower. 

Comment: RP017-020

The commenter indicated support for the multiple visual-impact mitigation measures proposed 

by the Applicant, including painting some of the infrastructure to match the surrounding 

environment, planting trees, and using the local topography and landscape to create a visual 

buffer. The commenter added that impacts to visual and scenic resources during Project 

operation are considered “SMALL” (i.e., not detectable) in the SEIS. However, given that 

climbers may be able to see the CPP and lights from the summit of Devils Tower, unless 

mitigated, the commenter indicated that those impacts would be “MODERATE” (i.e., sufficient to 

alter noticeably).

Response: The NRC has determined that, with the mitigation measures committed to by the 

Applicant, as detailed in SEIS Section 4.10.1.1, the impacts to visual and scenic resources in 

the APE as a result of the CPP’s presence and its lighting during all of the Ross Project’s 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-139

phases would be SMALL. In particular, given the BLM’s management class of the Ross Project 

area, even nearby observers would experience only SMALL impacts, although the four nearest 

residences to the Project could experience SMALL to MODERATE impacts during the 

construction phase but these impacts would lessen during the operation phase of the Project to 

SMALL. During the day, climbers at the top of Devils Tower would not be able to see the 

Project, even the CPP, due to the camouflaging efforts committed to by the Applicant (e.g., paint 

colors); conversely, during the dark of night, such climbers might be able to see the lights of the 

Project. However, no climbing is permitted after dark at Devils Tower. No changes were made 

to the SEIS beyond the information presented in this response.

Comment: RP024-545

The commenter noted the statement in DSEIS Section 4.10 that, “The Applicant would mitigate 

visual and scenic impacts related to fugitive dust by wetting the soil and using chemical dust 

suppressants, as necessary, when clearing and grading activities are underway as well as by 

establishing diminished speed limits for vehicle traffic....” The commenter suggested revising 

the statement to: “[The Applicant’s] using chemical dust suppressants, as necessary, when 

clearing and grading activities are underway and on roads as well as....” 

Response: The NRC staff agrees that the subject statement could be stated more clearly. The 

NRC staff notes, however, a number of management practices the Applicant could exercise to 

suppress fugitive dust are presented in detail in SEIS Section 4.7. The statement has been 

revised per the commenter’s suggestion in FSEIS Section 4.10.

Comment: RP039-012

The commenter requested that the FSEIS fully discuss the visual quality of the area, impacts, 

and mitigation.

Response: The visual and scenic resources in the Ross Project area, which are discussed in 

SEIS Section 3.10; the impacts to visual and scenic resources from the three proposed 

alternatives, which are discussed in SEIS Section 4.10; and the cumulative impacts related to 

Project-area visual and scenic resources, which are described in SEIS Section 5.13, are fully 

described and discussed in the SEIS. Further, the mitigation measures for visual and scenic 

resources impacts are described in SEIS Section 4.10.1. No changes were made to the SEIS 

beyond the information provided in this response.

B.5.20.3 References

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, RAI Question and Answer Responses, Environmental Report, Volume 1 with 

Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2012a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML121030465.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-140

B.5.21 Socioeconomics

Comment: RP016-007

The commenter stated that the anticipated one-percent increase in the demand for health and 

social services as a result of an anticipated one-percent increase in local population well underrepresented the true impact on local emergency services.

Response: Increases in the demand for health and social services based upon increases in 

the local-area population are consistent with standard planning practices for these types of 

services. As noted in SEIS Section 4.11.1.1, accident rates (and the ensuing need for 

emergency services) are not expected to be different than those of other types of similar 

industrial facilities. The Applicant has represented itself to be committed to maintaining 

emergency-response personnel on staff and would train local emergency responders in 

preparing and responding to potential emergencies. No changes were made to the SEIS 

beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP016-008

The commenter noted that the increase in the workforce, distance of travel on two-lane gravel 

roads, extreme drought conditions in the region, and the amount of drill-rig activity and 

construction work in vegetated areas, would all make the potential for accidents and fires 

extremely high compared to the current state of the community prior to the Applicant's uraniumrecovery operation. Since Crook County is staffed entirely by all-volunteer firefighters, the 

commenter proposed that the Applicant be required to have trained emergency-response 

personnel on staff, to work with local responders on preparing and responding to potential 

environmental, safety, and health emergencies, and to be required to have a firefighting unit 

available and staff trained to respond at all times.

Response: The NRC's Ross Project SER, Section 7.3.6, determined that the Project-related 

fire hazard would be minimal and that the Applicant's commitments to further reduce the risk 

would make an onsite firefighting unit unnecessary. No changes were made to the SEIS 

beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP024-331

The commenter suggested revising SEIS Section 3.11.2 so that it would discuss median 

household income, which would be similar to previous SEISs completed for the Moore Ranch 

and Nichols Ranch Projects.

Response: The purpose of the SEIS’s providing a per-capita-personal-income measure, rather 

than a median household-income measure, was so that the total personal-income value was 

easily calculated for the region of influence (ROI), based upon population levels. The total 

personal-income value is the metric against which Project changes were measured regardless 

of whether a per-capita measure or a household measure were to be used. No changes were 

made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-141

Comment: RP024-696

The commenter requested clarification on the sources the NRC staff used to evaluate the 

cumulative impacts for employment and population increases. For example, the commenter 

noted that the SEIS stated that “2,080 jobs” would be created if the other potential uraniumrecovery projects in the 80-km [50-mi] area were at peak construction employment concurrently 

with the Ross Project. However, the commenter noted that, as indicated in SEIS Section 4.11, 

the Ross Project would employ 200 people during construction and an additional 140 indirect 

jobs could be generated. Therefore, the commenter stated that during construction the Ross 

Project and four other potential uranium-recovery projects could create “1,000 jobs” with the 

potential for an additional “700 indirect jobs.” Similarly, the commenter noted that the SEIS 

stated that “the additional operation-phase population would increase the projected six-county 

population in 2027 to 24,348 residents.” However, as the commenter noted, SEIS Section 4.11 

stated that the employment base in the ROI (Crook and Campbell counties) was approximately 

28,000 workers.

Response: The 2,080 construction-worker estimate reflected not only uranium-recovery 

projects within 80 km [50 mi] of the Ross Project area, but it also included other uraniumrecovery projects within the six-county region composed of Crook, Campbell, Weston, Sheridan, 

Johnson, and Converse Counties. This area is consistent with the geographic scope of the 

BLM's Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Cumulative Social and Economic Effects

and is also consistent with the rest of the socioeconomics cumulative-impact analysis. 

The other, similar projects include the potential Aladdin, Elkhorn, Hauber, and Alzada uraniumrecovery projects; the Smith Ranch, Willow Creek, Nichols Ranch, Moore Ranch, and Reno 

Creek uranium-recovery projects; the Ross Project itself; and the workforce associated with 

wellfield construction at the satellite areas of Ross Amendment Area 1, Kendrick, Richards, and 

Barber. The NRC staff assumed that the construction of the potential satellite areas would 

require 20 workers at each location, and approximately 200 workers at each of the other 

projects; thus, the peak construction workforce would total 2,080 workers. There is an error in 

SEIS Section 5.14 in reference to these projects all located within 80 km [50 mi] of the Ross 

Project. The NRC has corrected the SEIS text in Section 5.14 to reflect the impacts were 

assessed over the six-County region, rather than within 80 km [50 mi] of the Ross Project. 

Comment: RP032-062

The commenter noted that the SEIS, in its discussion of the eliminated alternative of 

conventional mining and milling to extract uranium at the Ross Project, stated that “the uranium 

ore in the Lance District is low-grade and located at nearly the maximum depth for surface 

mining to practically recover uranium from an open pit.” The commenter asked that the NRC 

define "low-grade.” The commenter also asked that the NRC provide an analysis to show that 

the environmental impacts of developing the uranium within the Lance District is worth the 

socioeconomic benefits in light of the alternative to mine from other locations. Specifically, the 

commenter noted that mining uranium from the Athabasca Basin would cause significantly 

fewer environmental impacts per ton of U308 product extracted. The commenter also asked if 

the Applicant’s mining the potential satellites within the Lance District could threaten the future 

use of wells in the area as a source of drinking water. 

Response: Uranium ore is defined as “low-grade” when it contains a small percentage (e.g., 

0.01 to 0.25 percent) of uranium oxides. SEIS Section 7, “Cost-Benefit Analysis,” provides an 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-142

examination of the costs and benefits of the Proposed Action and the Alternatives. The 

discussion of costs and benefits followed the NRC guidance presented in NUREG–1748 (NRC, 

2003b). NRC guidance does not provide for the NRC’s evaluation of the costs and benefits of 

the Proposed Action against those of an eliminated alternative (e.g., an operator’s use of 

conventional mining to recover uranium from another location). This SEIS has been prepared to 

evaluate the environmental impacts of the NRC’s decision to either grant or deny a license to 

construct and operate a uranium-recovery facility and wellfields at the proposed Ross Project 

area. If the Ross Project were to be licensed and Strata were to submit an application to amend 

its Source and Byproduct Materials License to include one or more of the potential satellite 

areas, the NRC would prepare a NEPA document at that time to evaluate the environmental 

impacts of granting or denying the license amendment. That NEPA document would include an 

analysis of impacts to water resources, at that time. No changes were made to the SEIS 

beyond in the information in this response.

Comment: RP041-016

The commenter stated that Federal uranium would be mined under the “1872 General Mining 

Law” at the Ross Project and its potential satellite areas, but the SEIS did not disclose the lack 

of royalties related to the production of Federal minerals. Therefore, the commenter asked that 

the FSEIS disclose that the mining of Federal uranium reserves would not produce royalties to

federal or state governments.

Response: The discussion of royalty payments in the SEIS referred only to Wyoming royalties, 

which are authorized by State statute. All royalty revenues in the SEIS referred to these stateauthorized royalties. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond in the information in this 

response.

B.5.21.1 References

(US)NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing 

Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.” NUREG–1748. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2003b. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML032450279. 

(US)NRC. “Safety Evaluation Report for the Strata Energy, Inc. Ross ISR Project, Crook 

County, Wyoming, Materials License No. SUA-1601, Docket No. 040-09091, Strata Energy, 

Inc.” Washington, DC: USNRC. 2014a. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A107. 

(US)NRC. “Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, No. SUA-1601.” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2014b. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A111. 

B.5.22 Public and Occupational Health

B.5.22.1 Impacts to Members of the General Public

Comment: RP003-004

The commenter expressed concern regarding historical mining operations (including a mine in 

Colorado) that involved radioactive materials and stated that these operations caused 

unexplained illness and mortality to individuals as well as left the properties in that area with no 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-143

value. The commenter also feared that there would be contamination that occurs as a result of 

the Ross Project. 

Response: In its role as a regulatory agency, the NRC regulates the radiological aspects of 

uranium-related projects to ensure public and occupational health and safety as well as the 

protection of the environment. As part of its licensing process, and to ensure public and 

occupational health and safety, the NRC’s SER includes an analysis of the Applicant’s proposed 

compliance with the applicable requirements and objectives set forth in 10 CFR Parts 20, 

“Standards for Protection Against Radiation,” and 40, “Domestic Licensing of Source Material,” 

in addition to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, “Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills 

and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of 

Source Material from Ores Processed Primarily for their Source Material Content” (NRC, 

2014a). No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP035-018

The commenter noted that the DSEIS references a document containing information on the 

estimated radon released from the proposed facility, but that the estimate is not included in the 

DSEIS. The commenter recommended that the FSEIS include this radon-release estimate so 

that the public and decision makers can clearly understand whether there is a potential radon 

impact to public health.

Response: The commenter does not provide a citation for the DSEIS section where the 

“document” is referenced. However, it appears that commenter was referring to SEIS Section 

4.13.1.2, which discussed the impacts of a radon release due to pregnant-lixiviant and loadedresin releases. The document referenced in this SEIS Section is the GEIS (NRC, 2009b), which 

references NUREG/CR-6733 (Mackin, 2001). NUREG/CR-6733, Table 4-5, indicated that the 

assumed activity concentration of radon used for the pregnant-lixiviant and loaded-resin spill 

scenarios was 3.0 x 104 Bq/L [8.00 x 105 pCi/L]. This activity concentration was provided in 

Section 4.13.1.2 of the DSEIS along with the estimated resulting radiation dose to a worker of 

0.0013 Sv [1,300 mrem] and dose to a member of the public of less than 1 mSv [100 mrem]. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

B.5.22.2 Impacts to Occupational Workers

Comment: RP024-354 

The commenter requested clarification on the radiation-exposure ranges and units presented in 

Table 3.21 of the DSEIS. The commenter indicated that these values seemed erroneously high.

 

Response: The units of radiation exposure measured by the thermo-luminescent dosimeters

(TLDs) during pre-licensing, site-characterization environmental studies of the Applicant were 

incorrectly listed in the DSEIS. Table 3.21 has been corrected in the FSEIS.

Comments: RP032-034

The commenter asked where the off-gases generated in the yellowcake dryer would be vented 

and what constituents would be contained in these off gases. The commenter also asked if 

there would be an incremental risk to workers or the public as a result of the Ross Project. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-144

Response: The off-gases from the yellowcake dryer, including particulates, were reviewed by 

the NRC in its SER (NRC, 2014a). All such releases, which would exit the CPP from a stack 

only after gas filtration and scrubbing, have been determined to be ALARA. Please refer to the 

NRC's SER for further information. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information 

provided in this response. 

B.5.22.3 References

Mackin, P.C., D. Daruwalla, J. Winterle, M. Smith, and D.A. Pickett. “A Baseline Risk-Informed 

Performance-Based Approach for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Licensees.” NUREG/CR–

6733. Washington, DC: USNRC. September 2001. ADAMS Accession No. ML011860093. 

(US)NRC. “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS 

Programs.” NUREG–1748. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2003b. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML032450279. 

(US)NRC. “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities, Volumes 1 and 2.” NUREG–1910. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2009b. ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML091480244 and ML091480188.

(US)NRC. “Safety Evaluation Report for the Strata Energy, Inc. Ross ISR Project, 

Crook County, Wyoming.” Washington, DC: USNRC. 2014a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML14002A107. 

B.5.23 Waste Management

B.5.23.1 Waste Treatment and Disposal Methods

Comments: RP017-011; RP032-055

One commenter noted the statement in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.5, “WDEQ has approved a UIC 

Class I Permit for up to five wells to be installed in the Deadwood and Flathead Formations 

(Permit No. 10-263) (WDEQ/WQD, 2011b). The applicant expects the capacity of each of the 

five Class I wells to range between 132.5 – 302.8 L/min [35 – 80 gal/min].” A commenter noted 

that the capacity of a disposal well is expressed as a flow-rate, not as a limit on the total amount 

of liquid wastes injected and asked the following questions: 1) What determines the actual 

amount of liquid waste that each deep-disposal well can accommodate, and how is this limit 

expressed; 2) Is there a limitation imposed on the maximum injection pressure, or on the 

resulting water pressure in the deep formation that is receiving the waste, and what is this limit 

for the Ross Project and for potential projects developed in the Lance District; and 3) Would all 

deep-disposal wells associated with uranium yellowcake produced pursuant to the proposed 

license be targeted in the same formations (Deadwood and Flathead) as targeted by the five 

deep-disposal wells permitted for the "Ross Project?" In addition, a commenter requested that 

the total estimated volume of liquid for deep-well injection that would be disposed in the Class I 

UIC wells be included in the SEIS.

Response: The UIC Class I wells proposed by the Applicant and the corresponding UIC Permit 

for these wells that the Applicant has received from WDEQ/WQD are discussed in FSEIS 

Sections 2.1.1.5 and 4.5.1.2. The UIC Class I Permit limits the pressure rather than volume of 

liquid disposed in the disposal wells. The Permit sets a maximum limit on the injection pressure 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-145

(2,570 psi) and sets a range for the annulus pressure (200 – 800 psi). Injection at pressures 

less than the injection limit ensures that the capacity of the target aquifer (Deadwood and 

Flathead Formations) is not exceeded. The UIC Permit requires that the pressures as well as 

injection rate and volume are monitored and submitted to the WDEQ. In addition, the UIC 

Permit requires pressure fall-off tests to be conducted; these tests will provide data so that the 

Applicant can calculate aquifer properties to determine safe pressures. It is likely that any other 

UIC Class I wells in the Lance District would also target the Deadwood and Flathead 

Formations because the geology is the same throughout the Lance District. The pressure 

limitations and the testing and monitoring requirements set by the UIC Class I Permit has been 

added to the FSEIS in Section 2.1.1.5 as a result of this comment. As described in Section 

4.5.1 and 4.14.1, the estimated rates of disposal of liquid in the UIC Class wells are given in 

Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 and Table 4.10 in the FSEIS. The rate of liquid disposed in the wells 

ranges from 0.2 m3

/min [62 gal/min] during operations without concurrent restoration to 0.9 

m3

/min [227 gal/min] during operations with concurrent restoration. The total volume of liquid 

disposed in the wells would be determined by the estimated rates of disposal multiplied by the 

duration of the project activities.

Comment: RP024-205

The commenter indicated that byproduct material would not be generated during the 

construction phase of the Ross Project. During the other phases of the Project’s lifecycle, when 

byproduct material would be generated, such material would be stored onsite in a designated 

area and then shipped offsite for disposal.

Response: The NRC staff acknowledges that the commenter is correct, and SEIS Section 

2.1.1.5 has been revised accordingly as a result of this comment. 

Comments: RP024-401; RP024-402

The commenter noted lack of clarity regarding the environmental impacts to aquifers that would 

be used for deep-well injection.

Response: The NRC staff has revised the text in SEIS Section 4.4.1.3, which now indicates 

that aquifer restoration would not result in the removal of any of the rock matrix or structure of 

the OZ; therefore, no significant matrix compression or ground subsidence would be expected 

as a result of deep-well injection of waste fluids.

Comment: RP024-431

The commenter agreed with the conclusion described in SEIS Section 4.5.1.2, that the potential 

impacts to ground-water quality of the shallow aquifer would be SMALL. However, the 

commenter suggested that the conclusion could be strengthened by the NRC’s including a 

discussion of the Applicant's commitment to install additional shallow aquifer wells and to 

monitor them on a quarterly basis, as indicated by License Condition 11.5 of the Draft Source 

and Byproduct Materials License.

Response: The NRC staff has revised the text in FSEIS Section 4.5.1.2 to include a reference 

to the Applicant's additional shallow aquifer well installation and ground-water monitoring 

implementation.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-146

Comment: RP024-569

The commenter highlighted that the Applicant's executed agreement(s) with a byproduct 

material disposal facility would be required prior to the commencement of uranium recovery 

operation, not prior to the NRC's licensing of the Ross Project.

Response: The commenter is correct; the Applicant must submit to the NRC fully executed 

agreement(s) with the disposal facilities to which it would convey Ross Project byproduct 

material prior to uranium recovery activities commencing. The text in FSEIS Sections 2.1.1.5 

and 4.14.1 has been revised to clarify this requirement. 

Comment: RP032-021

The commenter stated that, in addition to the information provided in Figure 2.4 of the DSEIS, 

the SEIS should include a supplemental map indicating the number, the locations, and the 

required capacities of all UIC Class I deep-disposal wells and the corresponding target 

aquifer(s) that would be required in the event that the potential satellite areas in the Lance 

District are developed (as shown in DSEIS Figure 2.6.) In addition, the commenter asked that 

any currently planned and reasonably foreseeable uranium recovery operations in the Lance 

District that are not reflected in Figure 2.6 be included on the supplemental map. The 

commenter also requested that the FSEIS include another map(s) indicating the number of 

proposed locations and corresponding capacities of all UIC Class I deep-disposal wells and the 

respective target aquifer(s) that would be used by the Applicant to dispose of wastes generated 

during the operation of the Ross Project CPP over its entire reasonably foreseeable 

lifetime. The commenter requested that a scientifically and technically adequate discussion of 

the cumulative environmental impacts of uranium recovery waste disposed via deep well 

injection be included in the FSEIS. Finally, the commenter requested that the FSEIS include all 

the information related to Applicant's UIC Class I Permit No. 10-263, dated April 4, 2011, that 

was requested in the scoping comments letter submitted to the NRC by the EPA, Region 8 

(EPA, 2011).

Response: Figure 2.4, which is found in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.1, provides a map indicating the 

locations of the five UIC Class I deep-disposal wells proposed by the Applicant for the Ross 

Project, which have already been permitted by the WDEQ/WQD (WDEQ/WQD, 2013). The 

NRC staff contacted the WDEQ to obtain information regarding the status of any permit 

applications that might have been submitted by the Applicant for additional UIC Class I wells 

within the Lance District. No such permit applications have been submitted to the WDEQ. 

Therefore, the NRC staff cannot include in this SEIS a map of the locations or the number of 

these wells. However, FSEIS Section 5.17.1 does provide an analysis of the cumulative 

impacts of liquid waste disposal via the five UIC Class I wells. This analysis considers the 

disposal of liquid waste in wells that could be developed for future projects near the proposed 

Ross Project and estimates the total number of wells that would be developed. 

The scoping comments submitted by the EPA via a letter dated December 29, 2011 (EPA, 

2011), were considered during the development of the DSEIS, and the information requested by 

the commenter to be included is provided throughout the FSEIS. For example, in the FSEIS 

Sections 2.1.1.5 and 4.5.1.2, a description of the Class I Permit (UIC Class I Permit No. 10-263) 

is provided, including the number and locations of the wells permitted by the WDEQ, the 

permitted injection geologic formation, the pressure limitations, and the monitoring requirements 

associated with the UIC Permit. In addition, FSEIS Section 3.4.1.2. provides data on the depths 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-147

of the formations targeted by the Class I wells, the thickness of the rock between them, and 

USDW above the Class I wells. Similar information on UIC Class I Permit for the deep-disposal 

wells is provided in the NRC’s response to Comment Nos. 017-011 and RP032-055. No 

changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP032-023 

The commenter referred to the statements in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.1 that describe the 

construction of the deep-disposal wells: “The Applicant proposes that each well location would 

consist of a 76 m x 76 m [250 ft x 250 ft] pad with a storage tank (Strata, 2011b; Strata, 2012b). 

Surface equipment for the deep-disposal wells would include storage tanks, pumps, filtration 

systems, instrumentation and control systems, and equipment for injection of process chemicals 

(Strata, 2011b).” Based upon these statements the commenter noted that 76 m x 76 m [250 ft x 

250 ft] is equivalent to an area of 0.58 ha [1.43 ac] and the UIC Class I Permit for the Ross 

Project would allow up to five deep-disposal wells, so that approximately 3 ha [7 ac] (not 

including associated service roads and pipelines) of the Ross Project would be industrialized by 

the construction and operation of the deep-disposal wells. Based upon that area and nature of 

the disturbance, the commenter submitted several questions:

1) Were the land use impacts of the maximum number of deep-disposal wells at the Ross 

Project, and any planned and reasonably foreseeable disposal wells required for the 

development of the Lance District, included in the DSEIS’s estimate of land area disturbed by 

uranium recovery activities?

2) How and when would the concrete or gravel pads surrounding the deep-disposal wells be 

reclaimed?

3) What would be the licensed disposal capacity of liquid wastes for each UIC-permitted Class I 

well, and what would be the total licensed disposal capacity of the five permitted wells 

mentioned in the SEIS for the Ross Project?

4) If five such deep-disposal wells have been permitted for wastes generated at the Ross 

Project, how many additional deep-disposal wells, with what disposal capacities, targeting which 

formations, would be required in connection with processing of pregnant lixiviant and/or loaded 

resin from the following potential satellite areas that would utilize the Ross Project’s CPP: the 

Ross Amendment Area 1, Kendrick, Richards, and Barber satellite areas?

5) Please provide a table containing the above information, and when construction, operation, 

and abandonment of each disposal well would be planned or could reasonably be expected to 

occur.

6) Please provide a map showing the planned or reasonably foreseeable locations of the 

disposal wells described in 4) and 5) above.

7) How many additional deep-disposal wells, targeting which formations, at which locations, 

would be required to dispose of the wastes from processing loaded resin from the following 

potential uranium recovery projects within 80 km [50 mi] of the Ross Project's CPP: the Aladdin, 

Elkhorn, Hauber, and Alzada projects? 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-148

Response: 

1) The land use impacts of the area disturbed by the maximum number of deep-disposal wells 

at the Ross Project are presented in Section 4.2.1.1 and in Table 4.1 of the FSEIS. The 

impacts are generally the same as those for all other disturbed portions of the Ross Project 

area. However, as a result of this comment, the NRC staff has corrected the area calculations 

of the 76 m x 76 m [250 ft x 250 ft] pads that would be constructed at the site of each deepdisposal well. Changes have been made in Table 4.1 in the FSEIS as follows: The “Area 

Impacted by Proposed Action” at “Deep-Injection Wells” has been changed from 2 ha [5 ac] to 3 

ha [7 ac]; the “Total Area Impacted in the Year Preceding Proposed Action Operation” at “DeepInjection Wells” has been changed from ~113 ha [280 ac] to ~114 ha [282 ac]. The correction of 

the area impacted by the pads at the sites of five deep-disposal wells has been updated 

throughout the FSEIS and in the response to Comment No. RP032-079.

2) Section 2.1.1.4 of the FSEIS describes the abandonment of the UIC Class I deep-disposal 

wells that would be accomplished according to the DP that would be prepared by the Applicant 

and approved by the NRC, as indicated in the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License 

Condition No. 10.3 (NRC, 2014b). In the license application, the Applicant represented that 

surface disturbance associated with deep-disposal well infrastructure would remain for the life of 

the Ross Project (Strata. 2011b). DSEIS Section 2.1.1.4 reiterated the commitment by the 

Applicant that, at the completion of decommissioning, the entire Project area would be 

reclaimed and restored for unrestricted use. Section 2.1.1.4 of the FSEIS has been modified by 

the NRC staff to add the pads associated with the deep-disposal wells to the list of features that 

would be surveyed for radioactive contamination by the Applicant during decommissioning 

activities, then disposed of appropriately or released for unrestricted use.

3) As discussed in the NRC staff’s responses to Comment Nos. RP017-011 and RP032-055, 

the liquids injected into deep-disposal wells would be limited on the basis of pressure, rather 

than volume. These comments also asked for information regarding the permitted disposal 

capacity of the deep-disposal wells; the reader is referred to the license application for a UIC 

Class I Permit included as Addendum 2.4-A in the Technical Report (Strata, 2011b) and the UIC 

Class I Permit issued to the Applicant by the WDEQ/WQD, (WDEQ/WQD, 2011b). No changes 

were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

4) The application for the UIC Permit for Class I deep-disposal wells at the Ross Project 

specifies that the five wells could be installed to serve the uranium recovery facility (i.e., CPP) 

for the life of the Project (Strata, 2011b). In addition, the Applicant performed computer 

modeling for a 20-year lifecycle for the deep-disposal wells to determine the maximum required 

capacity (Strata, 2011b). The model was based upon the assumption that the Ross Project 

CPP would process uranium from the other potential satellite areas within the Lance District 

discussed in the FSEIS that are identified by the commenter. It was anticipated that the five 

deep-disposal wells currently permitted for the Project would be sufficient; however, as noted in 

Section 5.17.1.1 of the FSEIS, if a remote IX-only facility were to be constructed within the 

Lance District, an additional deep-disposal well may be located at a satellite project.

5) and 6) As discussed in 4) above, it has been anticipated that the five currently permitted UIC 

Class I deep-disposal wells would serve the waste management needs of the Project 

throughout its lifecycle. The Applicant’s UIC Class I Permit from WDEQ/WQD, identified above, 

is summarized in FSEIS Section 2.1.1.4, which includes information on the depths and targeted 

formations. The UIC Permit does not specify the locations of the deep-disposal wells beyond 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-149

the section of land designated for each well; construction of the five deep-disposal wells are 

permitted within Sections 13, 18, and 19, which covers most of the Project area. Figure 2.4 in 

the FSEIS depicts the approximate locations anticipated by the Applicant for the UIC Class I 

wells. If additional deep-disposal wells within the Lance District were to be proposed by the 

Applicant, a permit application would be required to be submitted to the WDEQ/WQD and then 

a permit issued.

7) Section 5.17.1.1 of the FSEIS presents the assumptions used by the NRC staff in its analysis 

of cumulative impacts of multiple UIC Class I wells at each of the potential uranium recovery 

projects identified in the SEIS, within 80 km [50 mi] of the Ross Project. The analysis projected

that three Class I UIC wells would be needed for each future project potentially developed 

outside of the Lance District. Based upon available information, as presented in SEIS Section 

5.2.1.1, the uranium reserves at these projects appear to be much less than in the areas of 

potential Lance District projects, which, as noted above, would require five deep-disposal 

wells. Therefore, three UIC Class I wells for each of the other potential projects represents a 

reasonable, but conservative, estimate.

Comment: RP032-056

The commenter noted a statement in DSEIS Section 2.1.1.5, “Net annual evaporation of brine in 

the surface impoundments would be 5.3 L/min-ac [1.4 gal/min-ac] which would reduce the 

volume of brine injected in the disposal wells (Strata, 2011b).” The commenter asked that the 

NRC staff provide the total quantity and percentage of total produced brine that would be 

disposed via evaporation, and the amounts of radon or other hazardous gases that might be 

released via evaporation from the surface impoundments.

Response: The evaporation of brine stored in the surface impoundments is described in the 

FSEIS Section 4.14.1 and Table 4.10. In response to Comment No. RP035-006, Table 4.10 

has been revised to clarify the amounts of brine estimated to be lost by evaporation during the 

three periods of the operation and aquifer restoration: operation only, operation concurrent with 

restoration, and restoration only. See the response to Comment No. RP035-012 for a 

discussion of the emission of radon from the surface impoundments. No changes were made to 

the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: RP032-063

The commenter referenced the statement in SEIS Section 2.2.3, "The Applicant has estimated 

that the 2.5 ha [6.3 ac] available for evaporation in the Proposed Action would provide 33 L/min 

[8.8 gal/min] of average annual evaporation. Linear extrapolation suggests that 65 ha [160 ac] 

is the minimum surface area required for evaporation of all brine and other byproduct waste 

generated at the CPP." The commenter asked: a) how was the proposed surface area of 6.3 

acres for the CPP surface impoundments determined; b) why was not a larger or smaller 

acreage proposed; and c) what environmental and operational factors were considered.

Response: FSEIS Section 2.2.3 assesses evaporation as an alternative method for disposal of 

liquid byproduct material. In the Proposed Action, the surface impoundments would be 

constructed for management of brine and liquid byproduct material with only incidental 

evaporation. The size of the impoundments was determined by the Applicant as part of its 

proposed design. In response to Comment No. 035-006, an error in the DSEIS was recognized, 

and the size of the impoundments proposed at the Ross Project has been revised in the FSEIS 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-150

to 4.0 ha [9.9 ac], which is the area of the liquid when the impoundments are at their full 

operating capacity (Strata, 2011b). As an alternative, if all liquid disposal was achieved by 

evaporation rather than deep-well injection, the Applicant estimated that an area of surface 

impoundments required for evaporation of all byproduct liquid material plus an operational 

reserve capacity would exceed 80 ha [200 ac] (Strata, 2011a). Because 80 ha [200 ac] was 

determined to be the required size of surface impoundments for managing brine disposal 

completely by evaporation, smaller or larger areas were not considered as additional 

alternatives. Environmental and operational factors other than size that affect the rate of 

evaporation are described in the subsequent paragraph in FSEIS Section 2.2.3. No changes 

were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comments: RP035-004; RP035-039

The commenter recommended that, given the relatively shallow ground water in the Ross 

Project area and the potential for contaminants to migrate into the ground water, more 

protective waste management options should be considered for drilling wastes (e.g., muds and 

other fluids) than unlined mud pits (e.g., storage tanks and reuse of fluids for drilling). The 

commenter also stated that, although the drilling fluids and muds are managed under a 

temporary WYPDES permit, it is important that the FSEIS describe the potential for 

environmental impacts associated with these wastes, including the level of radioactivity and 

metals in the drilling fluids and mud.

Response: As stated in Section 4.13.1.1.2.2 of the Applicant’s license application, drilling for 

ore-body exploration and delineation, site characterization, and uranium recovery operation at

the Ross Project generates drilling fluids and muds (Strata, 2011a). These wastes are classified 

as TENORM; they are defined by EPA as “[n]aturally occurring radioactive materials that have 

been concentrated or exposed to the accessible environment as a result of human activities 

such as manufacturing, mineral extraction, or water processing” (EPA, 2008). Drilling wastes 

have been and would be collected and disposed of by the Applicant in onsite excavated pits, or 

mud pits, that are dug for this specific purpose pursuant to the various EPA regulations 

governing TENORM, such as those in 40 CFR Part 192. (These pits have been excavated and 

used during the Applicant’s preconstruction activities, which do not require an NRC 

license.) The pits would be allowed to evaporate and dry, and then the dried pits are reclaimed 

according to WDEQ/LQD requirements, usually within one construction season. WDEQ has 

extensive experience in managing potential impacts from mud pits as they are a standard 

component of exploration for natural resources and this experience would be reflected in the 

requirements included in the Permit to Mine. TENORM ground water produced during preoperational activities would be discharged under a temporary WYPDES permit as discussed in 

the NRC staff’s responses to Comment Nos. RP032-058 and RP024-419.

The NRC staff, in its SER, discussed the potential human health and environmental 

considerations associated with the mud pits (NRC, 2014a). SER Section 4.2.3.1 states:

TENORM liquid waste includes drilling fluid and ‘native’ ground water generated 

during construction and development of monitoring, recovery and injection wells, 

and ground water generated during sample collection and aquifer testing of 

wells. The staff finds that the types of liquid wastes as identified by the Applicant 

for the Ross Project are consistent with staff’s experience at operating ISR 

facilities. Furthermore, because effluent control systems at those facilities for 

those types of liquid wastes have been shown to be protective of human health 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-151

and the environment, staff has reasonable assurance that the Applicant will 

design, construct, and operate similarly effective systems. Therefore, the

Applicant’s descriptions meet acceptance Criterion (1) of Section 4.2.3 and 

Criterion (13) of Section 6.1.3 of the Standard Review Plan.

In addition, SEIS Section 4.5.1.1, Ground Water, Shallow Aquifers, provided the NRC staff’s 

analysis of water quality impacts to the shallow aquifer due to drilling fluids. As noted in the last 

paragraph of that SEIS section:

Potential water quality impacts to the shallow aquifer that could occur during 

construction include spills or leaks from construction equipment and the 

introduction of drilling fluids. The potential for the shallow ground water to be 

impacted by drilling fluids and muds is minimal because of the small volume of 

fluids used, and because the fluids would be contained within a mud pit in 

accordance with WDEQ/LQD and EPA requirements. Impacts to ground water 

during well drilling would be further limited by the nature of the bentonite or 

polymer-based drilling additives in the drilling fluids. These additives are 

designed to limit infiltration in an aquifer (i.e., to a few inches) and to isolate the 

drillhole from the surrounding geologic materials via a wall-cake or veneer of 

drilling fluid filtrate, further diminishing the potential for impacts. Thus, the 

potential impacts of the Proposed Action’s construction to ground-water quality in 

the shallow aquifers would be SMALL.

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP036-003

The commenter noted that the Proposed Action includes two, double-lined surface 

impoundments, or “retention ponds” as the commenter identified them, that would encompass a 

total area of 6.5 ha [16 ac] and would be used to manage liquid waste water in the Ross Project 

area, and that Section 2.1.1.1 of the DSEIS described the size of the impoundments as 

approximately twice the upper range of typical surface impoundment sizes described in the 

GEIS. The commenter requested an explanation of the need for impoundments that exceed the 

size of typical impoundments for this type of operation.

Response: The commenter identified an error in the SEIS that has been corrected. The size of 

typical impoundments described in the GEIS, which range from 0.04 to 2.5 ha [0.1 to 6.2 ac], 

are for individual impoundments. Facilities may have multiple impoundments. As stated in 

DSEIS Section 2.1.1.1, the entire area of the impoundments at the Ross Project area would be 

approximately 6.5 ha [16 ac]. The design would include two individual impoundments. The 

surface area of the waste water that would be contained in the two impoundments when they 

are filled to maximum capacity would be 1.3 ha [3.3 ac] and 4.0 ha [9.9 ac] (Strata, 2011b). The 

average size of the two impoundments proposed for the Ross Project is consistent with the 

upper range of the typical impoundments described in the GEIS. The text has been revised in 

the FSEIS Section 2.1.1.1 as well as Table 8.1 in the FSEIS to correct the error.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-152

B.5.23.2 Regulation of Wastes and Disposal Methods

Comment: RP024-570

The commenter suggested revising “NRC-Regulated Wastes” and “Non-NRC-Regulated 

Wastes” throughout the SEIS to “AEA-Regulated Wastes” and “Non-AEA-Regulated Wastes,” 

respectively.

Response: The NRC only has jurisdiction over NRC-regulated wastes. Therefore, the text as 

written in the SEIS is an appropriately narrow construction of the category. No changes were 

made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

B.5.23.3 Scope of the Assessment of Waste Management Impacts

Comment: RP032-054

The commenter noted that DSEIS Section 2.1.1.5 stated the following: “The composition and 

quantities of liquid waste from Ross Project processes related to uranium recovery are similar to 

those ranges provided in Table 2.7-3 of the GEIS (NRC, 2009a).” The commenter stated that 

the NRC staff’s attempt to quantify the output of liquid wastes from the Ross Project, by 

indicating that it is “similar to a range” provided in another document conveys no useful 

information and fails to comply with NEPA, which requires that important environmental 

parameters be quantified wherever possible. Therefore, the commenter asked that the NRC 

staff provide: 1) estimates of the total quantity and composition of liquid waste requiring deep 

well disposal from the Ross Project and all future projects in connection with future use of the 

Ross Project CPP and 2) the number, planned locations, target aquifers, and required 

capacities of all deep-disposal wells that would be created by potential future development in 

the Lance District. 

Response: The relationship of the Ross Project SEIS to the GEIS is described in SEIS 

Sections 1.1 and 1.4.1. As noted, the SEIS is a supplement to the GEIS. The GEIS provided a 

starting point for the NRC’s NEPA analyses of ISR facilities located within the regions evaluated 

in the GEIS. The Ross Project SEIS tiers from and incorporates by reference from the GEIS 

relevant information, findings, and conclusions concerning potential environmental impacts. The 

extent to which the NRC staff incorporated GEIS impact conclusions depended on how closely 

the Applicant’s proposed facility, wellfields, activities, and conditions at the proposed Ross 

Project paralleled the reference facility description, activities, regional conditions, and 

information or conclusions in the GEIS. The NRC’s determinations regarding environmental 

impacts and the extent to which GEIS impact conclusions were incorporated by reference are 

described throughout FSEIS Section 4.

The DSEIS statement quoted by the commenter was provided in the opening paragraph of the 

“Liquid Effluents” subsection of DSEIS Section 2.1.1.5. However, the opening paragraph of 

Section 2.1.1.5 directs the reader to SEIS Section 4.14, which contains a more detailed 

discussion on liquid effluents associated with the Ross Project. The types of liquid wastes and 

byproduct material that would be disposed of via deep-disposal wells at the Ross Project, based 

upon information provided by the Applicant, is predominantly waste water, excess permeate 

during brief periods of concomitant operation and aquifer restoration, and brine. The quantities 

of the types of liquid wastes disposed during different phases of the Ross Project are presented 

in FSEIS Table 4.10.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-153

The Proposed Action analyzed in this FSEIS is the Ross Project, and not the “Lance District 

Project.” Therefore, the direct impacts of the activities related to any potential Lance District 

development projects are only analyzed in this document to the extent that they are applicable 

to the cumulative impact analyses for the Proposed Action. The cumulative impacts of liquid 

effluent disposal by deep-well injection that includes potential development in the Lance District 

as a reasonable foreseeable future action are discussed in FSEIS Section 5.17.1.1. The NRC’s 

staff responses to Comment Nos. RP032-002, RP032-067, and RP041-009 describe the 

environmental-review process that the NRC would follow if the Applicant were to submit a 

license amendment application to the NRC to expand its operation into any of the satellite 

areas.

Comment: RP041-017

The commenter noted that the DSEIS did not disclose the environmental impacts related to 

“11e.(2)” (e.g., byproduct) material disposal. Further, the commenter reiterated that the DSEIS 

lacked any discussion of impacts related to 11e.(2) material disposal for either the Ross Project 

or for future satellite areas, and noted that a disposal facility was not identified for disposal. The 

commenter indicated that this type of analysis must be performed prior to the NRC’s decision, 

not after the Source and Byproduct Materials License is issued. The commenter expressed that 

the SEIS should, at the very least, list potential disposal facilities as well as the impacts related 

to each in the range of alternatives described and analyzed in the SEIS.

Response: Table 4.10 in SEIS Section 4.14.1.1 indicates the types of wastes that would be 

generated at the Ross Project as well as the facilities where the different waste streams would 

be disposed. (The Table includes solid-phase “byproduct” waste, however, rather than “11e.(2)” 

waste; see Comment No. RP024-067 for related information.) All wastes, except the liquid 

wastes that are disposed of via deep-well injection (see SEIS Section 4.14.1.1) or in the mud 

pits discussed in the response to Comment No. RP032-049, would be disposed of offsite and 

not in or on the Ross Project area. DSEIS Section 5.17.2 discussed the NRC staff’s assumption 

that all of the waste disposal facilities that would accept and dispose of Ross Project byproduct 

material and other wastes would have been properly licensed or permitted. This would ensure 

that all environmental impacts related to such waste disposal will have been evaluated by the 

licensing and/or permitting agency. License Condition 12.5 of the Draft Source and Byproduct 

Materials License for the proposed Ross Project would require that the Applicant submit all 

disposal agreements for byproduct material (and, consequently, it would identify the respective 

disposal facilities) to the NRC.

B.5.23.4 References

(US)EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). EPA Scoping Comments for Proposed Ross 

Uranium In-Situ Recovery Project, Crook County, WY. Washington, DC: USEPA. Dec 29, 

2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML12067A042. 

(US)NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for InSitu Leach Uranium Milling Facilities, Volumes 1 and 2.” NUREG–1910. Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2009b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML091480244 and ML091480188.

(US)NRC. Safety Evaluation Report for the Strata Energy, Inc. Ross ISR Project, Crook 

County, Wyoming. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2014a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML14002A107. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-154

(US)NRC. “Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, No. SUA-1601.” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2014b. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A111. 

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Environmental Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata Energy, Inc. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130342, 

ML110130344, and ML110130348.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, Technical 

Report, Volumes 1 through 6 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 

2011b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130333, ML110130335, ML110130314, ML110130316, 

ML110130320, and ML110130327. 

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, RAI Question 

and Answer Responses, Environmental Report, Volume 1 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-

09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2012a. ADAMS Accession No. ML121030465.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, RAI Question 

and Answer Responses, Technical Report, Volumes 1 and 2 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-

09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2012b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML121020357 and 

ML121020361. 

WDEQ/WQD (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division). 

Authorization to Discharge Wastewater Associated with Pump Testing of Water Wells Under the 

Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Authorization #WYG720229. Cheyenne, 

WY: WDEQ/WQD. 2011a. ADAMS Accession No. ML13015A695. 

WDEQ/WQD. Strata Energy, Inc. – Ross Disposal Injection Wellfield, Final Permit 10-263,

Class I Non-hazardous, Crook County, Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ/WQD. 2011b. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML111380015. 

WDEQ/WQD. Authorization Associated with Ground Water Well Pump Testing and 

Development. Well Pump Test for Uranium Wells Under the Wyoming Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System. WYG720229. February 2013. ADAMS Accession No. ML13015A695. 

B.5.24 Cumulative Impacts

B.5.24.1 Scope of Cumulative-Impact Analyses

Comments: RP011-005; RP013-004; RP014-005; RP016-011; RP019-005; RP023-003; 

RP033-003; RP039-016; RP040-005; RP041-011; RP043-003

The commenters stated that the NRC should take a look at the cumulative impacts from the 

entire project (i.e., the entire Lance District), not just the Ross Project. Multiple commenters 

noted that cumulative impacts to water quality and quantity should be analyzed in the SEIS. 

The commenters expressed concern regarding risk of pollution to air and water, pollution from 

dust and light, and traffic. One of the commenters also stated that the NRC should assess the 

impacts of the potential drawdown of water and the likelihood of leaks and excursions from 

drillholes. The commenter also expressed concern that the proposed Ross Project could 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-155

potentially prevent livestock grazing and recreation in and around the area of Oshoto and Devils 

Tower.

Response: The NRC staff described cumulative impacts to and from the Lance District 

throughout FSEIS Section 5. The FSEIS also specifically discusses cumulative impacts to 

water quality and air quality in Sections 5.7 and 5.9, respectively. Impacts to water resources 

and air quality from the Proposed Action can be found in FSEIS Sections 4.5 and 4.7, 

respectively. Please see also the NRC staff’s response to Comment No. RP011-006 regarding 

the potential for drawdown. Leaks and excursions from improperly abandoned drillholes are 

discussed in Comment No. RP007-001. Grazing and recreation impacts are discussed in the 

FSEIS in Section 4.2.1. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in 

this response. 

Comments: RP011-006; RP013-003; RP014-003; RP019-003; RP023-002; RP025-003; 

RP030-003; RP039-014; RP042-003; RP043-004

The commenters asked the NRC staff to consider fully that the “in situ [uranium-recovery] leach 

process” uses a high volume of water, which has the potential to drawdown surrounding 

aquifers. These aquifers provide the area’s drinking water for humans and livestock. Other 

commenters noted that the proposed Ross Project area suffers from drought. Some 

commenters stated that potential for aquifer depletion could include the Madison-Formation 

aquifer, which supplies water to many municipalities in Wyoming, South Dakota, and Montana.

Response: The short- and long-term drawdown impacts on the surrounding aquifers are 

addressed by the NRC staff in FSEIS Section 4.5.1. FSEIS Section 6.2.5 describes the 

Applicant’s proposed monitoring program that includes measuring water levels in wells within, 

above, and below the ore-zone (i.e., the production zone) aquifers that could be affected by the 

proposed Ross Project. The conservative regional impact analysis, based upon ground-water 

modeling by the Applicant, predicts a minor reduction in the available head in wells used for 

stock, domestic, and industrial use. Although these effects would be localized and short-lived, 

the Applicant would commit to provide an alternative source of water of equal or better quantity 

and quality, subject to Wyoming water-statute requirements, in the event that aquifer-restoration 

operations prevent the full use of a well (Strata, 2011a). FSEIS Section 4.5.1.2 describes 1) the 

wells in which the water level is predicted by the model to be impacted by the Proposed Action

and 2) the proposed mitigation measures. The duration of the mitigation measures throughout 

the operation phase of the Project are described in FSEIS Sections 4.5.1.2 and 4.5.1.3. Also, 

please see the NRC’s response to Comment Nos. RP032-039, and RP032-065 regarding the 

potential for ground-water drawdown. As described in the response to Comment Nos. RP015-

003; RP026-001; RP026-002; RP028-002, impacts to the Madison aquifer are highly unlikely. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP024-677

The commenter suggested a revision to the statement that the land-use cumulative-impacts 

analysis timeframe begins in 2013. This suggestion was made due to the fact that previous 

land-use activities, such as agricultural production and human-infrastructure construction (e.g., 

road installation) have occcurred historically.

Response: The NRC staff agrees with the commenter that agricultural use and preconstruction 

activities started before 2013, with the majority of the preconstruction activities having been 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-156

accomplished since 2009. To the best of the NRC's knowledge, current and historical land use 

has been ranching as well as some oil- and gas-production activities since the 1950s. In 

addition, the preconstruction activities that the Applicant could accomplish prior to the Ross 

Project’s licensing, including those that the DSEIS evaluated, were assumed to include road 

and building construction as well as pipeline and utilities installation. The evaluation of these 

preconstruction activities has been incorporated into the SEIS as part of Alternative 2, No 

Action, as was defined in SEIS Section 2.1.2. Within the cumulative-impact analysis, SEIS 

Section 5, all preconstruction activities are assumed to have been completed, and they 

therefore represent “past actions.” The cumulative-impact timeframe’s beginning in 2013 

remains the same in the FSEIS, because that is the year that the Ross Project was estimated to 

begin major Project construction. The NRC has revised the text in SEIS Section 5.3.2 as a 

result of this comment, clarifying the timeframe’s basis.

Comment: RP029-004

The commenter asserted that Strata has plans not for a single mine but for a series of mines 

and that the impacts of each of these mines would be cumulative and would result in polluted 

ground water, polluted topsoil, ground-water depletion, and health impacts on residents and 

livestock.

Response: The NRC’s responses to Comment Nos. RP032-002, RP032-067, and RP041-009 

set forth the basis for this Ross Project SEIS and describe the environmental-review process 

the NRC would follow if Strata were to submit a license-amendment application to the NRC to 

expand its operation into any satellite areas, including those in the Lance District. The 

cumulative impacts of future development within the Lance District are assessed in Section 5 of 

the FSEIS. Specifically, impacts to soils, ground water, and health are addressed in FSEIS 

Sections 5.6, 5.7 and 5.16, respectively.

Comment: RP032-024 

The commenter asked what fraction of the Applicant's reasonably foreseeable mining activities 

in Wyoming involve development within the Lance District and what fraction of the Lance District 

activities are already planned and included in the business plan of the Applicant. The 

commenter also asked that the SEIS provide the most recently updated schedule for 

development of the Lance District development planned by the Applicant or any other applicant 

for an NRC license. The commenter asked that the SEIS include a detailed map showing the 

cumulative extent of the planned and contemplated wellfield areas to be mined and enclosed by 

fences in the course of Lance District development that would utilize the proposed CPP to be 

licensed pursuant to the Ross Project. The commenter also asked that the SEIS discuss when 

specific geographic areas will be mined, and to what extent the schedule overlaps that of the 

Ross Project.

Response: As discussed in SEIS Section 5.2, the reasonably foreseeable activities considered 

in this SEIS are those that, due to their location and timing with respect to the Ross Project, 

could result in cumulative impacts when considered with the proposed Ross Project. Potential

activities identified by the Applicant that are considered to be reasonably foreseeable within the 

context of the cumulative impacts assessment in this SEIS are those ISR-related activities 

within the Lance District. The NRC staff considered as reasonably foreseeable those potential 

satellite projects shown in FSEIS Figure 2.2: Ross Amendment Area 1, Kendrick, Richards, and 

Barber. The general locations of each of these areas is shown in SEIS Figure 2.2, however the 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-157

specific locations for wellfields that may be developed within these areas is not currently 

available. The development schedule of the proposed Ross Project and the potential Lance 

District satellites is shown in SEIS Figure 2.6. The NRC is not aware that any other company is 

considering submitting a license application to construct and operate an ISR facility within the 

Lance District. The NRC is also not aware of what future activities the Applicant includes in its 

business plan for the Lance District beyond the information contained in the Applicant’s license 

application, which is the subject of this SEIS. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the 

information provided in this response.

Comment: RP032-068

The commenter requested that the discussion of the land use for minerals and energy in DSEIS 

Section 3.2.3 include all of the "potential projects" planned for the Lance District by Strata’s 

corporate parent, Peninsula Energy, Ltd.

Response: The NRC has moved the listing of potential, future mineral and energy projects 

around the Ross Project to Section 5.2 of the FSEIS, which is the appropriate section for 

discussion of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future events that are considered in the 

NRC’s evalution of cumulative effects. In addition to the potential ISR projects listed in Section 

3.2.3 of the DSEIS, FSEIS Section 5.2 includes the potential ISR projects in the Lance District. 

Comment: RP032-069

The commenter asked that the NRC staff provide the compliant Australasian Code for Reporting 

of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (“the JORC Code”) uraniumresource estimates for “recoverable uranium” in the area encompassed by the potential Lance 

District.

Response: The revised JORC Code-compliant resource estimate is 24.4 million kg [53.7 

million lb] U3O8 (as of January 23, 2013) (Infomine, 2013). 

Comment: RP032-082

The commenter referenced the following statement in the DSEIS: “Several industries presently 

conduct activities in and near Crook County, activities which could have environmental impacts 

that, when combined with those of the Ross Project, could be greater than the individual 

impacts of the Ross Project.” The commenter stated that because these additional activities 

include similar uranium recovery projects, as well as other activities known to impact 

environmental systems (e.g. oil and gas recovery), it should be assumed that the Proposed 

Action is necessarily smaller than the sum of all impacts due to external activities, as opposed 

to ambiguously representing the proposed action as potentially inconsequential within the 

context of cumulative impacts analysis. 

Response: The subject statement was found in DSEIS Section 5.2.1, in the paragraph 

introducing the discussion of present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the 

geographic area used for cumulative-impact analyses. The cumulative-impact analyses for the 

resource areas addressed in this SEIS are provided in SEIS Sections 5.4 – 5.17. For each 

resource area, the NRC staff has determined the incremental contribution of the impact of the 

Proposed Action (defined as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) to the overall cumulative impact 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-158

to the resource area. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in 

this response.

Comment: RP032-086

The commenter questioned the assumptions underlying the calculation of the area of soil 

disturbance at the proposed Lance District satellite areas for purposes of cumulative-impact 

analysis.

Response: As discusssed in SEIS Section 5.2.2.1, the Applicant indicates that the lixiviant 

from the wellfields at the Ross Amendment Area 1 and Kendrick satellite would be piped to and 

from the Ross CPP. The Applicant expected to construct an IX facility at the Barber satellite 

area to manage lixiviant and recover uranium from the lixiviant onto resin (Strata, 2012a). The 

Applicant noted that the wellfields at the Richards satellite area could be piped so that lixiviant is 

delivered to either the Ross CPP or the Barber IX plant. Since none of the potential Lance 

District satellite areas would have a CPP, the area of soil disturbance would be smaller at each 

than at the Ross Project. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided 

in this response.

Comment: RP032-087

The commenter inquired to what extent the cumulative geology-impacts analysis would change 

if it were to consider successive (or replacement) operational capacity versus concurrent 

operations in the potential Lance District satellite areas. The commenter also asked for 

justification for the conclusion in the DSEIS that there would be a SMALL impact as a result of 

drilling, plugging, and abandonment of drillholes for either of these operational scenarios.

Response: The NRC staff’s analysis of the cumulative impacts to geology and soils is 

provided in SEIS Section 5.6. The analysis considered the timing of the potential development 

of the satellite areas as shown in Figure 2.6. The distinction between successive versus 

concurrent is not relevant to the schedule shown in Figure 2.6. The NRC staff determined that 

the cumulative impacts to geology and soils in the geology and soils cumulative-impacts study 

area would be SMALL. The soil disturbance associated with the Ross Project area and the 

other satellite areas in the Lance District would be limited to approximately 5 percent of the 

approximately 9,000-ha [22,200-ac] Lance District with 95 percent of the area remaining 

undisturbed. This disturbance to geology and soils would be dispersed throughout the Lance 

District. Also, the NRC notes that reclamation and restoration of the areas will be required by 

the Applicant’s Source and Byproduct Materials License, where the NRC must approve the 

related plan(s) (e.g., DP or RAP). No changes to the SEIS were made beyond the information 

included in this response.

Comment: RP032-088

The commenter referenced the SEIS Section 5.7.1 statement, “The geographic area for the 

evaluation of surface-water cumulative impacts has been defined as the Little Missouri River 

Basin, from the Ross Project downstream to the Wyoming/Montana border (see Figure 3.10 in 

SEIS Section 3.4.2).” The commenter asked: 1) Does limiting the geographic area of study to 

the upper reaches of the Little Missouri River Basin preclude or unnecessarily limit the scope of 

study on impacts that could be experienced beyond this area of data collection and monitoring? 

2) What additional watersheds would be impacted by future potential uranium-recovery projects 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-159

in the Lance District? 3) What would be the cumulative demands on water resources from 

future projects within the Lance District in conjunction with all other reasonably foreseeable 

sources of water consumption and/or water-quality degradation in the same area? 

Response: Limiting cumulative surface-water impacts to the area of Little Missouri River Basin, 

from the Ross Project downstream to the Wyoming/Montana border is appropriate since 

activities outside the Basin would not impact surface-water flows inside the Basin. Three of the 

four potential satellite areas in the Lance District would be located in the Belle Fourche River 

Basin and impacts to that Basin would not be additive to the impacts in the Little Missouri River 

Basin. A sentence was inserted in Section 5.7.1 to clarify the location of the potential satellite 

areas in the Lance District. Further information on the surface-water hydrology of the potential 

satellite areas or projects in the Lance District is not available.

Comment: RP032-089

The commenter asked the following questions regarding SEIS Section 5.17: 1) What 

methodology was used to determine the 20-year timeframe for evaluating the cumulative 

impacts of deep-well injection of liquid wastes and why was a longer timeframe not employed? 

2) What analysis has been performed specific to the formations existing in the Ross Project 

area that studied the potential for migration of liquid wastes and the associated timelines for this 

migration and/or transformation into acceptable forms?

Response: The 20-year timeframe used in the DSEIS for evaluating the cumulative impacts of 

deep-well injection of liquid wastes is a conservative duration sufficient to include: 1) 14 years 

from construction through decommissioning of the Proposed Action; 2) the requirement of the 

UIC Class I Permit issued by WDEQ/WQD for the injection wells that the wells are plugged and 

abandoned within six months after waste injection ceases; and 3) five years for the land surface 

reclamation to be complete. The NRC has revised the FSEIS Section 5.17.1 to clearly define 

the timeframe for its assessment of the cumulative impacts of deep-well injection for the 

duration of the Ross Project. Because the time for surface reclamation is covered under the 

cumulative impacts of soil discussed in SEIS Section 5.6, it is not included in the revised 

timeframe for the cumulative effects analysis of deep-well injection. 

Sections 4.5.1.3 and 5.7.2 establish that 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5) requires 

the ground-water quality within the exempted aquifer to meet standards that ensure that ground 

water outside of the exempted aquifer is protected. The NRC requires the Applicant to 

demonstrate through hydrologic studies, to the satisfaction of the NRC, that water outside the 

exempted aquifer is not impacted before the restoration of a wellfield would be approved. In 

addition, as described in SEIS Section 5.7.2, there are no impacts to water quality from the 

Nubeth research and development project formerly conducted in the Ross Project area between 

1978 – 1983. Also, as discussed in SEIS Section 5.7.2, due to the natural geochemical 

conditions of the aquifer outside the exempted portion of the ore-zone aquifer that would be 

subject to uranium-recovery activities, elements such as uranium, vanadium, and arsenic would 

naturally change geochemical form and become solid minerals. Clarifying text has been added 

to SEIS Section 5.7.2, Ground-Water Quality, as well as in SEIS Section 5.17.1 in response to 

this comment.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-160

Comment: RP032-090

The commenter noted the statement in DSEIS Section 5.17.1.2, “Given that the potential 

impacts from deep-well injection are localized, generally 0.4 km [0.25 mi], the cumulative 

impacts of disposal of liquid byproduct wastes would be SMALL, to which the Ross Project 

would contribute only a SMALL incremental impact” and asked the following questions: 1) The 

commenter asked whether the NRC would describe why only using the physical geographic 

footprint (approximately 0.4 km [0.25] around each well) in relation to the overall Ross Project 

area is appropriate for the NRC’s assessing the cumulative impacts of 17 deep-injection wells 

within the Ross Project area and potential satellite areas and questioned the NRC staff’s

conclusion that the cumulative impacts are SMALL. 2) What data are available regarding the 

failure rates and historical performance of deep-well waste storage, particularly in industrial 

activities similar to ISR? Do these data, when incorporated into the Ross Project cumulativeimpact analysis over the entire Project’s lifecycle, still allow for the conclusion that these impacts 

are SMALL?

Response: The determination that potential impacts from deep-well injection are localized, 

generally 0.4 km [0.25 mi] as used in the cumulative-impact analysis was misinterpreted by the 

commenter as the physical geographic footprint around each well. The 0.4 km [0.25 mi] is the 

radius within the Deadwood/Flathead aquifer around the well at the point of injection in which 

potential impacts may occur. As described in SEIS Section 5.17.1.1, the minumum potentialimpact radius of 0.4 km [0.25 mi] was developed by the EPA as the area of review (EPA, 2001). 

EPA has defined an “area of review” for a Class I well as the zone of endangering influence 

around the well, or the radius at which pressure due to injection may cause the migration of the 

injected wastes and/or poor-quality water in the target formation into an underground drinking 

water source EPA allows the area of review to be determined by either a fixed radius or 

mathematical computation. When a fixed radius is used, the area of review for Class I 

nonhazardous wells must be, at a minimum, 0.4 km [0.25 mi] unless specified as greater by 

State regulations. Although the Applicant used 0.4 km [0.25 mi] as the area of review, the 

estimated area of influence calculated by Strata in its application to WDEQ for a Class I UIC 

permit was less than 0.4 km [0.25 mi] so the minimum radius prescribed by EPA is appropriate 

(Strata, 2011b). Section 5.17.1.1 was modified in the FSEIS to clarify the information provided 

in this response.

NRC does not have information on failure rates and historical performance of deep-well waste 

storage. The scope of this SEIS does not include analysis of information from other industrial 

activities. As discussed is Sections 2.1.1.5 and 4.4.1.2 and in the response to Comment Nos. 

RP017-011 and RP032-055, the UIC Class I permit from the WDEQ sets a maximum limit on 

the injection pressure (2,570 psi) and sets a range for the annulus pressure (200 to 800 psi). 

Injection at pressures less than the injection limit ensures that the capacity of the target aquifers 

(Deadwood and Flathead) is not exceeded and that potential impacts do not extend beyond the 

area of review as defined by EPA. 

Comment: RP035-015

The commenter asked that power plants be considered in the air-quality cumulative-impacts 

discussion in SEIS Section 5.9 to augment the existing discussion of mining actvities as well as 

oil- and gas-production facilities.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-161

Response: The NRC recognizes that there are several coal-fired and natural-gas power plants 

within the air-quality cumulative-impacts study area. Thus, the NRC has augmented the related 

discussion in SEIS Section 5.9 as suggested. Coal-fired power plants, particularly older plants 

with limited pollution controls, emit far more pollution than natural-gas-fired power plants. 

Several of the older coal-fired power plants in Wyoming are currently the subject of EPA actions 

to compel the plants’ upgrading with more contemporary pollution controls that would reduce 

CO2 and other emissions. However, only the Wyodak power plant, which is near Gillette, is 

within the air-quality cumulative-impacts study area and has not been upgraded to 

contemporary standards. Wyodak is a significant emitter of CO2 ( > 2.7 million T/yr [ > 3 million 

t/yr]) and other hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).

The other coal-fired power plants within the air-quality cumulative-impacts study area emit much 

less pollution due to advanced controls. The newest power plant, the Dry Fork Station, 11 km [7 

mi] north of Gillette, is a natural-gas-fired plant with advanced pollution controls, or BACT. Both 

Neil Simpson (near Gillette) and Ben French (near Rapid City) produce power using both 

natural-gas and coal. The Black Hills Corporation, however, has announced the closure of the 

22-megawatt Unit 1 at the Neil Simpson power plant (as well as the older coal-fired Osage 

plant, which is outside of the study area) in March 2014. Two Elk, a waste-coal power plant 

proposed in the mid-1990s in northeast Wyoming, has yet to be financed or built. The future 

development of coal-fired power plants within the study area, and across the country, would be 

subject to stringent pollution controls, if they were to be built. Marion Loomis, the Executive 

Director of the Wyoming Mining Association, has predicted that many older plants will be shut 

down throughout the United States within the next ten years and that some will be converted to 

natural gas (Wyoming Star Tribune, 8/8/2012). Therefore, new coal- or natural-gas-fired power 

plants without advanced pollution controls (i.e., BACT) were not included in the air-quality 

cumulative-impacts analysis. Per this comment, the FSEIS has been revised in Section 5.9 to 

include this information regarding power-plant cumulative impacts.

Comment: RP035-042

The commenter noted that the DSEIS utilizes information from 2003 and 2005 to disclose 

mining, and oil and gas (including coal bed methane) development. The commenter stated that 

there has been growth in oil and gas development since 2005 and recommended that updated 

oil and gas information be included in the Final EIS cumulative air impacts discussion. 

Response: As noted in SEIS Section 5.9, BLM evaluations of potential air quality impacts from 

future coal and CBM mining and oil and gas production in the Powder River Basin include 

recent cumulative air quality impacts to support increased coal production. Emissions data 

were acquired for the base year of 2004 for NO2, SO2, PM2.5 and PM10, and then modeled to 

2020. Updated models were not found. Given the distance to the Ross Project site, small 

differences in models, if available, would not likely change the designation of SMALL impacts. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comments: RP041-014; RP043-001 

One commenter stated that the NRC does not disclose the consequences of minimal 

inspections and enforcement related to ISR projects in Wyoming, including the Ross Project, as 

the NRC does not have an office in Wyoming and does not have adequate staff to inspect 

uranium-recovery operations. Because of this, the commenter stated that the SEIS needs to 

describe how inspection and enforcement actions would take place at the Ross Project and 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-162

whether current NRC staff levels would be sufficient to fully inspect the Applicant’s ISR facility 

and enforce the findings of those inspections. This point, the same commenter stated, would be 

especially important because NRC's environmental-impact conclusions rely on effective BMPs 

and mitigation measures. The commenter added that few fines have been levied over the years 

at uranium-recovery facilities in Wyoming, even though these facilities have routine license 

violations including excursions, spills, and leaks. The commenter stated that this history does 

not give the public much confidence in NRC's inspection and enforcement actions. 

Another commenter stated that the Ross Project area is even more likely to have problems 

because of the thousands of old drillholes there. 

Response: As a matter of practice, the NRC expects from its licensees compliance with 

regulatory requirements and license conditions. When the NRC evaluates potential 

environmental impacts of such a facility, consequently, the NRC staff explicitly employs this 

assumption. As described in GEIS Section 1.7.1, the NRC staff would conduct periodic 

inspections of the Ross Project to determine compliance with applicable regulatory 

requirements, license conditions, and approved procedures (NRC, 2009b). Potential violations 

and allegations would be evaluated and addressed through the appropriate NRC enforcement 

or allegation programs. Enforcement actions can result in fines, corrective actions, or injunctive 

relief to address regulatory-requirement violations. No change was made to the SEIS beyond 

the information provided in this response.

B.5.24.2 Onsite Excavated Pits

Comment: RP032-049

The commenter asked if the mud pits that the Applicant would use to dispose of well-drilling 

fluids would be subject to the applicable cleanup criteria in the Applicant's DP or RAP, what 

standards would be applied to the mud pits in these plans to determine whether they present 

long-term radiological and chemical impacts if left in place, and what the Applicant's NRCapproved DP would require for cleanup of the pits. The commenter also asked if some or all of 

the mud pits would qualify for a determination that they cannot economically meet the criteria for 

cleanup. If a radiation survey documents that some or all mud-pits would have long-term 

adverse environmental impacts, and some or all of these mud pits qualify for a determination 

that they cannot economically meet the criteria for cleanup, the commenter asked what steps 

would be taken to mitigate their environmental risks. The commenter asked that the NRC briefly 

summarize and provide detailed citations to technical literature demonstrating that the 

cumulative impacts of many thousands of mud pits would not present an elevated risk of 

environmental consequences.

Response: As stated in Section 2.1.1.4 of the SEIS, the mud pits used for the disposal of 

drilling fluids and muds during the installation of wells would be specifically included in the 

Applicant’s pre-decommissioning radiation surveys that would be conducted to identify those 

areas where decontamination would be required to meet applicable cleanup criteria or where 

the applicable cleanup criteria could not be economically met. The Ross Project area could be 

released for unrestricted use in conformance with the radiation-dose criteria for unrestricted 

release in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. Please see NRC’s staff response to Comment No. 

RP032-051 for additional discussion on the radiation surveys and soil removal if necessary that 

would be conducted on the mud pits according the approved DP.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-163

SEIS Section 5.6 discusses the cumulative impacts to geology and soils associated with the 

Ross Project. As stated, the NRC staff has determined that the cumulative impacts to geology 

and soils in the geology and soils cumulative-impacts study area would be SMALL. The soil 

disturbance associated with the Ross Project area and the other potential satellite areas in the 

Lance District would be limited to approximately 5 percent of the approximately 9,000-ha 

[22,200-ac] Lance District with 95 percent of the area remaining undisturbed. This disturbance 

to geology and soils would be dispersed throughout the Lance District and site restoration would 

be required. The proposed Ross Project would have a SMALL incremental impact on the 

SMALL cumulative impacts to geology and soils in the geology and soils cumulative-impacts 

study area. The literature referenced by the NRC staff in its assessment of cumulative impacts 

is listed in Section 5.18, “References.” 

B.5.24.3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Comment: RP032-029

The commenter referenced the SEIS Section 2.1.1.2 statement, “To specifically avoid the 

injection restriction problems that plagued the Nubeth operation, the Applicant has proposed 

several improvements to well-design, well development, and filtration (Strata 2011a; Strata, 

2011b).” The commenter requested additional information on improvements to well design, well 

development, and filtration-system design proposed by the Applicant. Specifically, the 

commenter asked the NRC to: 1) describe the injection-restriction problems that plagued the 

Nubeth operation; 2) describe the specific primary purpose and function of each improvement to 

well design, well development, and filtration-system design proposed by the Applicant; 3) 

discuss which improvements are directed primarily or exclusively at increasing uraniumproduction efficiency, and which are directed primarily or exclusively to improving safety and 

reducing the risk of environmental impacts; 4) explain which improvements, if any, did the NRC 

assume that it would accept and incorporate into its Source and Byproduct Materials License for 

the purposes of the SEIS analyses; and 5) describe how these improvements, taken individually 

and together, affect the risk of environmental impacts as a result of the Ross Project and the 

potential satellite areas in the Lance District (NRC, 2014b). 

Response: As noted in SEIS Section 2.1.1, the Applicant attributed previous issues with 

plugging of the aquifer and subsequent injection restrictions to the buildup of fine particles and 

organic material in the Nubeth wellfield. As discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1, the Applicant 

has indicated that improvements to the well design, well development, and filtration-system 

design would be used at the proposed Project to avoid the injection restrictions that Nubeth 

encountered (Strata, 2011a). Examples of the improvements in filtration, which are frequently 

used today as compared to the time that Nubeth was operating, include filters that exclude 

smaller, finer particles and also filter cartridges that provide a larger surface areas as well as 

more contemporary well-purging techniques instead of the earlier technique of “air lifting” during 

the development of injection and recovery wells. The Applicant’s avoiding injection restrictions 

would be necessary to maintain predictable hydrologic connectivity between injection and 

recovery wells. Predictable hydrologic connectivity is necessary to realize efficient uranium 

recovery as well as to ensure the recovery of injected lixiviant, which in turn would minimize 

environmental impacts. The SEIS assumed properly operating uranium-recovery wellfields. As 

described in the response to Comment RP032-027, controls on injection pressure imposed by 

the WDEQ/LQD’s Permit to Mine would detect injection restrictions and require cessation of 

injection in the affected wells. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information 

provided in this response.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-164

Comment: RP035-007

The commenter noted the DSEIS discussed the “undesirable plugging of the aquifer” that 

occurred during the Nubeth research and development operation in DSEIS 2.1.1. The 

commenter stated that there is no explanation of why the aquifer became plugged or what this 

means in terms of the operation or environmental impacts. The commenter requests that, in 

order to provide reassurance that the situation that caused the plugging of the aquifer is 

understood and would be avoided for the proposed Ross Project, the FSEIS include lessons 

learned from the failure of the Nubeth research and development operation.

Response: The Nubeth operation is discussed in DSEIS Section 2.1.1. On page 2-11 of the 

DSEIS, the cause for the plugging of the aquifer is provided as being due to the build-up of fine 

particles. The DSEIS also explains what this means in terms of the operation when it states, on 

page 2-11, that the plugging of the aquifer restricted injection rates, which eventually led to the 

Nubeth operation’s premature shutdown. It is outside of the scope of this SEIS to evaluate the 

environmental impacts of the Nubeth operation. However, the environmental impacts of the 

Nubeth operation are considered in the cumulative-impacts analyses for the Ross Project in 

Section 5 when applicable. FSEIS Section 2.1.1 has been revised to provide additional 

information regarding the NRC staff’s understanding of the cause of the plugging of the aquifer 

that occurred during the Nubeth operation. FSEIS Section 2.1.1.1 has also been revised to note 

the Applicant’s commitment to incorporate improved well-construction designs and welldevelopment techniques in order to minimize the potential for the Nubeth operation’s injectivity 

problems to re-occur at the Ross Project. 

Comment: RP036-043

The commenter referenced the following statement in DSEIS Section 5.2.1.1, “Most of 

Wyoming’s current oil production is from old oil fields with declining production and the level of 

exploration drilling to discover new fields has been low.” The commenter indicated that the 

information included in the DSEIS on oil production was outdated and inaccurate and that 

conventional oil and gas exploration and production of deep rock units has been on the rise, 

particularly in the Powder River Basin, with hundreds, if not thousands, of wells predicted to be 

developed over the next few years. The commenter recommended that the NRC staff contact 

the Buffalo, Casper, and Newcastle BLM Field Offices for more current information and then 

correct and revise the respective cumulative-impacts analysis to reflect current energydevelopment predictions. 

Response: Data on the production of oil and gas in Crook and Campbell Counties posted by 

the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) [at www.wogcc.state.wy.us] 

support the conclusions presented in the 2005 BLM study that is referenced in SEIS Section 

5.2.1.1. In Crook County, the production of oil and gas has declined from its peaks in 1985 –

1990 until about 2007, from which time the production has remained approximately constant. In 

Campbell County, gas production has declined steadily since its peak in 2001 – 2005, and oil 

production has declined since approximately 1992, despite slight increases in 2010. The BLM’s 

Wyoming State Office's “White Paper on Hydraulic Fracturing,” dated July 2013, includes 

shallow CBM wells and the Niobrara Shale as likely targets for hydraulic fracturing technology 

[see http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/ info/NEPA/documents/og-ea/2014/febr.html]. According to

the WOGCC, Crook County does not produce CBM nor has it seen any development in the 

Niobrara Shale that is occurring of southeastern Wyoming. Of all of the BLM Districts in 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-165

Wyoming, projected water use for hydraulic fracturing is the lowest in the Newcastle District, 

which includes Crook Country. The NRC revised the text in FSEIS Section 5.2.1.1 to include 

the more recent information on oil and gas development in Crook County that is provided in this 

response.

B.5.24.4 References

Infomine. At http://www.infomine.com/index/pr/pb275839.pdf (as of December 12, 2013). 

ADAMS Accession No. ML13346A632.

(US)BLM (Bureau of Land Management). “Hydraulic Fracturing White Paper,” Appendix G of 

BLM Environmental Assessment, High Plains District Portion of the February 2014 Lease Sale. 

WY-070-EA-13-180. 2013. At http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/ogea/2014/febr.html. 

(US)EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Class I Underground Injection Control Program: 

Study of the Risks Associated with Class I Underground Injection Wells. EPA 816-R-01-007. 

Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Water. 2001. ADAMS Accession No. ML13015A557. 

(US)NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for InSitu Leach Uranium Milling Facilities. Volumes 1 and 2.” NUREG–1910. Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2009b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML091480244 and ML091480188. 

(US)NRC. “Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, No. SUA-1601.” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2014b. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A111. 

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Environmental Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata Energy, Inc. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130342, 

ML110130344, and ML110130348.

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, Technical 

Report, Volumes 1 through 6 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 

2011b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130333, ML110130335, ML110130314, ML110130316, 

ML110130320, and ML110130327. 

Strata. Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, Wyoming, RAI Question 

and Answer Responses, Environmental Report, Volume 1 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-

09091. Gillette, WY: Strata. 2012a. ADAMS Accession No. ML121030465.

WOGCC (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission). “Statistics by County.” At 

http://wogcc.state.wy.us/urecordsMenu.cfm?Skip='Y'&oops=#oops# (as of August 23, 2013).

Wyoming Star Tribune. August 8, 2012. At http://trib.com (as of September 11, 2013).
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-166

B.5.25 Impact Conclusions 

Comments: RP020-007; RP024-432 

The commenters referenced the following SEIS Section 4.5.1.2 statement, “The most significant 

estimated drawdown occurs in the Wesley No. TW02 well located in the SWSW Section 8, 

Township 53 North, Range 67 West, with 10.2 m [33.3 ft] of drawdown or 42.4 percent of the 

available head under Scenario 2 at the end of aquifer restoration.” One commenter noted that 

additional factors should be considered during the NRC staff’s evaluation of this impact. The 

commenter pointed out these factors and then indicated they should be discussed in the SEIS:

1) As described in the license application, the well is located along the Little Missouri River 

floodplain, immediately adjacent to the no-flow boundary of the ground-water model. Hence the 

presence of the no-flow boundary may conservatively bias the estimated drawdown. 

2) Water levels in the Wesley well fluctuated between 4.5 – 6.7 m [15 – 22 ft] during the year 

monitoring was conducted. In addition, the ground-water model incorporated the lowest water 

level, which added conservatism to the analysis. 

3) Given the limited use by Strata’s Field Office personnel and livestock (primarily several 

horses), the moderate reduction in available head should not materially decrease the yield from 

the well (Strata, 2011b). 

Another commenter inquired about the general impacts to ground-water quantity and the 

mitigation measures that would assist in preserving water quantity.

Response: The NRC agrees that additional information pertaining to water-quantity impacts 

would be useful. Therefore, the NRC staff has revised the text in SEIS Section 4.5.1.2 to 

indicate that the estimated drawdown is a result of the ground-water model’s execution, which in 

turn incorporated conservative assumptions. The text has also been revised to indicate that this 

well (i.e., the Wesley well) has very limited use.

Comment: RP024-002

The commenter recommended that the NRC staff use the word “potential” when the SEIS 

discusses the possible impacts or effects which had been identified during the staff’s evaluation 

of the proposed Ross Project. The commenter noted that the NRC staff evaluated possible 

impacts or effects, and these impacts may or may not result from the construction, operation, 

aquifer restoration, and decommissioning phases of the Ross Project.

Response: The NRC staff agrees that the word “potential” should be used as often as 

appropriate in a discussion of the impacts of the Ross Project and/or other proposed projects. 

As a result of this comment, the NRC inserted the word “potential” into the FSEIS, where and as 

often as it was appropriate.

Comment: RP024-463

The commenter referenced a statement in SEIS Section 4.5.1.4, “After uranium-recovery 

operation is complete, unidentified, improperly abandoned wells (i.e., from previous subsurface 

explorations not associated with the Applicant or its operations) could continue to impact 

aquifers above the ore-zone and adjacent aquifers by providing hydrologic connections between 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-167

aquifers.” The commenter requested that the NRC staff clarify its discussion of impacts to 

shallow aquifers and noted that the impacts described seem highly unlikely given that the prelicensing water levels in the ore-zone aquifer are below the lowest portion of the shallow-aquifer 

system. 

Response: The NRC staff agrees with the commenter's assertion that the impact to shallow 

aquifers is highly unlikely. The statement identified by the commenter has been deleted from 

SEIS Section 4.5.1.4.

Comments: RP024-533; RP024-741

The commenter requested justification for the statement that potential impacts to historical and 

cultural resources would be “SMALL to LARGE,” as discussed in SEIS Section 4.9.1.1. In 

addition, the commenter asked for a similar justification for “The Unavoidable Adverse 

Environmental Impacts and Short-Term Impacts and Uses of the Environment” in Table 8.1 

which state that the potential historical, cultural, and paleontological impacts from the Proposed 

Action would be “SMALL to LARGE.”

Response: The Section 106 consultation process, which includes assessments of impacts to 

historical and cultural properties, is currently ongoing; thus, not all impacts to historical and 

cultural resources are known or can be characterized at this time. Nevertheless, potential 

adverse impacts to a historical and cultural site(s) would be LARGE during the construction 

phase of the Ross Project, for example, if such a site were to be disturbed by a backhoe or an 

excavator. The impacts of the Project’s construction could result in damage to the physical 

integrity of historical and cultural site(s) so severe that the values upon which the site(s) 

achieved NRHP significance are lost (i.e., they are LARGE as defined in SEIS Sections 2.3, 4.1, 

and 5.3.2). The standard mitigation measure, which would reduce or eliminate such adverse 

impacts, is avoidance of the site(s) altogether. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the 

information provided in this response.

Comment: RP024-541

The commenter expressed agreement with the DSEIS’s conclusion that the potential historical 

and cultural impacts under the No-Action Alternative would be SMALL; however, the commenter 

suggested that it might be important to also state that, under the No-Action Alternative, no new 

historical and cultural resources would be discovered and identified; thus, archaeologists would 

not gain any additional or new knowledge about ancient cultures.

Response: The NRC staff has revised SEIS Section 4.9.2 as the commenter suggested. 

Cultural-resource inventories have already occurred within the Ross Project area. Therefore, 

any new knowledge that has been gained by way of these already-accomplished inventories 

would be recorded under any of the three Alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative. 

However, inadvertent discoveries that could occur during the Proposed Action or Alternative 3 

would likely be reported and recorded, because the two Alternatives entail Federal and State 

involvement and the framework of the NHPA. Inadvertent discoveries would be less likely to 

occur under the No-Action Alternative. This would be because no systematic protocol would be 

established to discover, identify, characterize, and/or record such new knowledge, artifacts, or 

historical and cultural resources. Thus, there would be fewer discoveries and less knowledge 

gained and recorded about ancient cultures under the No-Action Alternative.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-168

Comments: RP027-002; RP032-009; RP035-001; RP040-007 

The commenters stated that, throughout the DSEIS, many of the environmental impacts were 

assessed as “MODERATE to LARGE,” but then these impacts were mitigated due to the 

Applicant’s proposed use of BMPs. One commenter noted that the DSEIS didn’t provide any 

specifics about what would be done, and when. Other commenters noted that BMPs may not 

be adhered to during the Ross Project, but the DSEIS nevertheless relied upon them and the 

assumption that the Applicant would adhere to them as well as assumed that the Applicant 

would immediately remedy problems that arise. Some commenters asserted that BMPs do not 

work and suggested that new practices be developed. If new, workable BMPs were not 

developed, then one commenter stated that new licenses for ISR projects should not, in good 

conscience, be issued by the NRC. Another commenter noted that the DSEIS relies on 

permitting requirements to minimize the potential impacts of the Proposed Action. That 

commenter suggested that, to help ensure that the required protection and mitigation measures 

are understood by the public, regulatory agencies, the Applicant, and the pertinent decision 

makers, the FSEIS and ROD should document the specific requirements that pertain to air 

quality and underground injection of liquids as well as specify the required BMPs that are 

applicable to the Ross Project.

Response: The NRC staff’s analyses described in Section 4 of the SEIS determined the 

potential for MODERATE to LARGE unmitigated impacts in only three instances: 

Transportation impacts due to significantly higher volumes of traffic on local and county roads 

during all phases of the Ross Project (SEIS Section 4.3); water-resource impacts to shallow 

ground waters as a result of spills and pipeline leaks (SEIS Section 4.5.1.2) during all phases of 

the Project; and impacts to ground water from excursions (SEIS Section 4.5.1.2). Except for the 

transportation impacts, the potential MODERATE to LARGE impacts to ground water would be 

mitigated by conditions that would appear in the final license (see the current Draft Source and 

Byproduct Materials License being developed for the Ross Project) and the requirements of the 

permits Strata already holds (e.g., UIC Class I and WDEQ’s Permit to Mine), all of which require 

the use of BMPs on the part of the Applicant. 

BMPs have been used historically at all uranium-recovery facilities, and BMPs that have been 

shown to avoid or to reduce potential environmental impacts would be implemented at the Ross 

Project. The commenters do not provide any evidence for the claim that BMPs do not work. 

The NRC staff, in an SEIS, may rely on the mitigation measures that an Applicant includes in its 

license application (i.e., that the Applicant commits to) or that are conditions of its finalized 

source and byproduct materials license if it were to be issued by the NRC as a result of the 

Applicant’s license application. In the case of BMPs, the Applicant’s entire license application, 

and thus the proposed BMPs included therein, would be subject to Condition No. 9.2 in the 

(currently Draft) License (NRC, 2014b). This Draft License Condition mandates that “The 

Licensee shall conduct operations in accordance with the commitments, representations, and 

statements contained in the [Applicant’s] license application.” Therefore, the NRC staff can 

reasonably rely on these mitigation measures in formulating a reasoned prediction of the 

environmental impacts of the Ross Project as proposed. 

Additionally, if a Source and Byproduct Materials License were to be granted, the Ross Project 

facility would be routinely inspected by NRC staff and other State and Federal agencies for 

compliance with the respective requirements, license conditions, and/or permit stipulations. If 

any violations of NRC requirements or License Conditions are identified in an NRC inspection, 

the NRC staff may issue a written notice of violation and, in certain circumstances, may require 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-169

payment of a civil penalty, injunctive relief, and/or corrective actions or may seek criminal 

penalties. Such inspections provide a mechanism for the NRC staff to determine that systems 

are being operated properly and any mitigation responses are timely. The NRC staff also has a 

process for members of the public to report allegations of violations to the agency through an 

email or a telephone hotline. Additional information on the allegation process can be accessed 

through the NRC website (www.nrc.gov). No change was made to the SEIS beyond the 

information provided in this response.

Comment: RP041-007

The commenter indicated that the NRC fails to disclose the scope of the Ross Project, 

specifically the number of wells and wellfields. The commenter requested that the NRC 

disclose the size of the proposed action and analyze it in the SEIS. Specifically, the commenter 

asked how many wells and wellfields are included in the impact analyses.

Response: FSEIS Section 2.1.1 describes the Proposed Action and states that the Ross 

Project would host 15 – 25 wellfield modules and would consist of a total of 1,400 – 2,200 

recovery and injection wells (Strata, 2011a). Groups of wells (referred to as “wellfield modules”) 

within a given wellfield would be connected with pipelines to a central collection facility called a 

“wellfield-module building,” or a “header house.” The wellfields would be surrounded by a 

perimeter-ring of monitoring wells. Additional wells to monitor the overlying and underlying 

aquifers would also be installed within the wellfields. The density of monitoring wells is 

described in Section 2.1.1.1 of the FSEIS and discussed in responses to Comments 032-019; 

032-031; 032-036; and 032-041. These numbers of wells, wellfield modules, and wellfields are 

used consistently for the impact analyses in Section 4 of the FSEIS. In response to this 

comment, minor modifications were added to the referenced statements in Section 2.1.1 for text 

clarity.

Comment: RP043-002

The commenter noted that the estimated size of the Ross Project varied throughout the DSEIS 

and asked how large the Project would be. The commenter also asked whether the impacts 

assessed as “SMALL” were so assessed as a result of the small number of wells that were used 

by the NRC staff to calculate the respective impacts.

Response: Table 2.1 in SEIS Section 2.1 provides information on the total size of the Ross 

Project area (in hectares and in acres) as well as the total area of disturbance during the 

complete lifecycle of the Project. Figures 2.1, 2.4, and 2.5 in SEIS Sections 2.1 and 2.1.1 also 

illustrate the location of the Ross Project area and the proposed layout of the Project’s facility 

and wellfields. The areas presented in Table 2.1 as well as the detailed areal estimates for 

specific Project activities, such as roads and other infrastructure as well as the CPP and the 

surface impoundments, are provided in SEIS Section 2.1.1 and used throughout the SEIS to 

assess impacts. SEIS Sections 4 and 5 consider all aspects of the proposed project, which 

includes the number of wells included in the Proposed Action in its evaluation of impacts. No 

changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-170

B.5.25.1 References

(US)NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for InSitu Leach Uranium Milling Facilities. Volumes 1 and 2.” NUREG–1910. Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2009b. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML091480244 and ML091480188. 

(US)NRC. “Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, No. SUA-1601.” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2014b. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A111. 

 

Strata (Strata Energy, Inc.). Ross ISR Project USNRC License Application, Crook County, 

Wyoming, Environmental Report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 with Appendices. Docket No. 40-09091. 

Gillette, WY: Strata Energy, Inc. 2011a. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110130342, 

ML110130344, and ML110130348.

B.5.26 Mitigation Measures

Comment: RP024-005

The commenter stated that the mitigation measures described in the DSEIS were sometimes 

unclear, and the commenter suggested that pertinent mitigation measures be described 

separately from the respective potential impacts. The commenter also noted that it is important 

to state that the Applicant’s proposed mitigation measures, in most cases, have been previously 

approved for other ISR facilities and projects. The commenter suggested that the Ross Project 

SEIS cite NUREG–1910 and its other supplements (i.e., other SEISs).

Response: The NRC staff understands that a discussion of mitigation measures, separate 

from the potential impacts, could be beneficial and could allow SEIS readers to examine the 

individual mitigation measures all in one section. However, for this SEIS, the NRC staff chose 

to present the descriptions of mitigation measures together with the related potential impacts 

because mitigation measures informed the NRC staff’s determination of impact magnitudes. 

This format provided a more clear and concise document overall. The commenter did not 

provide any specific examples of where the mitigation measures described in the DSEIS are 

unclear or where additional citations to the GEIS or the other SEISs would be helpful. 

Nonetheless, when the NRC staff prepared the FSEIS, the staff identified areas where the 

document could be enhanced as suggested by commenter; these sections were revised as 

appropriate.

B.5.27 Environmental Justice

Comment: RP039-006

The commenter pointed out that Devils Tower is a sacred place for Native American Tribes. 

The commenter requested that special attention be paid to Native American treaty, cultural, 

historical, and religious concerns and asked that Devils Tower be considered an environmentaljustice issue.

Response: The NRC acknowledges that Devils Tower is sacred to Native Americans and that 

Tribal cultural traditions and religious beliefs should be honored. One of the principles of 

environmental justice is to meaningfully involve all people, regardless of race, color, national 

origin, or income, in the environmental issues that concern them. Observing this principle, the 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-171

NRC staff has consulted with interested Tribes; the NRC staff have hosted formal, onsite 

consultation meetings on September 12 – 13 and November 2 – 3, 2011. As part of these 

consultation activities, several Tribes have identified the cultural importance of Devils Tower 

(also known as Bear Lodge). The Tribes have noted that Devils Tower continues to be a part of 

the Tribal cultural landscape vis-à-vis the Ross Project. Devils Tower was identified as such 

during the Tribal field surveys conducted by interested Tribes in May and June 2013, assisted 

by the NRC staff. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this 

response.

B.5.28 Editorial

B.5.28.1 Grammar and Typography Editorial

Comment: RP024-003

The commenter noted that the SEIS was inconsistent in its use of “would” versus “will,” the latter 

of which is the correct term in the vast majority of cases.

Response: The NRC staff disagrees that the word “will” is the appropriate verb tense for the 

SEIS. The outcome of the NEPA process is not known with absolute certainty until the process 

is complete and the EPA has rated the SEIS “satisfactory.” Until then, the majority of the 

actions described in the SEIS are conditional (i.e., will not occur until the EPA has issued its 

opinion and the NRC staff has issued a Source and Byproduct Materials License to Strata)

(NRC, 2014b). Thus, the SEIS uses “would” in almost all cases and, thus, no changes were 

made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comment: RP024-067

The commenter noted that inconsistencies existed in the DSEIS’s nomenclature use in 

discussing the actual license that would be issued by the NRC in response to Strata’s license 

application. The commenter suggested using the term “Source and 11e.(2) Byproduct Material 

License” throughout the SEIS (NRC, 2014b). 

Response: The NRC staff agrees that various descriptors have been used in the SEIS to 

describe the license for which Strata submitted a license application. As discussed in the 

response to Comment RP024-004, the descriptor “11e.(2)” has not been used in the SEIS’s final 

text. The NRC staff has used the plural structure (i.e., Materials) because the proposed License 

would govern both source material and byproduct material, where the latter is only for byproduct 

material, which would be generated during onsite uranium-recovery operations. In some cases, 

the descriptor might be different, if justified within the respective and specific context (e.g., the 

title for 10 CFR Part 40 remains “Domestic Licensing of Source Material” and has not been 

changed). The NRC staff has revised the SEIS so that the descriptor, “Source and Byproduct 

Materials License,” is consistently used throughout the document.

Comments: RP024-029; RP024-032; RP024-034; RP024-043; RP024-045; RP024-053;

RP024-076; RP024-077; RP024-078; RP024-081; RP024-083; RP024-087; RP024-108; 

RP024-120; RP024-144; RP024-149; RP024-167; RP024-183; RP024-203; RP024-208; 

RP024-212; RP024-238; RP024-239; RP024-275; RP024-277; RP024-283; RP024-301; 

RP024-302; RP024-303; RP024-317; RP024-325; RP024-334; RP024-335; RP024-362; 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-172

RP024-365; RP024-368; RP024-370; RP024-382; RP024-393; RP024-398; RP024-405; 

RP024-408; RP024-409; RP024-426; RP024-428; RP024-456; RP024-476; RP024-480; 

RP024-484; RP024-485; RP024-489; RP024-498; RP024-508; RP024-512; RP024-513; 

RP024-514; RP024-515; RP024-531; RP024-549; RP024-571; RP024-574; RP024-580; 

RP024-595; RP024-596; RP024-597; RP024-599; RP024-601; RP024-603; RP024-608; 

RP024-615; RP024-627; RP024-635; RP024-640; RP024-645; RP024-646; RP024-654; 

RP024-657; RP024-658; RP024-661; RP024-662; RP024-663; RP024-664; RP024-665; 

RP024-666; RP024-668; RP024-697; RP024-702; RP024-704; RP024-705; RP024-706; 

RP024-710; RP024-718; RP024-728; RP024-729; RP024-730; RP024-731; RP024-735; 

RP035-030; RP035-031

Several commenters suggested corrections for typographical or grammatical errors in the SEIS.

Response: The NRC staff verified all such changes and/or corrections for accuracy. When 

determined to be appropriate, the NRC staff incorporated such changes and/or corrections into 

the SEIS.

B.5.28.2 Technical Editorial

Comments: RP017-005; RP017-007; RP024-006; RP024-007; RP024-008; RP024-009; 

RP024-010; RP024-011; RP024-012; RP024-014; RP024-015; RP024-016; RP024-017; 

RP024-018; RP024-021; RP024-022; RP024-023; RP024-026; RP024-027; RP024-028; 

RP024-033; RP024-036; RP024-038; RP024-039; RP024-044; RP024-046; RP024-047; 

RP024-048; RP024-049; RP024-050; RP024-051; RP024-052; RP024-055; RP024-059; 

RP024-060; RP024-061; RP024-062; RP024-063; RP024-064; RP024-065; RP024-069; 

RP024-070; RP024-073; RP024-075; RP024-079; RP024-082; RP024-089; RP024-090; 

RP024-091; RP024-092; RP024-093; RP024-094; RP024-095; RP024-097; RP024-098; 

RP024-099; RP024-101; RP024-102; RP024-103; RP024-104; RP024-106; RP024-109; 

RP024-110; RP024-111; RP024-113; RP024-114; RP024-116; RP024-117; RP024-119; 

RP024-121; RP024-122; RP024-123; RP024-124; RP024-125; RP024-126; RP024-127; 

RP024-128; RP024-129; RP024-130; RP024-131; RP024-136; RP024-137; RP024-138; 

RP024-139; RP024-145; RP024-147; RP024-148; RP024-150; RP024-151; RP024-153; 

RP024-154; RP024-155; RP024-156; RP024-157; RP024-158; RP024-164; RP024-174; 

RP024-178; RP024-179; RP024-185; RP024-186; RP024-187; RP024-188; RP024-189; 

RP024-193; RP024-195; RP024-196; RP024-197; RP024-198; RP024-200; RP024-201; 

RP024-204; RP024-207; RP024-213; RP024-214; RP024-215; RP024-217; RP024-219; 

RP024-223; RP024-224; RP024-225; RP024-226; RP024-227; RP024-228; RP024-229; 

RP024-230; RP024-231; RP024-232; RP024-233; RP024-234; RP024-235; RP024-236; 

RP024-237; RP024-241; RP024-242; RP024-243; RP024-244; RP024-245; RP024-246; 

RP024-249; RP024-250; RP024-251; RP024-252; RP024-253; RP024-255; RP024-256; 

RP024-257; RP024-258; RP024-259; RP024-260; RP024-261; RP024-262; RP024-263; 

RP024-264; RP024-265; RP024-266; RP024-267; RP024-268; RP024-269; RP024-270; 

RP024-272; RP024-273; RP024-274; RP024-276; RP024-278; RP024-279; RP024-280; 

RP024-281; RP024-282; RP024-284; RP024-285; RP024-286; RP024-287; RP024-288; 

RP024-289; RP024-290; RP024-291; RP024-292; RP024-294; RP024-295; RP024-296; 

RP024-297; RP024-298; RP024-299; RP024-300; RP024-304; RP024-310; RP024-311; 

RP024-312; RP024-313; RP024-314; RP024-315; RP024-318; RP024-320; RP024-323; 

RP024-324; RP024-326; RP024-327; RP024-328; RP024-329; RP024-330; RP024-332; 

RP024-333; RP024-336; RP024-337; RP024-339; RP024-340; RP024-341; RP024-342; 

RP024-343; RP024-344; RP024-345; RP024-346; RP024-347; RP024-348; RP024-349; 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-173

RP024-350; RP024-351; RP024-352; RP024-353; RP024-355; RP024-356; RP024-357; 

RP024-358; RP024-359; RP024-360; RP024-361; RP024-363; RP024-364; RP024-369; 

RP024-371; RP024-373; RP024-374; RP024-377; RP024-378; RP024-383; RP024-385; 

RP024-386; RP024-387; RP024-388; RP024-389; RP024-390; RP024-391; RP024-392; 

RP024-394; RP024-395; RP024-396; RP024-397; RP024-399; RP024-400; RP024-403; 

RP024-404; RP024-406; RP024-407; RP024-410; RP024-412; RP024-413; RP024-414; 

RP024-415; RP024-416; RP024-418; RP024-420; RP024-422; RP024-423; RP024-424; 

RP024-427; RP024-429; RP024-430; RP024-436; RP024-438; RP024-439; RP024-440; 

RP024-441; RP024-442; RP024-444; RP024-445; RP024-446; RP024-448; RP024-449; 

RP024-450; RP024-451; RP024-452; RP024-453; RP024-454; RP024-455; RP024-457; 

RP024-458; RP024-459; RP024-460; RP024-461; RP024-462; RP024-465; RP024-466; 

RP024-467; RP024-468; RP024-469; RP024-471; RP024-473; RP024-475; RP024-483; 

RP024-490; RP024-494; RP024-496; RP024-497; RP024-499; RP024-501; RP024-502; 

RP024-503; RP024-504; RP024-505; RP024-506; RP024-507; RP024-511; RP024-519; 

RP024-520; RP024-521; RP024-526; RP024-528; RP024-543; RP024-544; RP024-546; 

RP024-548; RP024-550; RP024-551; RP024-552; RP024-553; RP024-554; RP024-555; 

RP024-556; RP024-557; RP024-558; RP024-559; RP024-560; RP024-561; RP024-562; 

RP024-563; RP024-564; RP024-565; RP024-566; RP024-567; RP024-572; RP024-573; 

RP024-575; RP024-576; RP024-577; RP024-578; RP024-581; RP024-582; RP024-583; 

RP024-584; RP024-586; RP024-587; RP024-588; RP024-589; RP024-590; RP024-591; 

RP024-592; RP024-593; RP024-594; RP024-600; RP024-602; RP024-604; RP024-605; 

RP024-606; RP024-607; RP024-609; RP024-610; RP024-611; RP024-612; RP024-613; 

RP024-614; RP024-616; RP024-617; RP024-618; RP024-619; RP024-620; RP024-621; 

RP024-622; RP024-623; RP024-624; RP024-625; RP024-626; RP024-628; RP024-629; 

RP024-630; RP024-631; RP024-632; RP024-633; RP024-634; RP024-636; RP024-637; 

RP024-638; RP024-641; RP024-642; RP024-643; RP024-644; RP024-647; RP024-648; 

RP024-650; RP024-651; RP024-653; RP024-655; RP024-656; RP024-667; RP024-669; 

RP024-670; RP024-671; RP024-673; RP024-674; RP024-676; RP024-678; RP024-679; 

RP024-685; RP024-686; RP024-687; RP024-688; RP024-695; RP024-698; RP024-699; 

RP024-700; RP024-701; RP024-707; RP024-708; RP024-709; RP024-711; RP024-712; 

RP024-713; RP024-714; RP024-715; RP024-716; RP024-717; RP024-719; RP024-720; 

RP024-721; RP024-722; RP024-723; RP024-724; RP024-725; RP024-726; RP024-732; 

RP024-733; RP024-734; RP024-737; RP024-738; RP024-739; RP024-740; RP024-742; 

RP024-743; RP024-744; RP024-745; RP024-746; RP024-747; RP024-748; RP024-750; 

RP024-159; RP032-050; RP032-057; RP032-073; RP032-074; RP032-075; RP032-076; 

RP032-083; RP034-003; RP035-002; RP035-003; RP035-014; RP035-016; RP035-019; 

RP035-020; RP035-021; RP035-023; RP035-024; RP035-025; RP035-026; RP035-029; 

RP035-032; RP035-033; RP035-036; RP035-040; RP036-005; RP036-007; RP036-042

Several commenters suggested changes to the SEIS text to correct inaccuracies (such as 

inaccuracies in the NRC staff’s incorporating information from the Strata’s license application) 

and inconsistencies (such as inconsistencies with the Draft Source and Byproduct Materials 

License conditions) or proposed text to clarify and/or supplement information in the SEIS (such 

as additions or revisions to the SEIS text that would shed more light on the SEIS’s analyses, 

conclusions, and recommendations) (NRC, 2014b). 

Response: The NRC staff verified for accuracy all proposed changes and suggestions and, 

when determined to be appropriate, the NRC incorporated such changes and additions into the 

SEIS.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-174

B.5.28.3 References

(US)NRC. “Draft Source and Byproduct Materials License, No. SUA-1601” Washington, DC: 

USNRC. 2014b. ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A111. 
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-175

APPENDIX B1

ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LIMITS

In-situ uranium recovery (ISR) facilities operate by an operator’s first extracting uranium from

specific areas called wellfields. After uranium recovery has ended, the ground water in the

wellfields contain constituents that were mobilized by the lixiviant. Licensees shall commence

aquifer restoration in each wellfield soon after the uranium recovery operations end (NRC,

2009d). Aquifer-restoration criteria for the site-specific post-licensing, pre-operational

constituents are determined either for each individual well or as a wellfield average.

United States (U.S.). Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensees are required to return

water quality parameters to the standards in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). As

stated in the regulations: “5B(5)-At the point of compliance, the concentration of a hazardous

constituent must not exceed—(a) The Commission approved background [in this SEIS, “postlicensing, pre-operational”] concentration of that constituent in the groundwater; (b) The

respective value given in the table in paragraph 5C if the constituent is listed in the table and if

the background [in this SEIS, “post-licensing, pre-operational”] level of the constituent is below

the value listed; or (c) An alternate concentration limit (ACL) is established by the Commission.”

For an ACL to be considered by the Commission, a licensee must submit a license amendment 

application to request an ACL. In this ACL license amendment request, the licensee must 

provide the basis for any proposed limits including consideration of practicable corrective actions 

that limits are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), and information on the factors the 

Commission must consider. The NRC will establish a site-specific ACL for a hazardous 

constituent as provided in paragraph 5B(5) if the NRC finds the proposed limit as ALARA, after 

considering practicable corrective actions, and determining that the constituent will not pose a 

substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment as long as the ACL is

not exceeded.

To determine if the ACL does not pose a potential hazard to human health or the environment, 

NRC performs three risk assessments (NRC, 2003a). The first is a hazard assessment which 

evaluates the radiological dose and toxicity of the constituents in question and the risk to human 

health and environment. The second is an exposure assessment to examine the existing 

distribution of hazardous constituents, as well as potential sources for future releases and the 

potential consequences associated with the human and environmental exposure to the 

hazardous constituents. The last assessment is a corrective action assessment which

evaluates 1) all applicant proposed corrective actions; 2) the technical feasibility of each 

proposed corrective actions; 3) the costs and benefits associated with each proposed corrective

action; and 4) the preferred corrective action to achieve the hazardous constituent concentration 

which is protective of human health and the environment.

To perform these assessments, the NRC staff uses a rigorous review process. Licensees must 

provide a comprehensive ACL amendment that addresses surface-water and ground-water 

quality and expected impacts on human health and the environment. Such information required 

in an amendment request pursuant to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(6) includes the 

following factors:
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-176

 Potential adverse effects on ground-water quality, considering the following:

 The physical and chemical characteristics of the waste in the licensed site

including its potential for migration

 The hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility and surrounding land

 The quantity of ground water and the direction of ground-water flow

 The proximity and withdrawal rates of ground-water users

 The current and future uses of ground water in the area

 The existing quality of ground water, including other sources of contamination and their

cumulative impact on the ground-water quality

 The potential for health risks caused by human exposure to waste constituents

 The potential damage to wildlife, crops, vegetation, and physical structures caused by

exposure to waste constituents

 The persistence and permanence of the potential adverse effects.

 Potential adverse effects on hydraulically connected surface water quality, considering the

following: 

 The volume and physical and chemical characteristics of the waste in the licensed site

 The hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility and surrounding land

 The quantity and quality of ground water, and the direction of ground-water flow

 The patterns of rainfall in the region

 The proximity of the licensed site to surface waters

 The current and future uses of surface waters in the area and any water quality standards

established for those surface waters

 The existing quality of surface water including other sources of contamination and the

cumulative impact on surface water quality

 The potential for health risks caused by human exposure to waste constituents

 The potential damage to wildlife, crops, vegetation, and physical structures caused by

exposure to waste constituents

 The persistence and permanence of the potential adverse effects.
Appendix B: Public-Comment Responses

B-177

Although State “class of use” standards are not recognized in the NRC’s regulations as

restoration standards, these standards can be considered as one factor in evaluating ACL

requests for uranium-recovery facilities located in Wyoming. Furthermore, in considering ACL

requests, the Commission places particular importance on protecting underground sources of

drinking water (USDWs). The use of modeling and additional ground-water monitoring may be

necessary to show that ACLs in ISR wellfields would not adversely impact USDWs. It must be

demonstrated that the licensee has attempted to restore hazardous constituents in ground water

to post-licensing, pre-operational values or an MCL—whichever level is higher.

Before an ISR licensee is allowed to extract uranium, the EPA under 40 CFR Part 146.4 and in

accordance with the SDWA must issue an aquifer exemption covering the portion of the aquifer

in which the uranium-bearing rock is located. The EPA cannot exempt the portion of the aquifer

unless it is found that “it 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.” Due to these criteria, only impacts

outside of the exempted aquifer are evaluated. In most cases, the water in aquifers adjacent to

the uranium OZs does not meet drinking water standards. The Commission will not approve an

ACL if it will impact any adjacent USDWs. Therefore, the impact of granting an ACL request is

SMALL.

Further guidance for the NRC’s evaluation of ACLs for uranium-recovery facilities is currently 

being developed for a revision of NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003a). Existing guidance for the NRC’s 

review of ACLs for conventional mills can be found in NUREG–1620, Standard Review Plan for

the Review of a Reclamation Plan for Mill Tailings Sites Under Title II of UMTRCA (NRC, 2003c). 

B1.1 References

(US)NRC. “Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications, 

Final Report.” NUREG–1569. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2003a. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML032250177. 

(US)NRC. “Standard Review Plan for the Review of a Reclamation Plan for Mill Tailings Sites 

Under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. Final Report.” 

NUREG–1620. Washington, DC: USNRC. ADAMS Accession No. ML031550569.

(US)NRC. “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities. Volumes 1 and 2.” NUREG–1910. Washington, DC: USNRC. 2009b. ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML091480244 and ML091480188.

APPENDIX C

WATER-QUALITY DATA

Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-1 
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-2 
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-3 
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-4 
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-5 
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-6 
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-7 
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-8 
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-9 
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-10
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-11
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-12
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-13
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-14
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-15
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-16
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-17
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-18
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-19
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-20
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-21
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-22
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-23
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-24
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-25
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-26
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-27
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-28
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-29
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-30
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-31
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-32
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-33
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-34
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-35
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-36
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-37
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-38
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-39
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-40
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-41
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-42
Appendix C: Water-Quality Data

C-43

APPENDIX D

VISUAL-IMPACTS ANALYSIS

Appendix D: Visual Impacts Analysis

D-1 

APPENDIX D: VISUAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS 

Scenic Quality Inventory Point B-1 

Photograph from Scenic Quality Inventory Point C-1 to North

Table D.1

Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation

Key Factor Rating Criteria Score

Landform Low rolling hills, foothills, or flat valley bottoms or 

few or no interesting landscape features.

1

Vegetation Some variety of vegetation, but only one or two 

major types.

3

Water Present/Little Missouri River and the Oshoto 

Reservoir are occasionally visible.

1

Color

Some intensity or variety in colors and contrast of

the soil, rock, and vegetation, but not a dominant 

scenic element.

3

Influence of

Adjacent Scenery

Adjacent scenery has little or no influence on 

overall visual quality.

0

Scarcity Interesting within its setting, but fairly common 

within the region.

1

Cultural

Modifications

Modifications add variety, but are very discordant 

and promote strong disharmony.

-2

TOTAL SCORE = 7
Appendix D: Visual Impacts Analysis

D-2 

Scenic Quality Inventory Point B-2 

Photograph from Scenic Quality Inventory Point B-2 to East

Table D.2

Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation

Key Factor Rating Criteria Score

Landform

High vertical relief as expressed in prominent cliffs,

spires, or massive rock outcrops; or severe surface 

variation or highly eroded formations including 

major badlands or dune systems; or detail features

dominant and exceptionally striking and intriguing

such as glaciers.

5

Vegetation A variety of vegetative types as expressed in 

interesting forms, textures, and patterns.

5

Water Present, but not noticeable. 0

Color

Some intensity or variety in colors and contrast of 

the soil, rock, and vegetation, but not a dominant 

scenic element.

3

Influence of

Adjacent Scenery

Adjacent scenery greatly enhances visual quality

(Devils Tower).

5

Scarcity 

One of a kind, or unusually memorable, or very rare

within region. Consistent chance for exceptional 

wildlife or wildflower viewing.

5

Cultural

Modifications

Modifications add little or no visual variety to the 

area, and introduce no discordant elements.

0

TOTAL SCORE = 23

Scenic Quality Inventory Point B-3 
Appendix D: Visual Impacts Analysis

D-3 

Photograph from Scenic Quality Inventory Point B-3 to South

Table D.3

Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation

Key Factor Rating Criteria Score

Landform Low rolling hills, foothills, or flat valley bottoms; or 

few or no interesting landscape features.

1

Vegetation Little or no variety or contrast in vegetation. 1

Water Present, but not noticeable. 0

Color Subtle color variations, contrast, or interest; 

generally mute tones.

1

Influence of

Adjacent Scenery

Adjacent scenery has little or no influence on 

overall visual quality.

0

Scarcity Interesting within its setting, but fairly common 

within the region.

1

Cultural

Modifications

Modifications add little or no visual variety to the 

area and introduce no discordant elements.

0

TOTAL SCORE = 4
Appendix D: Visual Impacts Analysis

D-4 

Scenic Quality Inventory Point B-4

Photograph from Scenic Quality Inventory Point B-4 to South

Table D.4

Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation

Key Factor Rating Criteria Score

Landform Low rolling hills, foothills, or flat valley bottoms; or 

few or no interesting landscape features.

1

Vegetation Some variety of vegetation, but only one or two 

major types.

3

Water Present, but not noticeable. 1

Color

Some intensity or variety in colors and contrast of

the soil, rock and vegetation, but not a dominant 

scenic element.

3

Influence of

Adjacent Scenery

Adjacent scenery has little or no influence on 

overall visual quality.

0

Scarcity Interesting within its setting, but fairly common 

within the region.

1

Cultural

Modifications

Modifications add variety but are discordant and 

promote disharmony.

-1

TOTAL SCORE = 8
Appendix D: Visual Impacts Analysis

D-5 

Table D.5

Scenic Quality 

Inventory and Evaluation

Average of Four Views

Key Factor Score

Landform 2.00

Vegetation 3.00

Water 0.50

Color 2.50

Influence of

Adjacent Scenery

1.25

Scarcity 2.00

Cultural

Modifications

-0.75

AVERAGE = 10.50

APPENDIX E

DRAFT ROSS PROJECT

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT

Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-1
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-2
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-3
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-4
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-5
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-6
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-7
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-8
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-9
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-10
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-11
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-12
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-13
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-14
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-15
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-16
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-17
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-18
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-19
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-20
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-21
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-22
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-23
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-24
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-25
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-26
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-27
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-28
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-29
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-30
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-31
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-32
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Agreement

E-33






UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

------------------

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
NUREG

-1910

Final

Supplement 5

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Ross ISR Project in Crook County, Wyoming