Environmental Impact 

Statement for the 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

in Campbell and Johnson

Counties, Wyoming 

Supplement to the

Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for

In-Situ Leach Uranium

Milling Facilities 

Final Report 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Federal and State Materials and

Environmental Management Programs

 Q 

NUREG-1910

Supplement 2

Environmental Impact

Statement for the

Nichols Ranch ISR Project

in Campbell and Johnson

Counties, Wyoming 

Supplement to the

Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for

In-Situ Leach Uranium

Milling Facilities 

Final Report 

Manuscript Completed: January 2011 

Date Published: January 2011 

Prepared by:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Federal and State Materials and

Environmental Management Programs

NUREG-1910

Supplement 2 

iii 

ABSTRACT 

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

source material provided that proposed facilities meet NRC regulatory requirements and would 

be operated in a manner that protects public health and safety and the environment. Under 

the NRC environmental protection regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

Title 10, Part 51, which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 

issuance of a license to possess and use source material for uranium milling, as defined in 

10 CFR Part 40, requires an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a supplement to an EIS. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By letter dated November 30, 2007, Uranerz Energy Corporation (Uranerz), referred to herein 

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

the Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be located in 

Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming, which is in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling 

Region identified in the GEIS. The NRC staff prepared this Supplemental EIS (SEIS) to 

evaluate the potential environmental impacts from the applicant proposal to construct, operate, 

conduct aquifer restoration, and decommission an ISR uranium milling facility at the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. This SEIS describes the environment potentially affected by the 

proposed site activities, presents the potential environmental impacts resulting from reasonable 

alternatives to the proposed action, and describes the applicant environmental monitoring 

program and proposed mitigation measures. In conducting its analysis in this SEIS, the NRC 

staff evaluated site-specific data and information to determine whether the applicant’s proposed 

activities and site characteristics were consistent with those evaluated in the GEIS. NRC staff 

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

incorporated by reference, and areas that needed additional analysis. Based on its 

environmental review, the NRC staff recommends that, unless safety issues mandate otherwise, 

the source material license be issued 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.). Existing requirements were 

approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0014, 3150-0020, 

and 3150-0021. 

Public Protection Notification 

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

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

currently valid OMB control number. 

v 

CONTENTS 

Section Page 

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

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

FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... xvi 

TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... xvii 

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

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS .............................................................................................. xxxv 

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS .............................................................. xxxix 

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

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

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

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

 1.4 Scope of the Supplemental Environmental Analysis .......................................... 1-3 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 1.6 Licensing and Permitting .................................................................................... 1-9 

 1.6.1 NRC Licensing Process .......................................................................... 1-9 

 1.6.2 Status of Permitting with Other Federal, Tribal, and State Agencies ..... 1-9 

 1.7 Consultations .................................................................................................... 1-10 

 1.7.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 Consultation .................................... 1-10 

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

 1.7.3 Coordination with Other Federal, Tribal, State, and Local Agencies .... 1-12 

 1.7.3.1 Coordination with Bureau of Land Management .................................. 1-13 

 1.7.3.2 Coordination with Bureau of Indian Affairs .................... 1-13 

 1.7.3.3 Interactions with Tribal Governments ............................ 1-14 

 1.7.3.4 Coordination with Wyoming Department of 

 Environmental Quality ................................................... 1-15 

 1.7.3.5 Coordination with Wyoming Game and 

 Fish Department ............................................................ 1-15 

 1.7.3.6 Coordination with Wyoming State Engineer’s Office ..... 1-16 

 1.7.3.7 Coordination with Wyoming Governor’s 

 Planning Office .............................................................. 1-16 

 1.7.3.8 Coordination with Wyoming Community 

 Development Authority .................................................. 1-16 

 1.7.3.9 Coordination with Localities .......................................... 1-16 

 1.8 Structure of the SEIS ........................................................................................ 1-16 

 1.9 References ....................................................................................................... 1-17 
vi 

CONTENTS (continued) 

Section Page 

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

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

 2.2 The Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .................................................................. 2-1 

 2.2.1 Proposed ISR Facility Including Deep Well Injection .............................. 2-1 

 2.2.1.1 Site Description ............................................................... 2-2 

 2.2.1.2 Construction Activities ..................................................... 2-3 

 2.2.1.2.1 Site Preparation .............................................................. 2-3 

 2.2.1.2.2 Buildings .......................................................................... 2-6 

 2.2.1.2.3 Access Roads ................................................................. 2-9 

 2.2.1.2.4 Wellfields ......................................................................... 2-9 

 2.2.1.2.4.1 Injection and Production Wells ...................................... 2-13 

 2.2.1.2.4.2 Monitoring Wells ............................................................ 2-13 

 2.2.1.2.4.3 Well Construction and Testing ...................................... 2-14 

 2.2.1.2.4.4 Pipelines ........................................................................ 2-14 

 2.2.1.2.5 Other Structures and Systems ...................................... 2-17 

 2.2.1.2.6 Construction Workers and Equipment .......................... 2-17 

 2.2.1.2.7 Schedule ....................................................................... 2-17 

 2.2.1.3 Operation Activities ....................................................... 2-18 

 2.2.1.3.1 Uranium Mobilization ..................................................... 2-18 

 2.2.1.3.1.1 Lixiviant Chemistry ........................................................ 2-18 

 2.2.1.3.1.2 Lixiviant Injection and Recovery .................................... 2-18 

 2.2.1.3.1.3 Excursion Monitoring ..................................................... 2-19 

 2.2.1.3.1.4 Uranium Processing ...................................................... 2-24 

 2.2.1.3.1.5 Ion Exchange ................................................................ 2-24 

 2.2.1.3.1.6 Elution .......................................................................... 2-25 

 2.2.1.3.1.7 Precipitation, Drying, and Packaging ............................ 2-25 

 2.2.1.3.2 Management of Production Bleed and Other 

 Liquid Effluents .............................................................. 2-25 

 2.2.1.3.3 Schedule ....................................................................... 2-26 

 2.2.1.4 Aquifer Restoration Activities ........................................ 2-26 

 2.2.1.4.1 Groundwater Transfer ................................................... 2-27 

 2.2.1.4.2 Groundwater Sweep ..................................................... 2-28 

 2.2.1.4.3 Groundwater Treatment ................................................ 2-28 

 2.2.1.4.4 Monitoring and Stabilization .......................................... 2-29 

 2.2.1.4.5 Schedule ....................................................................... 2-30 

 2.2.1.5 Decontamination, Decommissioning, and 

 Reclamation Activities ................................................... 2-30 

 2.2.1.5.1 Radiological Surveys and 

 Contamination Control .................................................. 2-30 

 2.2.1.5.2 Wellfields ....................................................................... 2-30 

 2.2.1.5.3 Process Buildings and Equipment and 

 Other Structures ............................................................ 2-31 

 2.2.1.5.4 Engineered Structures and Site Roads ......................... 2-31 

 2.2.1.5.5 Final Contouring and Revegetation ............................... 2-31 

 2.2.1.5.6 Schedule ....................................................................... 2-32 

 2.2.1.6 Effluents and Waste Management ................................ 2-32 

 2.2.1.6.1 Gaseous and Airborne Particulate Emissions ............... 2-32 
vii 

CONTENTS (continued) 

Section Page 

 2.2.1.6.1.1 Fugitive Dust and Diesel Emissions .............................. 2-33 

 2.2.1.6.1.2 Radioactive Emissions .................................................. 2-34 

 2.2.1.6.2 Liquid Waste ................................................................. 2-35 

 2.2.1.6.3 Solid Wastes ................................................................. 2-36 

 2.2.1.7 Transportation ............................................................... 2-38 

 2.2.1.8 Financial Surety ............................................................ 2-38 

 2.2.2 Alternative Wastewater Disposal Options ............................................. 2-39 

 2.2.2.1 Evaporation Ponds ........................................................ 2-40 

 2.2.2.2 Land Application ............................................................ 2-41 

 2.2.2.3 Surface Water Discharge .............................................. 2-42 

 2.2.2.4 Class V Injection Well ................................................... 2-43 

 2.2.3 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 2-43 

 2.2.4 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) ...................................... 2-43 

 2.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ................................................ 2-44 

 2.3.1 Conventional Mining and Milling at the Nichols Ranch ISR 

 Project Site ........................................................................................... 2-44 

 2.3.2 Conventional Mining and Heap Leaching at the Nichols Ranch 

 ISR Project Site .................................................................................... 2-45 

 2.3.3 Alternate Lixiviants................................................................................ 2-46 

 2.3.4 Modified Action–No Nichols Ranch Unit ............................................... 2-46 

 2.4 Comparison of the Predicted Environmental Impacts ...................................... 2-48 

 2.5 Final Recommendation .................................................................................... 2-48 

 2.6 References ....................................................................................................... 2-48 

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

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

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

 3.2.1 Rangeland .............................................................................................. 3-2 

 3.2.2 Hunting and Recreation .......................................................................... 3-2 

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

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

 3.4 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................. 3-7 

 3.4.1 Geology .................................................................................................. 3-7 

 3.4.1.1 Nichols Ranch Unit Geology ......................................... 3-11 

 3.4.1.2 Hank Unit Geology ........................................................ 3-11 

 3.4.2 Soils ...................................................................................................... 3-12 

 3.5 Water Resources .............................................................................................. 3-12 

 3.5.1 Surface Waters and Wetlands .............................................................. 3-12 

 3.5.1.1 Drainage Basins ............................................................ 3-13 

 3.5.1.2 Surface Water Features ................................................ 3-13 

 3.5.1.3 Surface Water Flow ....................................................... 3-13 

 3.5.1.4 Surface Water Quality ................................................... 3-15 

 3.5.1.5 Wetlands ....................................................................... 3-16 

 3.5.2 Groundwater ......................................................................................... 3-17 

 3.5.2.1 Regional Groundwater Resources ................................ 3-17 

 3.5.2.2 Local Groundwater Resources ...................................... 3-18 

 3.5.2.3 Uranium-Bearing Aquifer ............................................... 3-18
viii 

CONTENTS (continued) 

Section Page 

 3.5.2.3.1 Hydrogeologic Characteristics ...................................... 3-22 

 3.5.2.3.2 Level of Confinement .................................................... 3-22 

 3.5.2.3.3 Groundwater Quality ..................................................... 3-23 

 3.5.2.3.4 Current Groundwater Uses ........................................... 3-26 

 3.5.2.4 Surrounding Aquifers .................................................... 3-27 

 3.6 Ecology ............................................................................................................. 3-28

 3.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology ................................................................................ 3-29 

 3.6.1.1 Vegetation ..................................................................... 3-29 

 3.6.1.2 Wildlife ........................................................................... 3-30 

 3.6.1.2.1 Big Game ...................................................................... 3-30 

 3.6.1.2.2 Upland Game Birds ....................................................... 3-34 

 3.6.1.2.3 Raptors .......................................................................... 3-35 

 3.6.1.2.4 Waterfowl and Shorebirds ............................................. 3-35 

 3.6.1.2.5 Nongame/Migratory Birds ............................................. 3-36 

 3.6.1.2.6 Other Mammals ............................................................. 3-37 

 3.6.1.2.7 Reptiles ......................................................................... 3-37 

 3.6.2 Aquatic Ecology .................................................................................... 3-38 

 3.6.3 Protected Species................................................................................. 3-38 

 3.7 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality ....................................................... 3-48 

 3.7.1 Meteorology and Climatology ............................................................... 3-48 

 3.7.1.1 Temperature .................................................................. 3-49 

 3.7.1.2 Wind .............................................................................. 3-49 

 3.7.1.3 Precipitation .................................................................. 3-50 

 3.7.1.4 Evaporation ................................................................... 3-50 

 3.7.1.5 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases ..................... 3-51 

 3.7.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................. 3-52 

 3.8 Noise ................................................................................................................ 3-53 

 3.9 Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources ......................................... 3-55 

 3.9.1 Cultural History ..................................................................................... 3-56 

 3.9.1.1 Prehistoric Era ............................................................... 3-57 

 3.9.1.2 Protohistoric/Historic Era ............................................... 3-57 

 3.9.2 Historic and Cultural Resources Identified and Places of 

 Cultural Significance ............................................................................. 3-58 

 3.9.2.1 Nichols Ranch Unit ........................................................ 3-58 

 3.9.2.2 Hank Unit ...................................................................... 3-58 

 3.9.2.3 Places of Cultural Significance ...................................... 3-59 

 3.9.3 Tribal Consultation ................................................................................ 3-61 

 3.9.4 Paleontological Resources ................................................................... 3-62 

 3.10 Visual and Scenic Resources ........................................................................... 3-62 

 3.10.1 Nichols Ranch Unit ........................................................ 3-63 

 3.10.2 Hank Unit ...................................................................... 3-63 

 3.11 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................... 3-64 

 3.11.1 Demographics ...................................................................................... 3-65 

 3.11.2 Income .................................................................................................. 3-66 

 3.11.3 Housing ................................................................................................ 3-66 

 3.11.4 Employment Structure .......................................................................... 3-66 

 3.11.5 Local Finance ....................................................................................... 3-68
ix 

CONTENTS (continued) 

Section Page 

 3.11.6 Education .............................................................................................. 3-69 

 3.11.7 Health and Social Services ................................................................... 3-69 

 3.12 Public and Occupational Health and Safety ..................................................... 3-69 

 3.12.1 Background Radiological Conditions .................................................... 3-70 

 3.12.2 Public Health and Safety ...................................................................... 3-72 

 3.12.3 Occupational Health and Safety ........................................................... 3-73 

 3.13 Waste Management ......................................................................................... 3-73 

 3.13.1 Liquid Waste Disposal .......................................................................... 3-73 

 3.13.2 Solid Waste Disposal ............................................................................ 3-74 

 3.14 References ....................................................................................................... 3-74 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AQUIFER 

 RESTORATION, AND DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES AND 

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

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

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

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

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

 4.2.1.2 Operations Impacts ......................................................... 4-3 

 4.2.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ............................................ 4-3 

 4.2.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts .............................................. 4-4 

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

 4.2.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) ........................................ 4-4 

 4.2.3.1 Construction Impacts ...................................................... 4-4 

 4.2.3.2 Operations Impacts ......................................................... 4-5 

 4.2.3.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ............................................ 4-5 

 4.2.3.4 Decommissioning Impacts .............................................. 4-5 

 4.3 Transportation Impacts ....................................................................................... 4-5 

 4.3.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .............................................................. 4-6 

 4.3.1.1 Construction Impacts ...................................................... 4-6 

 4.3.1.2 Operation Impacts ........................................................... 4-7 

 4.3.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts .......................................... 4-10 

 4.3.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................ 4-10 

 4.3.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 4-12 

 4.3.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) ...................................... 4-13 

 4.3.3.1 Construction Impacts .................................................... 4-13 

 4.3.3.2 Operation Impacts ......................................................... 4-13 

 4.3.3.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts .......................................... 4-14 

 4.3.3.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................ 4-14 

 4.4 Geology and Soils Impacts ............................................................................... 4-15 

 4.4.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-15 

 4.4.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................................... 4-15 

 4.4.1.2 Operation Impacts ......................................................... 4-16 

 4.4.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts .......................................... 4-17 

 4.4.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................ 4-18 

 4.4.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 4-19 

 4.4.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) ...................................... 4-19
x 

CONTENTS (continued) 

Section Page 

 4.5 Water Resources Impacts ................................................................................ 4-20 

 4.5.1 Surface Waters and Wetlands Impacts ................................................ 4-20 

 4.5.1.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .................................... 4-20 

 4.5.1.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................................... 4-20 

 4.5.1.1.2 Operation Impacts ......................................................... 4-22 

 4.5.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts .......................................... 4-24 

 4.5.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................ 4-24 

 4.5.1.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ............................................... 4-25 

 4.5.1.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) ............... 4-25 

 4.5.2 Groundwater Impacts ........................................................................... 4-25 

 4.5.2.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .................................... 4-26 

 4.5.2.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................................... 4-26 

 4.5.2.1.2 Operation Impacts ......................................................... 4-27 

 4.5.2.1.2.1 Operation Impacts Shallow (Near-Surface) Aquifers .... 4-27 

 4.5.2.1.2.2 Operation Impacts to Production and 

 Surrounding Aquifers .................................................... 4-29 

 4.5.2.1.2.3 Operation Impacts to Deep Aquifers Below the 

 Production Aquifers ....................................................... 4-36 

 4.5.2.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts .......................................... 4-37 

 4.5.2.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................ 4-39 

 4.5.2.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ............................................... 4-40 

 4.5.2.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) ............... 4-40 

 4.5.2.3.1 Construction Impacts .................................................... 4-40 

 4.5.2.3.2 Operation Impacts ......................................................... 4-40 

 4.5.2.3.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts .......................................... 4-40 

 4.5.2.3.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................ 4-41 

 4.6 Ecological Resources Impacts ......................................................................... 4-41 

 4.6.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-41 

 4.6.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................................... 4-41 

 4.6.1.1.1 Terrestrial Ecology ........................................................ 4-42 

 4.6.1.1.1.1 Vegetation ..................................................................... 4-42 

 4.6.1.1.1.2 Wildlife ........................................................................... 4-42 

 4.6.1.1.2 Aquatic Ecology ............................................................ 4-46 

 4.6.1.1.3 Protected Species ......................................................... 4-47 

 4.6.1.2 Operation Impacts ......................................................... 4-50 

 4.6.1.3 Aquifer Restoration ....................................................... 4-51 

 4.6.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................ 4-51 

 4.6.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 4-53 

 4.6.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) ...................................... 4-53 

 4.7 Air Quality Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-53 

 4.7.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-55 

 4.7.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................................... 4-55 

 4.7.1.2 Operation Impacts ......................................................... 4-57 

 4.7.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts .......................................... 4-57 

 4.7.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................ 4-58 

 4.7.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 4-58 

 4.7.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) ...................................... 4-59
xi 

CONTENTS (continued) 

Section Page 

 4.7.3.1 Construction Impacts .................................................... 4-59 

 4.7.3.2 Operation Impacts ......................................................... 4-59 

 4.7.3.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts .......................................... 4-60 

 4.7.3.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................ 4-60 

 4.8 Noise Impacts .................................................................................................. 4-61 

 4.8.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-62 

 4.8.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................................... 4-62 

 4.8.1.2 Operation Impacts ......................................................... 4-62 

 4.8.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts .......................................... 4-63 

 4.8.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................ 4-63 

 4.8.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 4-64 

 4.8.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) ...................................... 4-64 

 4.8.3.1 Construction Impacts .................................................... 4-64 

 4.8.3.2 Operation Impacts ......................................................... 4-64 

 4.8.3.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts .......................................... 4-65 

 4.8.3.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................ 4-65 

 4.9 Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Impacts ........................... 4-65 

 4.9.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-65 

 4.9.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................................... 4-65 

 4.9.1.2 Operation Impacts ......................................................... 4-69 

 4.9.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts .......................................... 4-70 

 4.9.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................ 4-70 

 4.9.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 4-71 

 4.9.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) ...................................... 4-71 

 4.9.3.1 Construction Impacts .................................................... 4-71 

 4.9.3.2 Operation Impacts ......................................................... 4-72 

 4.9.3.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts .......................................... 4-72 

 4.9.3.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................ 4-72 

 4.10 Visual and Scenic Resources Impacts ............................................................. 4-73 

 4.10.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-73 

 4.10.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................................... 4-74 

 4.10.1.1.1 Nichols Ranch Unit ........................................................ 4-74 

 4.10.1.1.2 Hank Unit ...................................................................... 4-74 

 4.10.1.2 Operation Impacts ......................................................... 4-75 

 4.10.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts .......................................... 4-76 

 4.10.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................ 4-76 

 4.10.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 4-76 

 4.10.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) ...................................... 4-77 

 4.10.3.1 Construction Impacts .................................................... 4-77 

 4.10.3.2 Operational Impacts ...................................................... 4-77 

 4.10.3.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts .......................................... 4-77 

 4.10.3.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................ 4-78 

 4.11 Socioeconomic Impacts ................................................................................... 4-78 

 4.11.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-78 

 4.11.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................................... 4-78 

 4.11.1.1.1 Demographics ............................................................... 4-79
xii 

CONTENTS (continued) 

Section Page 

 4.11.1.1.2 Income .......................................................................... 4-79 

 4.11.1.1.3 Housing ......................................................................... 4-79 

 4.11.1.1.4 Employment Rate .......................................................... 4-80 

 4.11.1.1.5 Local Finance ................................................................ 4-80 

 4.11.1.1.6 Education ...................................................................... 4-80 

 4.11.1.1.7 Health and Social Services ........................................... 4-80 

 4.11.1.2 Operation Impacts ......................................................... 4-80 

 4.11.1.2.1 Demographics ............................................................... 4-81 

 4.11.1.2.2 Income .......................................................................... 4-81 

 4.11.1.2.3 Housing ......................................................................... 4-81 

 4.11.1.2.4 Employment Rate .......................................................... 4-81 

 4.11.1.2.5 Local Finance ................................................................ 4-82 

 4.11.1.2.6 Education ...................................................................... 4-82 

 4.11.1.2.7 Health and Social Services ........................................... 4-82 

 4.11.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts .......................................... 4-82 

 4.11.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................ 4-83 

4.11.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 4-83 

4.11.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) ...................................... 4-83 

 4.12 Environmental Justice Impacts ......................................................................... 4-83 

4.12.1 Analysis of Impacts ............................................................................... 4-84 

4.12.2 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-86 

4.12.3 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 4-87 

4.12.4 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) ...................................... 4-87 

4.13 Public and Occupational Health and Safety Impacts ............................ 4-88 

4.13.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-88 

 4.13.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................................... 4-88 

 4.13.1.2 Operation Impacts ......................................................... 4-88 

 4.13.1.2.1 Radiological Impacts to Public and Occupational 

Health and Safety from Normal Operations .................. 4-89 

 4.13.1.2.2 Radiological Impacts to the Public and 

Occupational Health and Safety from Accidents ........... 4-92 

 4.13.1.2.3 Nonradiological Impacts from Normal Operations ........ 4-94 

 4.13.1.2.4 Nonradiological Impacts to Public and 

Occupational Health and Safety from Accidents ........... 4-96 

 4.13.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts .......................................... 4-97 

 4.13.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................ 4-97 

 4.13.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ........................................................... 4-98 

4.13.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) ...................................... 4-98 

 4.13.3.1 Construction Impacts .................................................... 4-98 

 4.13.3.2 Operation Impacts ......................................................... 4-98 

 4.13.3.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts .......................................... 4-99 

 4.13.3.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................ 4-99 

 4.14 Waste Management Impacts .......................................................................... 4-99 

4.14.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .......................................................... 4-100 

 4.14.1.1 Disposal Via Class I Injection Well .............................. 4-100 

 4.14.1.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................................. 4-100 

 4.14.1.1.2 Operation Impacts ....................................................... 4-100
xiii 

CONTENTS (continued) 

Section Page 

 4.14.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ........................................ 4-102 

 4.14.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts .......................................... 4-102 

 4.14.1.2 Alternative Wastewater Disposal Options ................... 4-104 

 4.14.1.2.1 Evaporation Ponds ...................................................... 4-104 

 4.14.1.2.2 Land Application .......................................................... 4-106 

 4.14.1.2.3 Surface Water Discharge ............................................ 4-107 

 4.14.1.2.4 Class V Injection Well ................................................. 4-109 

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

 4.14.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) .................................... 4-110 

 4.15 References ..................................................................................................... 4-111 

5 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................ 5-1 

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

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

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

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

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

 5.1.1.4 Coal Bed Methane Development .................................... 5-8 

 5.1.1.5 Other Mining .................................................................... 5-8 

 5.1.1.6 Environmental Impact Statements as Indicators of 

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable 

 Future Actions ................................................................. 5-9 

 5.1.2 Methodology ........................................................................................... 5-9 

 5.2 Land Use .......................................................................................................... 5-10 

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

 5.4 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................ 5-21 

 5.5 Water Resources .............................................................................................. 5-23 

 5.5.1 Surface Waters and Wetlands .............................................................. 5-23 

 5.5.2 Groundwater ......................................................................................... 5-26 

 5.6 Ecological Resources ....................................................................................... 5-30 

 5.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology ................................................................................ 5-30 

 5.6.2 Aquatic Ecology .................................................................................... 5-32 

 5.6.3 Protected Species................................................................................. 5-32 

 5.7 Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 5-35

 5.7.1 Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................... 5-39 

 5.7.1.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Region ................... 5-39 

 5.7.1.2 GHG Emissions from the Proposed Nichols Ranch 

 ISR Project .................................................................... 5-40 

 5.7.1.3 Nichols Ranch ISR Project GHG Emissions Impact ..... 5-41 

 5.7.1.4 Effect of Climate Change on the Nichols Ranch 

 ISR Project Facility ........................................................ 5-42 

 5.7.1.5 GHG Mitigation Measures ............................................. 5-43 

 5.7.1.6 Other Mining Activities in the Powder River Basin ........ 5-43 

 5.8 Noise ................................................................................................................ 5-45 

 5.9 Historical and Cultural Resources .................................................................... 5-46 

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

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

CONTENTS (continued) 

Section Page 

 5.12 Environmental Justice ...................................................................................... 5-54 

 5.13 Public and Occupational Health and Safety ..................................................... 5-55 

 5.14 Waste Management ......................................................................................... 5-57 

 5.15 References ....................................................................................................... 5-59 

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

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

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

 6.2.1 Airborne Radiation Monitoring ................................................................ 6-1 

 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 Groundwater Monitoring ......................................................................... 6-7 

 6.3 Physiochemical Monitoring ............................................................................... 6-12 

 6.3.1 Wellfield Groundwater Monitoring ......................................................... 6-12 

 6.3.1.1 Preoperational Groundwater Sampling ......................... 6-12 

 6.3.1.2 Groundwater Quality Monitoring ................................... 6-15 

 6.3.2 Wellfield and Pipeline Flow and Pressure Monitoring ........................... 6-15 

 6.3.3 Surface Water Monitoring ..................................................................... 6-16 

 6.3.4 Meteorological Monitoring ..................................................................... 6-16 

 6.4 Ecological Monitoring ...................................................................................... 6-16 

 6.4.1 Vegetation Monitoring .......................................................................... 6-16 

 6.4.2 Wildlife Monitoring ................................................................................ 6-17 

 6.5 References ....................................................................................................... 6-17 

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

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

 7.2 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................................ 7-1 

 7.3 Benefits and Costs from the Proposed Action in Campbell County and 

Johnson Counties ............................................................................................... 7-1 

 7.3.1 Benefits from Potential Production ......................................................... 7-3 

 7.3.2 Costs to the Local Communities ............................................................. 7-3 

 7.4 Evaluation Findings of Alternative 3 (Modified Action—No Hank Unit ............... 7-3 

 7.5 Evaluation of Findings ........................................................................................ 7-5 

 7.6 References ......................................................................................................... 7-5 

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

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

 8.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) .................................................................................... 8-2 

 8.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) .................................................... 8-2 

 8.4 References ......................................................................................................... 8-3 

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

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

 9.2 Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA®) Contributors .......... 9-2 

 9.3 CNWRA Consultants and Subcontractors .......................................................... 9-5
xv 

CONTENTS (continued) 

Section Page 

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

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

 10.2 Tribal Government Officials .............................................................................. 10-2 

 10.3 State Agency Officials ...................................................................................... 10-3 

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

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

APPENDIX A—CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE.........................................................A-1 

APPENDIX B—PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT FOR THE NICHOLS RANCH ISR PROJECT IN CAMPBELL AND 

JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING, AND NRC RESPONSES................................................B-1 

APPENDIX C—ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LIMITS.......................................................C-1 

APPENDIX D—NONROAD COMBUSTION ENGINE EMISSIONS ESTIMATES....................D-1 
xvi 

FIGURES 

Figure Page 

1-1 Geographic Location of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project ................................................. 1-2 

2-1 Nichols Ranch ISR Project Schedule ............................................................................. 2-2 

2-2 Nichols Ranch Unit Site Layout ...................................................................................... 2-4

2-3 Hank Unit Site Layout .................................................................................................... 2-5 

2-4 General Layout of the Nichols Ranch Unit Buildings ..................................................... 2-7 

2-5 General Layout of the Hank Unit Buildings .................................................................... 2-8 

2-6 Access Roads for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project ........................................................ 2-10 

2-7 Nichols Ranch Unit Production Areas .......................................................................... 2-11 

2-8 Hank Unit Production Areas ......................................................................................... 2-12

2-9 Typical Injection/Recovery Well Design ....................................................................... 2-15 

2-10 Typical Monitoring Well Design .................................................................................... 2-16

2-11 General Flow Schematic for the ISR Process .............................................................. 2-19 

2-12 Deep Disposal Well Design .......................................................................................... 2-36 

3-1 Nearest Residential Receptors to the Nichols Ranch ISR Project ................................. 3-3 

3-2 Transportation Routes Near the Nichols Ranch ISR Project .......................................... 3-6 

3-3 Geologic Composition at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project ............................................... 3-9 

3-4 Aquifers at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project ................................................................... 3-10 

3-5 Drainage Basins at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project ..................................................... 3-14 

3-6 Nichols Ranch Unit Location of Existing Wells ............................................................. 3-20 

3-7 Hank Unit Location of Wells ......................................................................................... 3-21 

3-8 Sage-Grouse Lek and Core Areas ............................................................................... 3-47 

3-9 Annual Wind Rose for the Antelope Coal Company .................................................... 3-51 

4-1 Drawdowns in an Unconfined Aquifer and Confined Aquifer From an 

 Extraction Well Operating at Same Rate ..................................................................... 4-32 

5-1 Conventional and ISR Uranium Recovery Facilities, BLM Pasture Allotments 

 And Croplands near the Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project.................................... 5-13 

5-2 Oilfields, Coalfields, CBM Project Areas, Uranium Occurrences, and Uranium 

 Facilities near the Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project ............................................. 5-15 

5-3 Energy Developments Within a 50-Mile Radius of Proposed Nichols Ranch 

 ISR Project ................................................................................................................... 5-16 

5-4 Wyoming, Campbell County, Johnson County, and Natrona County Population, 

 1970 to 2020 ................................................................................................................ 5-52 

5-5 Projected Campbell County Population and Employment, 2000 to 2020 ..................... 5-53 

6-1 Nichols Ranch Unit Air Particulate and Radon Monitoring Locations............................. 6-3 

6-2 Hank Unit Air Particulate and Radon Monitoring Locations ........................................... 6-4 

6-3 Nichols Ranch Unit Sediment Sample Locations ........................................................... 6-5 

6-4 Hank Unit Sediment Sample Locations .......................................................................... 6-6 

6-5 Nichols Ranch Unit Surface Water Sample Locations ................................................... 6-8 

6-6 Hank Unit Surface Water Sample Locations .................................................................. 6-9 

6-7 Nichols Ranch Unit Monitoring Well Locations ............................................................ 6-10 

6-8 Hank Unit Monitoring Well Locations ........................................................................... 6-11 
xvii 

TABLES 

Table Page 

1-1 ISL GEIS Range of Expected Impacts in the Wyoming East Uranium 

 Milling Region ................................................................................................................. 1-4 

1-2 Environmental Approvals for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project ....................................... 1-11 

2-1 Comparison of Different Liquid Wastewater Disposal Options..................................... 2-20 

2-2 Impacts Summary for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project .................................................. 2-52 

3-1 CBM and Oil and Gas Wells on and Within 4.8 km [3 mi] of the Nichols Ranch 

 ISR Project ..................................................................................................................... 3-5 

3-2 Traffic Counts for State Routes Near the Nichols Ranch ISR Project ............................ 3-7 

3-3 Peak Flows of Major Drainages for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project ............................. 3-16 

3-4 Water Quality of Specific Aquifers in the Nichols Ranch Unit ...................................... 3-24 

3-5 Water Quality of Specific Aquifers in the Hank Unit ..................................................... 3-25 

3-6 Plant Species by Habitat Occurrence at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project ..................... 3-31 

3-7 Wildlife Species Observed on or Near the Nichols Ranch ISR Project ........................ 3-34 

3-8 Federal, State, and BLM Listed Species That Occur in Johnson 

 and Campbell Counties ................................................................................................ 3-39 

3-9 Climate Data for Stations in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region ..................... 3-49 

3-10 Existing Conditions—Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data (2006–2008) ..................... 3-54 

3-11 Nichols Ranch Unit Archaeological Sites ..................................................................... 3-59 

3-12 Hank Unit Archaeological Sites .................................................................................... 3-60 

3-13 Population and Percent Growth in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming 

From 1980 to 2050 ....................................................................................................... 3-65 

3-14 Demographic Profile of the Population in Campbell and Johnson Counties 

 in 2000 ......................................................................................................................... 3-67 

3-15 Demographic Profile of the Population in Campbell County, (2006–2008 3-Year 

 Estimate) and Johnson County (2008 Estimate) .......................................................... 3-67 

3-16 Estimated Income for Campbell County (2006–2008) and Johnson 

 County (2008) .............................................................................................................. 3-68 

3-17 Housing in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming in 2000 (Actual) and 

 2008 (Estimated) .......................................................................................................... 3-68 

4-1 Percent Living in Poverty and Percent Minority in 2000 ............................................... 4-85 

4-2 Estimated Radon-222 Releases .................................................................................. 4-91 

4-3 Generic Accident Dose Analysis for ISR Operations ................................................... 4-92 

5-1 Uranium Recovery Sites in Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region .............................. 5-3 

5-2 Coal Mines Near the Proposed Nichols Range ISR Project ........................................... 5-6 

5-3 Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources ...................................................... 5-11 

5-4 Comparison of Annual Mass of Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Source ........................ 5-40 

5-5 Wyoming Historical and Reference Case GHG Emission in Million MT 

 (Million MT) .................................................................................................................. 5-40 

5-6 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions at the West Antelope II Mine .............................. 5-44 

5-7 Estimated Annual Equivalent CO2 Emissions at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch 

 and North Antelope Rochelle Mines ............................................................................. 5-45
xviii 

TABLES (continued) 

Table Page 

7-1 Towns Near the Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project .................................................. 7-4 

7-2 Summary of Costs and Benefits of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project ............................... 7-5 

8-1 Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action.............................. 8-4 
xix 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

BACKGROUND 

By letter dated November 30, 2007, Uranerz Energy Corporation (Uranerz) submitted an 

application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a new source material license 

for the Nichols Ranch In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project, located in the Powder River Basin in 

Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming. The applicant is proposing to recover uranium 

using the in-situ leach (ISL) [also known as the in-situ recovery (ISR) process]. The proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project is divided into two units, the Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit. 

Proposed facilities for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project include a central processing plant at the 

Nichols Ranch Unit, a satellite facility at the Hank Unit, and wellfields, and deep disposal wells 

located at each unit for the disposal of liquid effluent. 

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

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

source material and byproduct material. These statutes require NRC to license facilities, 

including ISR operations in accordance with NRC regulatory requirements to protect public 

health and safety from radiological hazards. Under the NRC environmental protection 

regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) or supplement to an EIS is 

required for issuance of a license to possess and use source material for uranium milling 

[see 10 CFR 51.20(b)(8)]. 

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

In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities (hereafter referred to as the GEIS). In the GEIS, NRC 

assessed the potential environmental impacts from the construction, operation, aquifer 

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

of the western United States. The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site is located lies 

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

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

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

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) incorporates by reference information 

from the GEIS and also uses information from the applicant’s license application and other 

independent sources to fulfill the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 51.20(b)(8). 

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

of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and 

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

recommendation regarding the proposed action. 

PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

NRC regulates uranium milling, as defined in 10 CFR 40.4, including the ISR process, under 

10 CFR Part 40, “Domestic Licensing of Source Material.” The applicant is seeking an NRC 

source material license to authorize commercial-scale ISR uranium recovery at the Nichols 

Ranch and Hank Units at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The purpose and need for 

the proposed Federal action is to either grant or deny the license application to use ISR 

technology to recover uranium and produce yellowcake at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

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

products including fuel for commercially operated nuclear power reactors.
Executive Summary 

xx 

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

findings in either the AEA-required safety review or in the NEPA environmental analysis that 

would lead NRC to reject a license application, NRC has no role in a company's business 

decision to submit a license application to operate an ISR facility at a particular location. 

THE PROJECT AREA 

The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is located in the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium Mining 

District of the Powder River Basin in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming. The proposed 

site is located approximately 74 km [46 mi] south-southwest of the City of Gillette and 

approximately 98 km [61 mi] north-northeast of the City of Casper. The total land area of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is approximately 1,365 ha [3,371 ac]. Sections within the 

proposed project area are split estate in which the surface and subsurface mineral rights are 

owned by two or more parties. The surface rights are both publicly and privately owned. 

Approximately 1,251 ha [3,091 ac] of land is privately owned primarily by the T-Chair Livestock 

Company, and the remaining 110 ha [280 ac] of surface rights are owned by the 

U.S. Government and administrated by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The 

subsurface mineral rights are owned by various private entities, including oil and gas and 

mineral extraction companies, and federally owned by the U.S. Government. 

Of the total land surface project area, the applicant estimated that the area that would be 

affected by the proposed ISR operations would be approximately 120 ha [300 ac]. The 

proposed facilities (buildings and structures) to be constructed as part of the Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project include the buildings associated with a central processing plant and a satellite facility; 

storage and maintenance structures, wells, and their associated infrastructure (e.g., header 

houses and pipelines); and access roads. The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be 

divided into two noncontiguous units, the Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit, located west 

and southwest of the North Middle Butte. The proposed Nichols Ranch project area is located, 

in part, on federally owned subsurface minerals that are overlain by private lands and part on 

BLM administered lands. 

IN-SITU RECOVERY PROCESS 

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

production zone aquifer (uranium ore body) through injection wells. Typically, a lixiviant uses 

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

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

though the production zone, the lixiviant oxidizes and dissolves the mineralized uranium. The 

resulting uranium-rich solution is drawn to recovery wells by pumping and then transferred to a 

processing facility via a network of pipelines buried just below the ground surface. At the 

processing facility, the uranium is removed from the solution as the solution is passed through 

ion-exchange columns. The resulting barren solution is then recharged with the oxidant and 

reinjected to recover more uranium. 

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

injection wells to recovery wells. These wells can be arranged in a variety of geometric patterns 

depending on the location and orientation of the ore body, aquifer permeability, and operator 

preference. 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 then 

surround the wellfield pattern area, drilled to the same depth as the production zone aquifer to 

detect any horizontal migration of lixiviant away from the production zone. Monitor wells are 
 Executive Summary 

xxi 

also installed in both the overlying and underlying aquifers and are screened (i.e., open to) in 

the appropriate stratigraphic horizon to detect the potential vertical migration of lixiviant out of 

the production zone. The uranium that is recovered from the solution is processed, dried into 

yellowcake, packaged into NRC- and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)-approved 205-L 

[55-gal] steel drums, and trucked offsite to a licensed uranium conversion facility. Once 

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

groundwater protection standards which are protective of the surrounding groundwater. The 

site is decommissioned according to a NRC-approved decommissioning and in accordance with 

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

public use. 

ALTERNATIVES 

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

NRC to consider reasonable alternatives, including the No-Action alternative, to a proposed 

action. The NRC staff considered a range of alternatives that would fulfill the underlying 

purpose and need for the proposed action. From this analysis, a set of reasonable alternatives 

was developed, and the impacts of the proposed action were compared with the impacts that 

would result if a given alternative were implemented. This SEIS evaluates the potential 

environmental impacts of two alternatives to the proposed action, including the No-Action 

alternative, and also considers alternative wastewater disposal options to the proposed action. 

Under the No-Action alternative, the applicant would not construct and operate ISR facilities at 

the proposed sites. A third alternative considered constructing and operating facilities for ISR 

uranium recovery and processing at only the Nichols Ranch Unit, but not the Hank Unit. Other 

alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis include conventional mining and 

milling at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site, conventional mining and heap leach 

processing at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site, constructing and operating facilities 

for ISR uranium recovery and processing at only the Hank Ranch Unit, and alternate lixiviants. 

SUMMARY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

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

from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of ISR operations at 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site and two alternatives. The SEIS also describes 

mitigation measures for the reduction or avoidance of potential adverse impacts that (i) the 

applicant has committed to in its NRC license application, (ii) would be required under other 

state or federal permits or processes, or (iii) are additional measures NRC staff identified as 

having the potential to reduce environmental impacts but that the applicant did not commit to in 

its application. The SEIS uses the assessments and conclusions reached in the GEIS in 

combination with site-specific information to assess and categorize impacts. 

As discussed in the GEIS and consistent with NUREG–1748, the significance of potential 

environmental impacts is categorized as follows: 

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

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

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

important attributes of the resource. 
Executive Summary 

xxii 

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

important attributes of the resource. 

Chapter 4 provides the NRC evaluation of the potential environmental impacts from the 

construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project. The significance of impacts from the ISR facility lifecycle is listed next 

followed by a brief summary of impacts by environmental resource area by ISR phase for the 

proposed action. 

Impacts by Resource Area and ISR Facility Phase 

Land Use 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Approximately 120 ha [300 ac] of the 1,364 ha 

[3,371 ac] or approximately 9 percent of the proposed project area would be disturbed during 

the construction phase of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Land would be graded for 

construction of wellfields and access roads and to build the central processing plant and satellite 

facility. Approximately 24 to 32 ha [60 to 80 ac] would be fenced to grazing activities over the 

life of the project. 

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

similar to, or less than, those during the construction phase since no additional area would be 

disturbed. Operational areas would remain fenced to grazing. No new facilities would be 

constructed that would result in additional land disturbance during operations. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Land use impacts during the aquifer restoration 

phase would be similar to, or less than, those during the operations phase. Wellfield access 

would be restricted from other uses as described for the operations phase. No additional land 

would be disturbed to construct facilities. 

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

phase would be similar to those during the construction phase. Decommissioning the buildings, 

wellfields, access roads, and removing potentially contaminated soil would result in a temporary, 

short-term increase in land-disturbing activities. Upon completion of the plugging and 

abandonment of wells in the wellfield areas, the soil would be reseeded and reclaimed in areas 

where it had been removed. At the end of decommissioning, because the reclaimed land would 

be released for other uses and no longer restricted, the land use impact in disturbed areas 

would be MODERATE until the reestablishment of vegetation. Once vegetation was 

reestablished in reclaimed areas, the land would be returned to a condition that could support a 

variety of land uses; therefore, the impact would be SMALL. 

Transportation 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Vehicle traffic during the ISR construction phase 

would result in an approximate 2 to 3 percent increase in local traffic on State Route 50 and 

State Route 387. Localized fugitive dust emissions would be limited because of the 

State-required dust mitigation measures to treat the main plant access road and haul road 

between the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units with water or chemical dust suppressants. 

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL. Transportation impacts would be similar to those during 

the construction phase. Additionally, the transport of yellowcake product, hazardous materials, 
 Executive Summary 

xxiii 

uranium-loaded resins from the Hank Unit to the Nichols Ranch Unit, and of wastes could result 

in spills or leakage if an accident were to occur; however, this risk was determined to be low and 

would be further limited by compliance with existing NRC and USDOT transportation regulations 

and the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) for containing leakage and spills. 

The applicant would carry out ranch road maintenance in conjunction with landowners. 

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

estimated for the construction and operation phases because the need to transport yellowcake 

product, hazardous materials, and uranium-loaded resins between units would decrease as 

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

employee commuting (because fewer workers would be involved) would reduce the potential for 

spills or leakage from accidents. 

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Transportation impacts would be less than that 

during the construction and operation phases because the transport of yellowcake product and 

processing chemicals would end during decommissioning. Access roads would either be 

reclaimed or left in place for future use. Waste shipments would increase temporarily, but would 

still represent a small contribution to daily traffic. Fewer workers would be employed, further 

reducing the potential transportation impact during this phase. 

Geology and Soils 

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

surface facilities, access roads, wellfields, and pipelines would include topsoil clearing and land 

grading. Topsoils removed during these activities would be reclaimed for future use to restore 

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

procedures, the implementation of BMPs (berms, seeding method), the short duration of the 

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

would further minimize the potential impact on soils. 

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL. The operation phase would not remove rock matrix or 

structure. Therefore, no significant matrix compression or ground subsidence would be 

expected. The occurrence of potential spills during transfer of uranium-bearing lixiviant to and 

from the central processing plant at the Nichols Ranch Unit would be mitigated by implementing 

onsite standard procedures and by complying with NRC and WDEQ requirements for spill 

response reporting of surface releases and cleanup of any contaminated soils. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. During aquifer restoration, groundwater 

consumptive use would occur; however, groundwater use does not remove rock matrix or 

structure. The formation groundwater pressure within the extraction zone would be decreased 

during restoration as groundwater is removed, to ensure that the direction of groundwater flow 

was into the wellfields to reduce the potential for lateral migration of constituents. However, the 

change in groundwater pressure would not result in collapse of overlying rock strata as it is 

supported by the rock matrix of the formation. The potential impact on soils from spills and 

leaks would be comparable to that described for in the operations phase. The NRC and WDEQ 

requirements for spill response and recovery and routine monitoring programs would also apply. 

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

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

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

regraded to the original topography. 
Executive Summary 

xxiv 

Surface Waters and Wetlands 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. The occurrence of surface water at the Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project is limited, and surface water flow in channels is intermittent. Although the proposed 

construction activities such as laying pipeline and drilling wells could generate surface water 

runoff, implementation of BMPs and mitigative measures such as grading and contouring, 

culvert installation, stone low-water crossings, water contour bars, and designated traffic routes 

would further minimize potential impacts. The applicant would avoid well construction in 

channels whenever possible but if wells were placed in a stream or within the 25-year floodplain 

appropriate measures would be taken to provide wellhead protection. Temporary disturbances 

to the soil from traffic during construction could result in surface water runoff and sediment 

transport during periods of surface flow. No wetlands are located in an area that would be 

affected by construction activities and wetland areas would be avoided. 

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL. The central processing plant at the Nichols Ranch Unit 

and the Hank Unit satellite facility would be constructed on curbed concrete pads to contain 

potential spills. Routine well maintenance would require vehicular crossings of some ephemeral 

channels; however, the applicant would implement sedimentation and erosion control protection 

measures to further minimize surface water runoff from such temporary disturbances. No 

wastewater would be discharged to surface water via a WYPDES permit. Furthermore, the 

potential impact on surface water would be mitigated by the WDEQ-required storm water permit 

and stormwater management plan to meet WYPDES permit requirements, the implementation 

of a site-specific emergency response plan to address accidental spills, and the applicant’s 

commitment to conduct operations in accordance with standard operating procedures for spill 

prevention control and cleanup. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. No wastewater would be discharged to surface 

water via a WYPDES permit, but be disposed of via deep well disposal. Automated sensors on 

the disposal wells would monitor the injection process to detect potential leaks or pipe/well 

ruptures. Potential impacts to surface water from surface water runoff would be managed as 

described for the operation phase. 

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts would be similar to those during the 

construction phase. Well and pipeline removal in ephemeral channels could temporarily impact 

surface water (if present) in areas where pipeline crossed a channel. Land recontouring would 

be done to restore the land surface to its preconstruction contours to minimize potential longterm impacts to ephemeral stream crossings during well maintenance. Work would be 

performed during the dry season to minimize sedimentation in surface waters. 

Groundwater 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. The primary impact to groundwater during the 

construction phase of the proposed Nichols ranch ISR Project would be from the consumptive 

use of groundwater for dust control, drilling support, and cement mixing. During well installation, 

drilling fluids (mud) would have the potential to impact the surficial aquifer; however once the 

casing was set, the wellbore would be isolated from the surrounding environment. The use of 

BMPs during facility construction and wellfield installation, including the implementation of a spill 

prevention and cleanup program to prevent soil contamination with an immediate cleanup 

response requirement would limit soil contamination or infiltration to groundwater. 
 Executive Summary 

xxv 

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL. The operations phase of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project could impact shallow (near-surface) aquifers, the aquifer containing the ore body 

and surrounding aquifers, overlying and underlying aquifers to the ore zone and deep aquifers 

below the ore production zone used for the disposal of liquid effluent. Shallow aquifers 

underlying the Nichols Ranch ISR Project are not hydraulically connected with more significant 

local and regional water supply aquifers. One well near the Nichols Ranch Unit is completed 

(open) in the shallow aquifer and is used for stock watering. Other wells completed in the 

shallow aquifer are not used for domestic or livestock watering in the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

area. A potential release at or near the ground surface would result in a SMALL impact on 

shallow (near-surface) groundwater if mitigation measures such as a leak detection program, a 

spill cleanup program, and well mechanical integrity testing were implemented. 

Groundwater modeling of the ore production zone predicted that the potential drawdown at the 

Nichols Ranch Unit during operations could affect the well yield of private wells located 6.4 km 

[4 mi] beyond the unit boundary and cause a well to stop flowing. The applicant has 

agreements in place with the potentially affected landowners to recover water by installing a 

pump, for example. Groundwater modeling at the Hank Unit predicted the potential drawdown 

would not extend beyond the unit boundary. Because of NRC license conditions that would be 

imposed, the applicant’s negotiated agreements with private well owners, and no indication of 

leakage from overlying and underlying aquifers, the potential impact from groundwater 

consumptive use would be SMALL. ISR operations would degrade groundwater quality in the 

ore production zone. However, the establishment of an inward hydraulic gradient, as well as the 

applicant-installed groundwater monitoring network to detect potential vertical and horizontal 

excursions, would limit the potential for undetected groundwater excursions that could degrade 

groundwater quality. Because the ore production zones at both the Nichols Ranch and Hank 

Units are overlain and underlain by thick, areally extensive aquitards which further ensures 

hydraulic isolation, the potential for groundwater contamination of aquifers located 

stratigraphically above and below these production zones would be minimized. By license 

condition, NRC will require the applicant to provide detailed hydrologic test data packages for 

both the Nichols Ranch Unit and Hank Unit prior to operations. Given the applicant’s aquifer 

characterization, testing, monitoring and NRC license conditions, the estimated impact to water 

quality as a result of ISR operations would be SMALL. 

Liquid effluent generated from operation of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be 

disposed of via deep well disposal into WDEQ-permitted Class I disposal wells. The 

groundwater in the formations being considered for deep well disposal must not be a potential 

underground source of drinking water and must comply with the WDEQ Water Quality and 

Regulations for Underground Management of Hazardous or Toxic Waste (Chapter 8, Section 6). 

If the WDEQ were to issue a permit for deep well disposal, the potential impact on deep aquifers 

located stratigraphically below the ore production zone aquifer from the injection of liquid 

effluent would be SMALL. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Groundwater modeling estimated drawdown in 

the ore production zone at the Nichols Ranch Unit predicted the potential drawdown at the 

Nichols Ranch Unit would affect an area within an 8 km [5 mi] radius which could affect the well 

yield of wells located in this radius. The applicant formed agreements with the potentially 

affected landowners to supplement existing wells (e.g., intall a pump) so the wells could 

continue to be used. Modeling at the Hank Unit predicted limited and localized drawdown. 

Because groundwater levels would recover with time after production and restoration were 

complete and the applicant identified measures to mitigate potential impacts to the water yield in 
Executive Summary 

xxvi 

private wells, the potential long-term environmental impact from groundwater consumptive use 

would be SMALL. 

The potential impact on groundwater quality would be SMALL. The groundwater quality of 

near-surface aquifers would be protected by BMPs, such as the implementation of a leak 

detection program, spill cleanup program, and well mechanical integrity testing. The goal of 

aquifer restoration would be to restore groundwater quality in the ore production zone to 

preextraction baseline conditions. If the aquifer could not be restored to baseline conditions, 

then the NRC would require that either the production zone be returned to maximum 

contaminant levels in Table 5C of 10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A, or to NRC-approved alternate 

concentration limits. Postrestoration groundwater quality would be protective of public health 

and the environment. 

Liquid effluent generated from aquifer restoration of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

would be disposed of via deep well injection into WDEQ-permitted Class I disposal wells. If 

WDEQ were to issue an underground injection control (UIC) permit, the potential impact to deep 

aquifers below the ore production zone from deep well injection of byproduct material would 

be SMALL. 

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. The potential impact to groundwater quality 

during decommissioning and reclamation would be comparable to that for the construction 

phase of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Monitoring, injection, and production wells 

would be plugged and abandoned in accordance with Wyoming program requirements to 

properly isolate the wellbores from the flow domain; therefore, the potential impact would be 

SMALL. Before NRC terminates an ISR source material license, the licensee must demonstrate 

that there would be no long-term impacts to underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). 

NRC review and approval of the wellfield restoration would ensure that the restoration standards 

were met and were protective of public health and safety. 

Ecological Resources 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Approximately 120 ha [300 ac] of land would be 

disturbed during construction, which would result in some habitat loss or alteration, 

displacement of wildlife, and injury or mortality from encounters with vehicles or heavy 

equipment, although wildlife species would likely disperse from the area when construction 

commenced. The applicant could mitigate these impacts by observing Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department (WGFD) guidelines regarding noise, vehicular traffic, and human proximity 

during the construction phase. No federally threatened or endangered species are known to 

occur on the proposed Nichol Ranch ISR Project. However, the Greater safe-grouse, a 

candidate species for federal listing is known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed project 

area. The applicant has committed to implement mitigative measures consistent with WGFD 

and BLM guidelines during construction to minimize potential impacts to the Greater 

sage-grouse. 

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts would be similar to, but less than, those 

experienced during the construction phase because fewer earthmoving activities would occur. 

The applicant would reseed disturbed areas with WDEQ- or BLM-approved seed mixtures to 

restore habitat. Access to crucial wintering habitat and water could be limited by fencing; 

however, the applicant has committed to using fencing techniques that would minimize 

impediments to game movement. The impacts could be further reduced by implementing the 

mitigative measures discussed in Section 4.6 of the SEIS. 
 Executive Summary 

xxvii 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts would be similar to those experienced 

during the operation phase. The existing infrastructure would be used during this phase, and 

mitigation measures in force during the construction and operation phases would continue into 

aquifer restoration. 

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Temporary disturbances to land and soils during 

decommissioning could displace vegetation and wildlife species that had recolonized the 

proposed project area since initiation of ISR activities. Revegetation and recontouring would 

restore habitat previously altered during construction and operations. 

Air Quality 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Combustion engine exhausts from nonroad mobile 

diesel equipment used during construction would generate air emissions. The magnitude of 

these emissions would be well below Clean Air Act (CAA) thresholds for major stationary 

sources of air pollution. This conclusion is based on a requirement in a WDEQ-issued 

construction air permit that requires the applicant to obtain a minor source operating permit. 

Considered along with meteorological conditions that are generally favorable for dispersion, the 

emissions would be unlikely to change the present attainment status with National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) or impact the air quality of the nearest Class I Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) area. Fugitive dust emissions would be mitigated by a permit 

condition in the WDEQ-approved construction air permit condition which requires the 

implementation of road dust control measures. The applicant plans to reclaim disturbed soil 

using vegetative covers on soil piles and to use stationary equipment to reduce the traffic 

volume on the roads. 

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts would be similar to, but less than, those 

experienced during construction. ISR facilities are not major point source emitters of 

regulated nonradiological pollutants, and emissions would be well below CAA thresholds for 

major sources of air pollution and therefore would be unlikely to change the present status of 

attainment with the NAAQS. The state construction permit has not classified the proposed 

facility as a major source that would require permitting under the CAA Title V 

permitting program. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts would be similar in type and degree to 

those experienced during the operational phase. Less vehicular traffic would be required during 

the aquifer restoration phase than during operations because there would be fewer yellowcake 

shipments than during operations. The use of existing infrastructure and the reduced traffic 

volume would reduce fugitive dust and road vehicle exhaust emissions. Fugitive dust emissions 

from road travel would be further mitigated by the applicant’s plan to implement road dust 

control measures. 

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts to air quality would be similar to 

those experienced during construction since the same types of activities would occur 

(e.g., earthmoving activities that generate fugitive dust and combustion engine emissions). 

The emissions would decrease as decommissioning progressed. 

Noise 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Increased traffic and the use of drill rigs, heavy trucks, 

bulldozers, and other equipment to construct and operate the wellfields, drill wells, construct 
Executive Summary 

xxviii 

access roads, and build the central processing plant and satellite facility would generate noise 

audible above the undisturbed background levels. The sound from construction activities would 

return to preexisting conditions at a distance of approximately 300 m [1,000 ft]. Therefore, there 

would be no audible noise at the location of the nearest resident located approximately 960 m 

[0.6 mi] north of the Nichols Ranch Unit. Noise impacts from traffic would be transient and 

SMALL because of the limited traffic volume associated with the proposed project. Greater 

sage-grouse leks occur within the vicinity of the proposed project. The applicant has committed 

to implement mitigation measures following WGFD guidelines to reduce noise impacts to the 

Greater sage-grouse. 

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL. Traffic noise would be the primary noise-generating 

activity that could be heard offsite. The nearest resident, located approximately 960 m [0.6 mi] 

north of the Nichols Ranch Unit, would not notice a change in noise. Impacts from traffic-related 

noise would be similar to that during construction and would be SMALL. Mitigation measures to 

reduce the potential noise impact on the Greater sage-grouse as discussed in Section 4.8.1.1 

would result in a SMALL impact. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Noise impacts would be similar to, or less than, 

those experienced during the operation phase. Pumps and other wellfield equipment contained 

in buildings would reduce the potential sound impact to an offsite individual. Because the 

location of the nearest resident is located approximately 960 m [0.6 mi] north of the Nichols 

Ranch Unit, there would be no change in background noise. Noise impacts from traffic would 

be SMALL as there would be fewer vehicular trips than during the operations phase. Mitigation 

measures to reduce the potential noise impact on the Greater sage-grouse as discussed in 

Section 4.6.1.1.3 would result in a SMALL impact. 

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Noise impacts would be similar to, or less than, 

those experienced during the construction phase. Noise during this phase would be temporary, 

and when decommissioning and reclamation activities were complete, the noise level would 

return to baseline. At the nearest resident location is approximately 960 m [0.6 mi] north of the 

Nichols Ranch Unit, there would be no change in background noise. Noise impacts from traffic 

would be SMALL since there would be fewer shipments to and from the proposed site as 

decommissioning progressed. Mitigation measures to reduce the potential noise impact on the 

Greater sage-grouse as discussed in Section 4.6.1.1.3 would result in a SMALL impact. 

Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources 

Construction: Impacts would be MODERATE. One archaeological site at the Nichols Ranch 

Unit is eligible for listing on the National Register for Historic Places (NRHP). This site is 

located near a proposed wellfield; however, the applicant has committed to avoiding this site 

through the use of protective fencing. At the Hank Unit, seven archaeological sites are eligible 

for listing on the NRHP; two archaeological sites remain unevaluated for NRHP eligibility. Of 

the seven NRHP-eligible sites at the Hank Unit, there would be an adverse effect to the visual 

setting of five traditional cultural properties (TCPs), which include the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. 

These sites would be marked, fenced, and avoided. Mitigation for the Pumpkin Buttes TCP 

would be conducted in accordance with a Programmatic Agreement (PA) between BLM and the 

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (WY SHPO) which applies to BLM-administered 

lands and federal uranium leaseholders extracting uranium from federally owned subsurface 

minerals (overlain by private surface lands) within 3.2-km [2-mi] of the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. 

Should historical or cultural resources be encountered during construction, the applicant would 

stop work and contact the appropriate State and Federal agencies. The execution of 
 Executive Summary 

xxix 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among NRC, the WY SHPO, BLM, interested Native 

American tribes, and the applicant could further reduce impacts to the five TCPs, including the 

Pumpkin Buttes TCP. 

Construction would impact surficial Quaternary deposits and near-surface deposits. Although 

paleontological specimens may be present at both the Nichols and Hank Units, based on the 

geology of the site and poor exposure of fossil-bearing deposits, the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project would not significantly impact fossil remains. 

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL. No sites would be directly affected by facility operations 

or maintenance activities since the sites would be marked, fenced, and avoided. However, 

there would be an adverse effect to the visual setting of five TCPs at the Hank Unit. However, 

the applicant committed to mitigation measures during the ISR operation to mitigate the impact. 

Should historical or cultural resources be encountered during routine maintenance activities, the 

applicant would stop work and contact the appropriate Federal and State officials. 

Operations would not involve ground-disturbing activities that could potentially affect 

fossil-bearing deposits. Ground-disturbance during the operation phase would be limited to 

pre-disturbed areas. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. No sites would be directly affected by 

restoration activities, since sites would be marked, fenced, and avoided. However, there would 

be an adverse effect to the visual setting of five TCPs, The applicant committed to a number of 

mitigation measures to reduce the impact. Should historic or cultural resources be encountered 

during aquifer restoration, the applicant would stop work and notify the appropriate State and 

Federal agencies. 

Aquifer restoration would not involve ground-disturbing activities that could potentially affect 

fossil-bearing deposits. Ground-disturbance during the aquifer restoration phase would be 

limited to pre-disturbed areas. 

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. No sites would be directly affected by 

decommissioning activities, since sites would be marked, fenced, and avoided. However, there 

would be an adverse effect to the visual setting of five TCPs. The applicant has committed to 

mitigation measures to reduce the impact. As decommissioning progressed, buildings would be 

dismantled and lands would be reclaimed and returned to pre-extraction use. Over time the 

visual impact to the TCPs would be reduced. Should historical or cultural resources be 

encountered during decommissioning, work would stop and the appropriate State and Federal 

agencies would be notified. 

Should decommissioning activities involve ground disturbance in excess of a few feet, the 

applicant would have a monitor in place and its procedures would cover any inadvertent 

discoveries. Ground-disturbance during the decommissioning would be limited to 

pre-disturbed areas. 

Visual/Scenic Resources 

Construction: Overall impacts would be MODERATE. Visual impacts would result from 

construction equipment, dust and diesel emission, and project facilities. Moderate visual 

impacts to five identified TCPs would occur based on the proximity of the Hank Unit to the 

Pumpkin Buttes. The applicant has committed to follow the mitigation measures outlined in the 
Executive Summary 

xxx 

PA for the Pumpkin Buttes TCP for construction activities occurring within a 3.2 km [2 mi] radius 

of the TCP. These measures would include avoiding dense vegetation stands and painting 

buildings and structures to blend into the landscape. The Nichols Ranch Unit is located about 

9.6 km [6 mi] west of the Pumpkin Buttes, beyond the 3.2 km [2 mi] radius stipulated in the PA 

between BLM and the WY SHPO; therefore, the mitigative stipulations in the PA would not 

apply to the Nichols Ranch Unit. 

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL. Visual impacts would be similar to, but less than, those 

experienced during construction. The Nichols Ranch ISR Project operations would occur in an 

area where extensive CBM development has occurred and where additional CBM development 

is planned. CBM installations include networks of wells, underground piping, pump structures, 

and overhead power lines which are much larger and more extensive than ISR facilities. 

Buildings and other structures would be painted to blend in to the natural landscape and power 

lines and pipelines would be buried where appropriate. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Visual impacts would be similar to, but less 

than, those experienced during the operation phase. Aquifer restoration activities would use inplace infrastructure. Mitigation measures such as dust suppression could be used to further 

reduce visual impacts. In addition, implementing the applicant-identified mitigation measures 

would further reduce the visual impact on the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. 

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Visual impacts would be similar to, but less than, 

those experienced during construction. By the end of the decommissioning phase, land would 

be returned to its pre-extraction use, removing most visual impacts resulting from the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Buildings and equipment would be removed from the site. 

However, the reestablishment of vegetation would require time resulting in a short-term visual 

impact during the decommissioning phase. 

Socioeconomics 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Because a small number of workers would be 

required to construct the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project and because the short duration of 

the ISR construction phase, the overall potential socioeconomic impact including the effects of 

ISR facility construction on demographic conditions, income, housing, employment rate, local 

finance, education, and health and social services would be SMALL. 

Operation: Impacts could range from SMALL to MODERATE. The in-migration of workers and 

their families to nearby towns, the payment of wages comparable to the average income in 

Wyoming, the potential creation of new jobs in the small workforce and in migration of certain 

skilled positions, would have a SMALL impact. The local economy would experience a SMALL 

beneficial impact from the purchase of local goods and services and an increase in sales and 

income tax revenues. An increased demand for schools would have a SMALL impact on 

education because the current school systems are not at full capacity and could accommodate 

a small increase in the number of students. Increased demand for health and social services 

would have a SMALL impact. Housing demand would increase in local areas with low vacancy 

rates. However, the impact on housing could range from SMALL to MODERATE because of the 

limited availability of housing in the immediate area surrounding the proposed ISR facility 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts would be less than those experienced 

during ISR facility operations due to the smaller number of workers required during this phase. 

Most workers would have already relocated their families to the area. 
 Executive Summary 

xxxi 

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts would be less than those during the 

construction and operations phase because fewer workers would be required. Demand for 

services would also be reduced.

Environmental Justice 

All Phases: The percentage of people living below the poverty level within the Census Block 

Groups containing the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project ranged from 7.6 to 12.5 percent, 

which is less than the 13 percent of the population living below poverty level in the 

U.S. according to the 2000 Census. The minority populations in the Census block groups 

containing the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project ranged from 3.3 to 4.0 percent which are 

both below the state average of 11 percent. No minority populations were identified as residing 

near the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. 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 proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project. 

Public and Occupational Health and Safety 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Construction activities, including the use of 

construction equipment and vehicles, could disturb the topsoil and create fugitive dust 

emissions. Radiological environmental monitoring data indicate that radioactivity levels in the 

soils at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site are within the range of typical background 

exposure rates in the Western United States. Therefore, the dose from inhalation of these 

concentrations of residual radioactivity would be comparable to that from natural background 

exposure. Construction equipment would likely 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. The remote location of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

site and the use of the proposed ISR technology coupled with the applicant procedures to 

minimize exposure, demonstrate that the potential impact on public and occupational health and 

safety from facility operation would be consistent with historical observations. The radiological 

impacts from accidents would be SMALL for workers (if the applicant’s radiation safety and 

incident response procedures in an NRC-approved radiation protection plan were 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 were followed. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. The impact would be similar to, but less than 

that during the operation 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. The impacts would be similar to those during 

construction. Soil and facility structures would be decontaminated, and lands would be restored 

to preoperational conditions. 
Executive Summary 

xxxii 

Waste Management 

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Small-scale and incremental wellfield development 

would generate small volumes of construction waste consisting primarily of building materials, 

piping, and other solid wastes. No byproduct material would be generated during construction. 

Nonhazardous solid waste would be disposed of at a nearby municipal solid waste landfill. 

Operation of the facility could generate small volumes of hazardous waste such as used 

batteries. The facility could be considered a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator 

under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 

Operation: Impacts would be SMALL. Liquid waste, including process bleed, restoration water, 

resin transfer wash, filter washing, brine, and plant washdown, would be disposed of according 

to applicable NRC, Federal, and State permits. Applicable permit requirements would mitigate 

potential adverse impacts from liquid waste management. The applicant will obtain WDEQ 

permits for eight Class I deep disposal wells (4 each at the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units). 

However, at the beginning of operations, NRC will only require two disposal wells be installed at 

the Nichols Ranch and two disposal wells be installed at the Hank Unit for disposal of liquid 

effluent. Solids classified as Atomic Energy Act Section 11e.(2) byproduct material (herein 

called “byproduct material”) would be disposed of at a licensed facility. Contaminated materials 

would be decontaminated and disposed of in accordance with applicable NRC regulations. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. The same waste decontamination and disposal 

procedures during the operation phase would occur; therefore, resulting in similar impacts. 

Although the wastewater volume could increase, this would be offset by the reduction in 

production capacity from completion of wellfield production and removal from service. 

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. All process or potentially contaminated 

equipment and materials would be removed to a new location for future use, removed to 

another licensed facility, disposed of as byproduct material at a licensed facility, or 

decontaminated to meet unrestricted release criteria. Safe handling, storage, and disposal of 

decommissioning wastes would be addressed in a decommissioning plan, which would be 

approved by the NRC before decommissioning commenced. A preoperational agreement with 

a licensed disposal facility to accept byproduct material would ensure the availability of sufficient 

disposal capacity for decommissioning activities. Nonhazardous solid waste would be disposed 

of at a nearby municipal solid waste landfill and associated construction and demolition pit. If 

hazardous waste were generated by decommissioning activities, it would be handled in 

accordance with applicable standards. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Cumulative impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were also 

considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertook the action, 

as part of this SEIS. The NRC staff determined that the SMALL to MODERATE impacts from 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are not expected to contribute perceptible increases to 

the SMALL to MODERATE cumulative impacts, due primarily to the CBM activities concurrently 

going on in the area, oil and gas exploration and production, and the ongoing mining activities 

throughout the Powder River Basin. 
 Executive Summary 

xxxiii 

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 project would be increased 

employment, economic activity, and tax revenues in the region around the proposed site. Costs 

associated with the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are, for the most part, limited to the 

immediate area surrounding the site. The NRC staff determined the benefit from constructing 

and operating the facility would outweigh the economic, environmental, and social costs. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

The NRC analysis indicates the impacts from implementing the reasonable alternatives would 

differ from those evaluated for the proposed action. 

For the No-Action alternative, the applicant would not construct and operate ISR facilities at the 

proposed site. As a result, no uranium ore would be recovered from this proposed site. This 

alternative would result in neither positive nor negative impacts to any resource area. 

Another alternative NRC considered was to construct and operate an ISR uranium milling 

processing facility only at the Nichols Ranch Unit. The potential environmental impacts from 

implementing this alternative on each of the resource areas would either be similar to, or smaller 

than, the impacts from the proposed action. Since a smaller land area would be disturbed, 

there would be no impact on geology and soils or ecological resources at the Hank Unit. 

Generally, less equipment and workers would be needed, which would reduce the impact on 

transportation, air quality, noise, visual and scenic resources, and socioeconomics. Because 

the Hank Unit would not be developed, there would be no impact on the five TCPs including the 

Pumpkin Butte TCP. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION 

After weighing the impacts of the proposed action and comparing the alternatives, the NRC 

staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.91(d), sets forth its NEPA recommendation regarding the 

proposed action. Unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the NRC staff recommendation to 

the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the proposed action is that the source 

material license 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. 

xxxv 

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS 

Ac acre 

AADT annual average daily traffic count 

ADAMS Agency Wide Documents Access and Management System 

ACL alternate concentration limit 

AEA Atomic Energy Act 

AMSL above mean sea level 

APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 

bgs below ground surface 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

BMP best management practice 

B.P. before present 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBM coal bed methane 

CBNG coal bed natural gas 

CCESC Campbell County Educational Services Center 

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 

CWA Clean Water Act 

dBA decibels 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ER Environmental Report 

ERP emergency response plan 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 

FCR fire-cracked rock 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FR Federal Register 

FSME Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs 

ft feet 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
 Abbreviations/Acronyms 

xxxvi 

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS (CONTINUED) 

GCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

GHG greenhouse gas 

gpm gallons per minute 

ha hectare 

HDPE high-density polyethylene 

HKM HKM Engineering, Inc. 

I Interstate 

ISL in-situ leach 

ISR in-situ recovery 

JCSD Johnson County School District 

km kilometer 

kph kilometers per hour 

lb pound 

LQD Land Quality Division 

Lpm liters per minute 

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level 

MIT mechanical integrity test 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

mph miles per hour 

MSDS material safety data sheets 

MRPL Most Restrictive Proposed Limit 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NCDC National Climatic Data Center 

NCRP National Council for Radiation Protection 

NCTHPO Northern Cheyenne Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

NMSS Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

NWS National Weather Service
 Abbreviation/Acronyms 

xxxvii 

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS (CONTINUED) 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PA Programmatic Agreement 

PM particulate matter 

ppm parts per million 

PRI Power Resources, Inc. 

PRRCT Powder River Regional Coal Team 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

psig pounds per square inch gauge 

PVC plastic polyvinyl chloride 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RFFA reasonably foreseeable future action 

ROI region of influence 

RQ Reportable Quantity 

RTV Restoration Target Value 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

SER Safety Evaluation Report 

SGIT Sage-Grouse Implementation Team 

SMZ sage-grouse management zone 

SR State Route 

T&E threatened and endangered 

TCP traditional cultural property 

TEDE total effective dose equivalent 

TDS total dissolved solids 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

TPQ threshold planning quantity 

TQ threshold quantity 

TR Technical Report 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

TSD Treatment, Storage, or Disposal 

UCL upper control limit 

UIC underground injection control 

UMTRCA Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 

U.S. United States (or) United States Highway 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USCB U.S. Census Bureau 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

USDW underground sources of drinking water 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 
Abbreviation/Acronyms 

xxxviii 

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS (CONTINUED) 

VOC volatile organic compound 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WBC Wyoming Business Council 

WDE Wyoming Department of Education 

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WDOR Wyoming Department of Revenue 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

WLS Western Land Services 

WQD Water Quality Division 

W.S. Wyoming Statute 

WSEO Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 

WUS Waters of the United States 

WYDOT Wyoming Department of Transportation 

WYNDD Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 

WYPDES Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

WY SHPO Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office
 Abbreviation/Acronyms 

xxxix 

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

Approximate Conversions From SI Units 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

Length 

Cm centimeters 0.39 inches In 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

Area 

mm2

square 

millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2

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 (2000 

lbs) T 

Temperature (Exact Degrees) 

°C Celsius 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit °F 

*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be performed to comply 

with Section 4 of ASTM E380 (Reference: ASTM International. “Standard for Metric Practice Guide.” 

West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: ASTM International. Revised 2003.). 

 

1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prepared this supplemental environmental 

impact statement (SEIS) in response to an application Uranerz Energy Corporation (Uranerz or 

the applicant) submitted on November 30, 2007, to develop and operate the Nichols Ranch 

In-Situ Uranium Recovery (ISR) Project (herein referred to as Nichols Ranch ISR Project), 

located in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming (Uranerz, 2007a). Figure 1-1 shows the 

geographic location of the proposed project. This site-specific SEIS supplements the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach (ISL) Uranium Milling Facilities 

(herein referred to as GEIS) in accordance with the process described in GEIS Section 1.8 

(NRC, 2009a) and as detailed in Section 1.4.1 of this chapter. The NRC Office of Federal and 

State Materials and Environmental Management (FSME) Programs prepared this SEIS as 

required by Title 10, Energy, of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 51. These 

regulations implement the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), as amended (Public Law 91-190), which requires the Federal Government to assess 

the potential environmental impacts of major federal actions that may significantly affect the 

human environment. 

The GEIS used the terms “in-situ leach (ISL) process” and “11e.(2) byproduct material” to 

describe this uranium milling technology and the waste stream generated by this process. For 

the purposes of this SEIS, “in-situ recovery” or ISR is synonymous with “in-situ leach” or ISL. 

The SEIS also uses the term “byproduct material” instead of “11e.(2) byproduct material“ to 

describe the waste stream generated by this milling process to be consistent with the definition 

in 10 CFR 40.4. 

1.2 Proposed Action 

On November 30, 2007, Uranerz initiated the proposed federal action by submitting an 

application for an NRC source material license to construct and operate an ISR facility at the 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project site and to conduct subsequent aquifer restoration and site 

decommissioning and reclamation activities. Based on the application, the NRC’s federal action 

is the decision is to either grant or deny the license. The applicant’s proposal is detailed in SEIS 

Section 2.2. 

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

NRC regulates uranium milling, including the ISR process, under 10 CFR Part 40, “Domestic 

Licensing of Source Material.” The applicant is seeking an NRC source material license to 

authorize commercial-scale ISR uranium recovery at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. The 

purpose and need for the proposed federal action is to either grant or deny the applicant’s 

license application to use ISR technology to recover uranium and produce yellowcake at the 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. Yellowcake is the uranium oxide product of the ISR milling 

process used to produce various products including fuel for commercially operated nuclear 

power reactors. 

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

findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) or findings in the NEPA 

environmental analysis that would lead NRC to reject a license application, NRC has no role in 

1-1 
Introduction 

Figure 1-1. Geographic Location of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007b) 

1-2 
Introduction 

a company's business decision to submit a license application to operate an ISR facility at a 

particular location. 

1.4 Scope of the Supplemental Environmental Analysis 

NRC prepared this SEIS to analyze the potential environmental impacts (i.e., direct, indirect, 

and cumulative) of the proposed action and of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. 

The scope of this SEIS considers both radiological and nonradiological (including chemical) 

impacts associated with the proposed action and its alternatives. This SEIS also considers 

unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the relationship between short-term uses of 

the environment and long-term productivity, and the irreversible and irretrievable commitments 

of resources. 

1.4.1 Relationship to the GEIS 

As discussed previously, this SEIS supplements the GEIS, which was published as a final report 

in May 2009 (NRC, 2009a). The final GEIS assessed the potential environmental impacts 

associated with the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an ISR 

facility located in four specific geographic regions of the western United States. The proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project is located in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region considered 

in the GEIS. Table 1-1 summarizes the potential environmental impacts by resource area in the 

Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region based on the GEIS analyses. 

The NRC staff considers the scope of the GEIS to be sufficient for the purposes of defining the 

scope of this SEIS. NRC accepted public comments on the scope of the GEIS from July 24 to 

November 30, 2007, and held three public scoping meetings, one of which was in the State of 

Wyoming, to aid in this effort. Additionally, NRC held eight public meetings to receive 

comments on the draft GEIS, published in July 2008. Three of these public meetings were held 

in the State of Wyoming. Comments on the draft GEIS were accepted between July 28 and 

November 8, 2008. Comments received both during scoping and on the draft GEIS are 

available through the NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System database 

on the NRC website (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html). Transcripts of both the 

scoping meeting and draft GEIS comment meetings that occurred in Wyoming are available at 

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/uranium-recovery/geis/pub-involve-process.html. A scoping 

summary report is provided as GEIS Appendix A (NRC, 2009a). Responses to comments on 

the GEIS that were submitted during the GEIS public comment period are provided as GEIS 

Appendix G (NRC, 2009a). 

This SEIS was prepared to fulfill the requirement in 10 CFR 51.20(b)(8) to prepare either an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or supplement to an EIS for the issuance of a source 

material license for an ISR uranium recovery facility (NRC, 2009a). The GEIS provides a 

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

facilities, as well as for applications to amend or renew existing ISR licenses. As discussed in 

the GEIS, the GEIS provides criteria by each environmental resource area to assess the 

significance level of potential impacts (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE). The NRC staff 

applied these criteria to the site-specific conditions at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

This SEIS tiers and incorporates by reference from the GEIS relevant information, findings, and 

conclusions concerning potential environmental impacts. The extent to which NRC incorporates 

GEIS impact conclusions depends on the consistency between (i) the applicant’s proposed 

facilities, activities, and conditions at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project and (ii) the 

1-3 
Introduction 

Table 1-1. ISL GEIS Range of Expected Impacts in the Wyoming East Uranium 

Milling Region 

Resource Area Construction Operation Aquifer 

Restoration Decommissioning

Land Use S to L S S S to M 

Transportation S to M S to M S to M S 

Geology and 

Soils S S S S 

Surface Water S S to M S to M S to M 

Groundwater S S to L S to M S 

Terrestrial 

Ecology S to M S S S 

Aquatic Ecology S S S S 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species 

S to L S S S 

Air Quality S S S S 

Noise S to M S to M S to M S to M 

Historical and 

Cultural 

Resources 

S to L S S S 

Visual and 

Scenic 

Resources 

S S S S 

Socioeconomics S to M S to M S S to M 

Public and 

Occupational 

Health and 

Safety 

S S to M S S 

Waste 

Management S S S S 

S: SMALL impact 

M: MODERATE impact 

L: LARGE impact 

Source: NRC (2009a) 

reference facility description, activities, information, and conclusions in the GEIS. NRC’s 

determinations regarding potential environmental impacts and the extent to which GEIS impact 

conclusions were incorporated by reference are discussed in Chapter 4 of this SEIS. GEIS 

Section 1.8.3 details the relationship between the GEIS and the conduct of site-specific reviews 

as documented in this SEIS (NRC, 2009a). 

1.4.2 Public Participation Activities 

As part of the preparation of this SEIS, NRC staff met with Federal, State, and local agencies 

and authorities over the course of an expanded visit to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

site and vicinity in January 2009 (NRC, 2009b). The purpose of these meetings was to gather 

additional site-specific information to support the NRC staff’s environmental review and to aid 

the staff in making its consistency determination between site-specific and local information and 

that which was used to inform the GEIS analysis. As part of information gathering, the NRC 

1-4 
 Introduction

staff also contacted potentially interested Native American tribes and local authorities, entities, 

and public interest groups in person and via email and telephone. 

NRC published a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on the Nichols Ranch ISR Project license 

application in the Federal Register (FR) on June 16, 2008 (73 FR 34052). No hearing requests 

were received. NRC also published a Notice of Intent to prepare this SEIS on August 5, 2009 

(74 FR 39116). 

On December 11, 2009, the NRC staff published an FR notice requesting public review and 

comment on the draft SEIS for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (74 FR 65808). The 

NRC staff provided information regarding the public comment period and how to obtain copies 

of the draft SEIS. The NRC staff initially established February 1, 2010, as the deadline for 

submittal of public comments on the Draft SEIS. On February 5, 2010, the NRC staff published 

a notice in the FR to extend the public comment period on the Draft SEIS to March 3, 2010 

(75 FR 6066), in response to public requests for an extension submitted in comment letters 

and emails. The 81-day period for public comments (i.e., from December 11, 2009, to 

March 3, 2010) exceeds the minimum 45-day comment period required under NRC regulations. 

The NRC staff received 20 documents containing comments on the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

Draft SEIS. Appendix B of the SEIS contains a summary of the public participation process, the 

public comments, and the NRC staff responses to the public comments, including discussion of 

changes made to the SEIS in response to comments. 

In addition to the opportunities provided through SEIS development, NRC also provided multiple 

opportunities for public input during the staff's safety review. Specifically, the staff held 

10 meetings or teleconferences with the applicant from 2006 to 2010, and all of these 

interactions included an opportunity for public comment or questions. 

1.4.3 Issues Studied in Detail 

To meet its NEPA obligations related to its review of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project license 

application, the NRC staff has conducted an independent, detailed, comprehensive evaluation 

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

decommissioning of an ISR facility at the proposed site and reasonable alternatives. As 

discussed in GEIS Section 1.8.3, the GEIS (i) evaluated the types of environmental impacts that 

may occur from ISR uranium milling facilities, (ii) identified and assessed impacts that are 

expected to be generic (the same or similar) at all ISR facilities (or those with specified facility or 

site characteristics), and (iii) identified the scope of environmental impacts that needed to be 

addressed in site-specific environmental reviews. Therefore, although all of the environmental 

resource areas identified in the GEIS would be addressed in site-specific reviews, certain 

resource areas would require a more detailed analysis, because the GEIS analysis concluded 

there could be a range in the significance of impacts (e.g., SMALL to MODERATE, SMALL to 

LARGE) depending upon site-specific conditions (see Table 1-1). 

Based on the GEIS analyses, this SEIS provides a more detailed analysis of the following 

resource areas: 

• Land Use 

• Transportation 

• Geology and Soils 

• Surface Water 

• Groundwater 

1-5 
Introduction 

• Terrestrial Ecology 

• Threatened and Endangered Species 

• Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality 

• Noise 

• Historic and Cultural Resources 

• Visual and Scenic Resources 

• Socioeconomics 

• Public Health and Safety 

• Waste Management 

Furthermore, certain site-specific analyses that were not conducted in the GEIS 

(e.g., assessment of cumulative impacts, analysis of environmental justice) are also considered 

in this SEIS. 

Additionally, NRC discusses the effects from implementing the proposed action on global 

climate change based on a 10-year licensing period and the effect of climate change on the 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

1.4.4 Issues Outside the Scope of the SEIS 

Some issues and concerns raised during the public scoping process on the GEIS (NRC, 2009a, 

Appendix A) were determined to be outside the scope of the GEIS. These issues and concerns 

(e.g., general support or opposition for uranium milling, potential impacts associated with 

conventional uranium milling, comments regarding the alternative sources of uranium feed 

material, comments regarding energy sources, requests for compensation for past mining 

impacts, and comments regarding the credibility of NRC) were also determined to be outside 

the scope of this SEIS. 

1.4.5 Related NEPA Reviews and Other Related Documents 

The following NEPA documents were reviewed as part of the development of this SEIS to obtain 

relevant information: 

• NUREG–1910, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium 

Milling Facilities, Final Report (NRC, 2009a). As previously discussed, the GEIS was 

prepared to assess the potential environmental impacts from the construction, operation, 

aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an ISR facility located in four different 

geographic regions of the western United States, including the Wyoming East Uranium 

Milling Region in which the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be located. The 

environmental analysis in this SEIS tiers from the GEIS. 

• NUREG–0706, Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling 

(NRC, 1980). This generic EIS provided a detailed evaluation of the impacts and effects 

of anticipated conventional uranium milling operations in the United States through the 

year 2000 including analysis of tailings disposal programs. The environmental impacts 

of underground mining and conventional milling would be more severe than using ISR 

technology. As discussed in Section 2.2.1 of the final SEIS, conventional mining and 

milling were considered but eliminated from the detailed analysis of the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

1-6 
 Introduction

• NUREG–1508, Final Environmental Impact Statement To Construct and Operate 

the Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mining Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico 

(NRC, 1997). This EIS evaluated the use of ISR technology at the Church Rock 

and Crownpoint sites at Crownpoint, New Mexico. Alternative uranium mining methods 

were not evaluated, because the proposed sites were too deep to be extracted 

economically and the GEIS concluded that underground mining would have more 

significant environmental impacts than ISR recovery. 

• Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Wright Area Coal Lease 

Applications (BLM, 2009a). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepared this EIS 

to evaluate the environmental impacts of leasing six tracts of federal coal reserves in the 

southern portion of the Powder River Basin, located approximately 56 km [35 mi] north 

of the town of Wright and 72 km [45 mi] north of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project. All six tracts are operating surface coal mines and would be run by the 

operators of three adjacent mines (Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North 

Antelope Rochelle). 

• Final Environmental Impact Statement for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease 

Applications WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, and WYW161248 (BLM, 

2009b). BLM prepared this EIS to evaluate the environmental impacts of leasing four 

tracts of federal coal reserves in the east-central portion of the Powder River Basin, 

located approximately 80 km [50 mi] northeast of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project. All four tracts are operating surface coal mines and are adjacent to the Belle 

Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines. 

• Final Environmental Impact Statement for the West Antelope II Coal Lease 

Application WYW163340 (BLM, 2008b). BLM prepared this EIS to evaluate the 

environmental impacts of leasing and mining coal on approximately 1,663 ha [4,109 ac] 

of land located 32 km [20 mi] southeast of the town of Wright and 38 km [30 mi] 

southeast of the Hank Unit adjacent to the Pumpkin Buttes. BLM estimates an average 

annual production of 33 to 38 million t [36 to 42 million T] of coal per year over the 

proposed 9- to 11-year life of the mine. 

• Fortification Creek Area Draft Resource Management Plan 

Amendment/Environmental Assessment (BLM, 2008c). BLM prepared this 

environmental assessment (EA) and Resource Management Plan Amendment to 

evaluate the impacts of allowing coal bed natural gas development within the 

Fortification Creek Planning Area, which encompasses 40,734 ha [100,655 ac] of 

land within Campbell, Johnson, and Sheridan Counties. About 26,300 ha [65,000 ac] 

of this land are federally owned, and 37,700 ha [93,159 ac] are BLM-managed 

mineral resources. 

• Environmental Assessments for Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Dry Willow 

Phase I and Dry Willow Phase II (BLM, 2007). BLM prepared two EAs to evaluate the 

environmental impacts of authorizing the development of 33 coal bed natural gas wells 

and associated infrastructure in the Big George coal zone in Campbell County, located 

approximately in the Pumpkin Buttes between North and North Middle Buttes and 

approximately 8 km [5 mi] west of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. These EAs 

tier from the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project EIS and Resource Management 

Plan Amendment WY-070-02-065 (BLM, 2003). 

1-7 
Introduction 

• Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the 

Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project WY-070-02-065 (BLM, 2003). BLM 

prepared this EIS and Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment to evaluate 

the environmental impacts from the continuation and expansion of coal bed methane 

development within the Powder River Basin by a group of oil and gas companies 

collectively referred to as the Powder River Basin Companies. The document assesses 

the drilling, operation, and reclamation of approximately 39,400 new natural gas wells 

and associated infrastructure in Campbell, Converse, Johnson, and Sheridan Counties. 

The following NRC documents were also reviewed for the development of this SEIS: 

• NRC Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

The NRC staff is conducting a safety review that will be documented in an SER. 

The SER evaluates the applicant’s proposed facility design, operational procedures, and 

radiation protection program to ensure the applicant-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 

analysis of the applicant’s initial funding estimate to complete site decommissioning 

and reclamation. 

• NRC Environmental Review for the Moore Ranch ISR Project (NRC, 2010d). NRC 

completed its review of the Uranium One license application for a source 

material license to recover uranium via the ISR process at the Moore Ranch ISR Project, 

located in Campbell County about 32 km [20 mi] from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project site. The Moore Ranch ISR Project would encompass 877 ha [7,110 ac] of 

privately owned and State of Wyoming lands, but only 61 ha [150 ac] would be disturbed 

as a result of the project. 

• NRC Environmental Review for the Irigaray/Christensen Ranch ISR Projects 

License Renewal. NRC is reviewing an application from Uranium One, Inc. for the 

renewal of Source Material License SUA-1341, which is located in Campbell and 

Johnson Counties about 8 km [5 mi] north of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The 

Irigaray project was licensed for commercial ISR operations in August 1978. In 

June 1987, the license was amended to include the Christensen Ranch satellite facility 

and associated production areas. Production ended in June 2000, and the site has 

since been undergoing wellfield restoration and site decommissioning. 

• NRC License Application Review for the Smith Ranch Highland Uranium Project 

License Renewal. NRC is reviewing an application from Power Resources Inc., doing 

business as Cameco Resources, for renewal of Source Material License SUA-1548, 

which includes the North Butte and Ruth Projects, located approximately 3.5 km [2.2 mi] 

to the north-northwest of the Hank Unit and 12 km [7.4 mi] southwest of the Nichols 

Ranch Unit, respectively. The licensee will be submitting a new operations plan for the 

North Butte Project during 2011. 

1.5 Applicable Regulatory Requirements 

NEPA establishes national environmental policy and goals to protect, maintain, and enhance 

the environment. NEPA provides a process for implementing these specific goals for those 

Federal agencies responsible for an action. This SEIS was prepared in accordance with NEPA 

1-8 
 Introduction

requirements, NRC-implementing regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, and other regulations that 

were in effect at the time of writing. GEIS Appendix B summarizes other Federal statutes, 

implementing regulations, and Executive Orders that are potentially applicable to environmental 

reviews for the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an ISR 

facility. GEIS Sections 1.6.3.1 and 1.7.5.1 summarize the State of Wyoming statutory authority 

pursuant to the ISR process, relevant state agencies involved in ISR facility permitting, and the 

range of state permits that would be required (NRC, 2009a). 

1.6 Licensing and Permitting 

NRC has statutory authority through the AEA as amended by the Uranium Mill Tailings 

Radiation Control Act to regulate uranium ISR facilities. In addition to obtaining an NRC license, 

uranium ISR facilities must obtain the necessary permits from the appropriate Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local governmental agencies. The NRC licensing process for ISR facilities was 

described in GEIS Section 1.7.1. GEIS Sections 1.7.2 through 1.7.5 describe the role of other 

Federal, State, and Tribal agencies in the ISR permitting process. 

The following sections summarize the status of the NRC’s licensing process at the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project site and the status of the applicant’s permitting with respect to other 

applicable Federal, Tribal, and State requirements. 

1.6.1 NRC Licensing Process 

By letter dated November 30, 2007, the applicant submitted a license application to NRC for the 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project (Uranerz, 2007a). As discussed in GEIS Section 1.7.1, NRC initially 

conducts an acceptance review of a license application to determine whether the application is 

complete enough to support a detailed technical review. The NRC staff accepted the Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project license application for detailed technical review by letter dated April 14, 2008 

(NRC, 2008d). 

The NRC’s detailed technical review of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project license application 

includes both a safety review and an environmental review. These two reviews are 

conducted in parallel (see GEIS Figure 1.7-1). The safety review focuses on assessing 

compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements in 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A. The environmental review is conducted in accordance with the regulations in 

10 CFR Part 51. 

The NRC hearing process (10 CFR Part 2) applies to licensing actions and offers stakeholders 

a separate opportunity to raise concerns associated with proposed licensing actions. 

NRC published a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing in the FR on June 16, 2008 (see 73 FR 

34052), related to the Nichols Ranch license application. No request for a hearing 

was received. 

1.6.2 Status of Permitting with Other Federal, Tribal, and State Agencies 

In addition to obtaining a source material license from NRC prior to conducting ISR operations 

at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site, the applicant is required to obtain necessary 

permits and approvals from other Federal, Tribal, and State agencies. These permits and 

approvals would address issues such as (i) the underground injection of solutions and liquid 

effluent from the ISR process, (ii) the exemption of all or a portion of the ore zone aquifer from 

1-9 
Introduction 

regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and (iii) the discharge of storm water during 

construction and operation of the ISR facility. 

1.7 Consultations 

As a Federal agency, NRC is required to comply with consultation requirements in Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The GEIS took a programmatic look 

at the environmental impacts of ISR uranium recovery operations on four distinct geographic 

regions and acknowledged that each site-specific review would include its own consultation 

process with relevant agencies. Sections 7 and 106 consultations conducted for the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project are summarized in Sections 1.7.1 and 1.7.2. Copies of the 

correspondence for this consultation are provided in Appendix A of this SEIS. Section 1.7.3 

discusses NRC coordination with other Federal, Tribal, State, and local agencies conducted 

during the development of the SEIS. Table 1-2 provides the status of the applicant efforts to 

obtain these necessary permits. 

1.7.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 Consultation 

The ESA was enacted to prevent the further decline of threatened and endangered species and 

to restore those species and their critical habitats. ESA Section 7 requires consultation with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to ensure that actions FWS authorizes, permits, or 

otherwise carries out would not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or 

adversely modify designated critical habitats. 

By letter dated July 3, 2008, NRC staff initiated consultation with the FWS, requesting 

information on threatened and endangered species or critical habitat in the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project area (NRC, 2008a). NRC received a response from the FWS Ecological 

Services Field Office in Cheyenne, Wyoming, dated August 15, 2008, that (i) listed the 

threatened and endangered species that may occur in the proposed project area, (ii) discussed 

obligations to protect migratory birds, (iii) noted the negative impacts that can result from the 

land application of ISR wastewater, and (iv) recommended avoidance of wetland and riparian 

areas and protection of sensitive species (FWS, 2008). Four emergent wetlands are located on 

the southeastern portion of the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit and are addressed in detail in 

SEIS Section 3.5.1. 

NRC staff also met with the FWS Buffalo Field Office on January 14, 2009, to discuss 

site-specific issues (NRC, 2009b). The main concern the Buffalo Field Office expressed 

was potential impacts to the Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), and typical 

mitigation measures were discussed (see SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.3). 

No federally listed species are known to occur in the vicinity of the site; however, black-tailed 

prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) colonies, which are potential habitat for black-footed ferrets 

(Mustela nigripes), are located on and in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

site. NRC has consulted with the FWS and concluded that no adverse impacts would occur to 

the black-footed ferret as a result of the proposed project (NRC, 2009c). Threatened and 

endangered species are addressed in detail in SEIS Sections 3.6.3 and 4.6.1.1.3. 

 

1-10 
 Introduction

Table 1-2. Environmental Approvals for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

Issuing Agency Description Status 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) 

Source Material 

License 

(10 CFR Part 40) 

Application under review 

Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (WDEQ) 

Permit to Mine 

Application submitted and 

under review. Anticipated 

approval 4th Quarter 2010. 

WDEQ Drilling Permit 

(for exploration) 

Permit No. 336DN-TFN 4 

5/276 

Wellfield 

Authorization Permit 

Application under 

preparation 

Deep Disposal Well 

Permits 

Application submitted 

September 2010 and under 

review 

Wyoming Pollutant 

Discharge 

Elimination System 

(WYPDES) Permit 

Application under 

preparation. One permit will 

need to be submitted 30 

days prior to construction, 

and one permit will be 

needed for the plant sites. 

WDEQ Air Quality 

Permit Permit No. CT-8644 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) 

Aquifer Exemption 

(40 CFR Parts 144 

and 146) 

Aquifer exemption 

application would be 

forwarded to EPA following 

WDEQ action 

Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 

(WSEO) Permit to Appropriate 

Groundwater 

Existing wells are approved; 

new well permits would be 

obtained prior to drilling 

Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) 

Casper Field Office 

BLM Drilling Permit 

(for exploration) 

Permit No. W-169662 

(permit expired) 

Johnson County 

Office of County Sanitarian Permit to Construct 

Septic Leach Field 

Application under 

preparation 

N/A Byproduct/Waste 

Disposal Agreement 

Application under 

preparation 

Source: Uranerz (2010) 

1.7.2 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Consultation 

NHPA Section 106 requires that Federal agencies take into account the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties and allow the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

(WY SHPO) to comment on such undertakings. 

By letter dated July 1, 2008, NRC requested information from the WY SHPO to facilitate the 

identification of historic and cultural resources that could be affected by the proposed project 

(NRC, 2008c). A response from the WY SHPO dated July 25, 2008, noted the Pumpkin Buttes 

1-11 
Introduction 

Traditional Cultural Property (TCP), a site eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP), is of interest to numerous Native American tribes and that consultation with 

these tribes would be appropriate (WY SHPO, 2008). 

NRC staff also met with a member of the WY SHPO on January 12, 2009, to discuss 

site-specific issues, including the WY SHPO review process, cumulative impacts to historical 

sites, and best management practices (NRC, 2009b). NRC forwarded the WY SHPO copies of 

three Class III surveys on August 26, 2009 (NRC, 2009d), and one Class III survey on 

June 15, 2010 (NRC, 2010a). By letters dated July 8 and July 19, 2010, the WY SHPO 

concurred with NRC’s determination on most of the archaeological sites identified in the 

proposed project area (WY SHPO, 2010a, b). For two of the sites, WY SHPO recommended 

that the sites remain unevaluated for the NRHP, although both sites will not be affected by the 

project as planned (using fencing and avoidance). The WY SHPO recommended that five more 

sites (48CA268, 48CA6148, 48CA6748, 48CA6751, and 48CA6753) remain unevaluated for the 

NRHP pending Native American consultations. 

On July 7, 2010, Uranerz hosted a site visit for representatives from the Northern Cheyenne and 

the Ft. Peck Assiniboine/Sioux Tribes. The Tribal representatives agreed that, as a part of the 

project, site 48CA268 (Pumpkin Buttes TCP) should be formally nominated for listing on the 

NRHP for protection. No other issues were identified during this site visit regarding the Pumpkin 

Buttes TCP. A followup site visit was conducted on July 30, 2010, with representatives from 

both Tribes to specifically evaluate and conduct consultation for sites 48CA6148, 48CA6748, 

48CA6751, and 48CA6753. The tribes consider these sites to possess traditional cultural and 

religious significance and to be TCPs. NRC has determined that sites 48CA6148, 48CA6748, 

48CA6751, and 48CA6753 are eligible for listing on the NRHP for their religious and cultural 

significance. By letter dated November 3, 2010, the WY SHPO concurred with this 

determination (WY SHPO, 2010c). 

NRC staff is continuing to consult with interested parties throughout the environmental review 

process regarding a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among NRC, BLM, WY SHPO, 

interested Native American tribes, and the applicant for mitigation of adverse effects to the 

viewshed of five TCPs (48CA268 [Pumpkin Buttes], 48CA6148, 48CA6748, 48CA6751, and 

48CA6753). A draft MOA was forwarded to interested parties by letter dated July 22, 2010, for 

review and comment. However, the draft MOA only considered impacts to the Pumpkin Buttes 

TCP. Since four additional TCPs have been identified through consultation with Native 

American Tribes, NRC will consult with the above parties to develop a MOA that address 

impacts to the visual setting of the five TCPs. If issued, the license would contain license 

conditions that incorporate any mitigation measures in the license application and any 

agreements that address historic and cultural resources. These sites and the development of 

the MOA are discussed in more detail in SEIS Chapters 3 and 4. 

NRC also consulted with potentially affected Native American Tribes as part of the Section 106 

consultation process per 36 CFR 800.2(c). These interactions are detailed in Section 1.7.3.3 in 

this SEIS. 

1.7.3 Coordination with Other Federal, Tribal, State, and Local Agencies 

NRC staff interacted with multiple Federal, Tribal, State, and local agencies and entities during 

preparation of this SEIS to gather information on potential issues, concerns, and environmental 

impacts related to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The consultation and coordination 

process included, but was not limited to, discussions with BLM, the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

1-12 
 Introduction

(BIA), Tribal governments, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ), Wyoming 

State Engineer’s Office (WSEO), and local organizations (NRC, 2009b). 

1.7.3.1 Coordination with Bureau of Land Management 

BLM is responsible for administering the National System of Public Lands and the federal 

minerals underlying these lands. BLM is also responsible for managing split estate situations 

where federal minerals underlie a surface that is privately held or owned by State or local 

government. In situations where BLM administers the surface rights, operators of mining 

claims, including ISR uranium recovery operations, must submit a plan of operations and obtain 

BLM approval before beginning operations beyond those for casual use. 

While BLM was not a cooperating agency for this SEIS, NRC staff coordinated with BLM during 

SEIS preparation. In January 2009, NRC staff met with personnel from the BLM State Office in 

Cheyenne, the BLM Coal Group in Casper, the BLM Buffalo Field Office, and the BLM Casper 

Field Office (NRC, 2009b). During the visit, BLM clarified how it administers mineral claims and 

leases on BLM lands. BLM expressed concerns related to water quality and hydrology at ISR 

sites, cumulative effects due to the other energy operations (coal, oil and gas, wind energy, and 

operating ISR facilities) in the vicinity of the proposed ISR site, and the potential socioeconomic 

impact on the communities surrounding the proposed ISR site. BLM provided guidance 

documents on its typical mitigation measures to protect cultural resources and the Greater 

sage-grouse. BLM also has a Cooperating Agency agreement with WDEQ and a programmatic 

agreement (PA) with WY SHPO. 

BLM and WY SHPO have a PA to mitigate adverse effects to the Pumpkin Buttes, a TCP, from 

federal minerals development in Campbell County (BLM, 2009c). Based on the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project’s proximity to Pumpkin Buttes, the BLM Buffalo Field Office was 

contacted in November 2008 for a list of tribes that might have an interest in activities 

surrounding the Pumpkin Buttes; BLM provided the NRC staff with a list of tribes that have 

expressed interest in the Pumpkin Buttes (BLM, 2008a). 

Since the January 2009 meeting with BLM, the NRC staff has regularly consulted with the 

Wyoming BLM offices regarding the progress on the staff’s environmental review for the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. This has been done through regular teleconference calls 

with the appropriate BLM state and field offices, by sharing preliminary sections and an SEIS 

draft with BLM, and by ensuring NRC correspondence with the applicant was also shared with 

BLM. In addition to corresponding with the Wyoming BLM Offices for the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project, the NRC staff held quarterly teleconferences to discuss environmental 

issues relating to all uranium recovery projects, current and planned. 

1.7.3.2 Coordination with Bureau of Indian Affairs 

The BIA mission is to enhance the quality of life, promote economic opportunity, and protect and 

improve the trust assets of American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives. BIA is 

responsible for the administration and management of 27 million ha [66 million ac] of land held 

in trust by the United States for American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives. 

NRC staff met with staff from BIA in Fort Washakie, Wyoming, on January 15, 2009 

(NRC, 2009b). NRC staff briefed BIA on potential ISR facilities proposed in Wyoming and 

discussed how BIA and Indian tribes would be involved in the NRC environmental review 

1-13 
Introduction 

process. BIA stated Tribal governments should be consulted for any projects in the state. BIA 

also recommended Tribal elders be involved in cultural and historic surveys. 

1.7.3.3 Interactions with Tribal Governments 

In response to guidance from WY SHPO and BIA and to implement the requirements in 

Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” the 

NRC staff initiated discussions with potentially affected Native American tribes. Letters dated 

December 24, 2008, were sent to the following nine tribes to solicit their comments or concerns 

regarding cultural resources and the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (NRC, 2008b): 

• Blackfeet Tribe 

• Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

• Crow Tribe 

• Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

• Ft. Peck Assiniboine/Sioux Tribe 

• Northern Arapaho Tribe 

• Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

• Oglala Sioux Tribe 

• Three Affiliated Tribes 

By email dated February 12, 2009, Mr. Conrad Fisher of the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Historic 

Preservation Office provided comments (NCTHPO, 2009), which are detailed in Chapters 3 and 

4 of this SEIS. No additional responses from these tribes were received regarding the NRC’s 

request for cultural resource information and/or concerns regarding the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project. 

On April 23, 2010, NRC sent a letter (NRC, 2010b) to the nine tribes to request information 

regarding cultural resources potentially affected by the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

and to invite the nine tribes to become signatories to an MOA for mitigation of potential 

adverse effects to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. NRC contacted each of the tribes via telephone 

from May 10 to 14, 2010, to ensure the tribes had received the letter and to answer questions 

posed by the tribes. Eight of the nine tribes (all tribes listed previously except the Three 

Affiliated Tribes) expressed interest in being a signatory to an MOA. 

As noted in Section 1.7.2, on July 7, 2010, Uranerz hosted a site visit for representatives of the 

Northern Cheyenne and Ft. Peck Assiniboine/Sioux Tribes. The representatives agreed that, as 

a part of the project, site 48CA268 (Pumpkin Buttes TCP) should be formally nominated for 

listing on the NRHP. A follow up site visit was conducted on July 30, 2010, with representatives 

from both Tribes to specifically evaluate and conduct consultation for sites 48CA6148, 

48CA6748, 48CA6751, and 48CA6753. The tribes determined that these sites possess 

traditional cultural and religious significance and consider them to be TCPs. NRC has 

determined that sites 48CA6148, 48CA6748, 48CA6751, and 48CA6753 are eligible for listing 

on the NRHP for their religious and cultural significance. 

NRC forwarded the MOA for review and comment to the eight interested tribes on July 22, 2010 

(NRC, 2010c). However, the draft MOA only considered impacts to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. 

Since four additional TCPs have been identified through consultation with Native American 

Tribes, NRC will consult with the above parties to develop a MOA that address impacts to the 

visual setting of the five TCPs. Two tribes, the Northern Cheyenne and the Ft. Peck 

1-14 
 Introduction

Assiniboine/Sioux Tribes, have requested a government-to-government meeting regarding the 

TCPs and the proposed action. 

1.7.3.4 Coordination with Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

NRC staff met with WDEQ in Cheyenne, Wyoming, on January 12, 2009, to discuss the WDEQ 

role in the NRC environmental review process for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

(NRC, 2009b). Topics discussed during the meeting were the Water Quality Division (WQD) 

storm water program, air quality review and permitting, and noise quality. WDEQ also provided 

clarification on deep well injection classifications. WDEQ expressed concern related to 

reclamation and restoration and noted groundwater quality should be returned to baseline 

conditions. WDEQ indicated it would review the NRC SEISs for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project, 

the Moore Ranch ISR Project, and the Lost Creek ISR Project when they are issued to the 

public in draft. They also emphasized coordination with BLM when ISR projects are located on 

BLM lands. 

NRC staff also met with the WDEQ-Land Quality Division (LQD) on January 14, 2009 

(NRC, 2009b). WDEQ-LQD explained the Underground Injection Control Class III well 

application process and expressed concern about potential excursions and unconfined aquifers. 

WDEQ-LQD staff also stated its position that groundwater affected by ISR operations should be 

restored to its preoperational quality. It supported the use of solar evaporation ponds for 

wastewater disposal, but stated that ISR applicants, Native American tribes, and FWS have 

expressed concerns regarding the use of evaporation ponds. NRC staff continues to coordinate 

with WDEQ staff to monitor the WDEQ permitting process. Such interactions have included 

periodic telephone calls and meetings regarding the status of regulatory actions and issues of 

concern to each agency. 

1.7.3.5 Coordination with Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) is responsible for controlling, propagating, 

managing, protecting, and regulating all game and nongame fish and wildlife in Wyoming under 

Wyoming Statutes (W.S.) 23-1-301-303 and 23-1-401. Regulatory authority given to 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 proposed project area includes habitat for a variety of big game animals, raptors, 

migratory birds, and small mammals that could be affected by the project. In addition, the area 

surrounding the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project does not contain core breeding areas for 

the Greater sage-grouse (WGFD, 2010). WGFD expressed interest regarding potential impacts 

on migratory behavior patterns, long-term population sustainability, and the effects on local 

hunting of big game; impacts to nesting raptors; and the loss of nesting habitat for the Greater 

sage-grouse. 

Based on the FWS recommendation, NRC staff initiated consultation with WGFD via a letter 

sent on October 29, 2008 (NRC, 2008e), requesting information on the Greater sage-grouse 

habitats within the proposed project area and appropriate mitigation measures to minimize 

potential impacts to the Greater sage-grouse. Since that time, the Governor’s Sage-Grouse 

Implementation Team (SGIT) has been meeting and has recommended changes to protect 

sage-grouse. NRC staff received regular updates from the SGIT on the proposed changes. 

On August 18, 2010, the Governor signed Executive Order (E.O.) 2010-4 (replacing E.O. 2008-

1-15 
Introduction 

2) for Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection that was reviewed and considered during 

SEIS preparation. 

1.7.3.6 Coordination with Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 

NRC staff met with the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (WSEO) on January 12, 2009, to 

discuss well permitting (NRC, 2009b). WSEO was primarily concerned that proposed ISR 

facilities may degrade the water quality and that potential groundwater contamination should be 

constrained to the project site. It also expressed the need for applicants to ensure there was 

close, professional supervision of well construction. 

1.7.3.7 Coordination with Wyoming Governor’s Planning Office 

NRC staff met with the Wyoming Governor’s Planning Office on January 13, 2009 

(NRC, 2009b), and again on June 25, 2009. The Wyoming Governor’s Planning Office 

briefed NRC on the BLM Resource Management Plan for the Buffalo region. It stated they are a 

cooperating agency with BLM and is specifically involved in the development of BLM resource 

management plans with WY SHPO and WDEQ. The planning office informed NRC of the 

statewide conservation and management efforts for Greater sage-grouse and noted that 

the Governor had created a management plan to protect sage-grouse with the assistance of 

SGIT. It emphasized that potential ISR facilities need to be geographically flexible to protect 

core sage-grouse areas. Since that time, NRC staff has been in continuous communication 

with SGIT. 

1.7.3.8 Coordination with Wyoming Community Development Authority 

NRC staff met with the Wyoming Community Development Authority on January 13, 2009, 

to discuss housing availability for employees of potential ISR facilities (NRC, 2009b). 

The authority noted that employees would typically look for housing in the communities 

surrounding the project by which they are employed, possibly including hotels, apartments, 

or single-family homes. 

1.7.3.9 Coordination with Localities 

The NRC staff interacted with several county and city entities in the vicinity of the proposed 

project area, which included phone calls and face-to-face meetings. NRC met with several 

county and city entities on January 13 and 15, 2009, to discuss site-specific issues for the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (NRC, 2009b). Meetings were held with the City of Casper 

Planning Office, City of Gillette and Campbell County Office, Converse Area New Development 

Organization, and the town of Wright. Meetings with the local county and city entities focused 

on local economies, housing availability, and community services. 

1.8 Structure of the SEIS 

As noted in Section 1.4.1 of this document, the GEIS (NRC, 2009a) evaluated the broad 

impacts of ISR projects in a four-state region but did not reach site-specific conclusions for new 

ISR projects. In this SEIS, the NRC staff evaluated the extent to which information and 

conclusions in the GEIS could be incorporated by reference. The NRC staff also determined 

whether site-specific information would change the expected environmental impact beyond that 

evaluated in the GEIS. 

1-16 
 Introduction

SEIS Chapter 2 describes the proposed action and reasonable alternatives considered for the 

proposed action; Chapter 3 describes the affected environment for the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project site; and Chapter 4 evaluates the potential environmental impacts from 

implementing the proposed action and the impacts from reasonable alternatives. Cumulative 

impacts are discussed in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 details the applicant’s proposed environmental 

measurement and monitoring programs. A cost-benefit analysis is provided in Chapter 7, and 

potential environmental consequences from the proposed action and alternatives are 

summarized in Chapter 8. 

1.9 References 

10 CFR Part 2. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 2, “Rules of Practice for 

Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

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

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

Licensing of Source Material.” “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: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

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

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,

Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 

40 CFR Part 144. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 144, “Underground Injection Control Program.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 146. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 146, “Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

73 FR 34052. Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 116, p. 34,052, “Notice of License Application 

Request of Uranerz Energy Corporation Nichols Ranch In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project, 

Casper, Wyoming, Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Order Imposing Procedures for 

Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) for Contention 

Preparation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. June 2008. 

 

1-17 
Introduction 

74 FR 39116. Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 149, p. 39,116, “Uranerz Energy Corporation; 

Nichols Ranch In-Situ Recovery Project; New Source Material License Application; Notice of 

Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. August 2009. 

74 FR 65808. Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 237, pp. 65,808–65,810, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. “Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Nichols 

Ranch In-Situ Recovery (ISR) Project in Campbell and Johnson Counties, WY; Supplement to 

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

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. December 2009. 

75 FR 6066. Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 24, pp. 6,066–6,067. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. “Extension of Public Comment Period on the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Nichols Ranch In-Situ Recovery Project in Campbell and Johnson Counties, 

WY; Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium 

Milling Facilities.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. February 2010. 

BLM. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications.” 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management. June 2009a. 

<http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/HighPlains/Wright-Coal.html> (17 August 2010). 

BLM. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease 

Applications.” WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, and WYW161248. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management. August 2009b. <http://www.blm.gov/ 

pgdata/content/wy/en/info/NEPA/HighPlains/SouthGillette.html> (17 September 2009). 

BLM. “Programmatic Agreement Between Bureau of Land Management and Wyoming State 

Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Mitigation of Adverse Effects on the Pumpkin Buttes 

TCP from Anticipated Federal Minerals Development.” ML092640122. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management. 2009c. 

BLM. E-mail from C. Crago, Archaeologist, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, to I. Yu, Project 

Manager, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. 

“Pumpkin Buttes Native American Contacts.” ML083400067 and ML083400081. 

Washington, DC: Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management. 2008a. 

BLM. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 

WYW163340.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management. 

December 2008b. <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/cfodocs/West_Antelope_II.html> 

(17 September 2009). 

BLM. “Fortification Creek Area Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental 

Assessment.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management. 

August 2008c. <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/bfodocs/fortification_creek.html> 

(17 September 2009). 

 

1-18 
 Introduction

BLM. “Environmental Assessments for Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Dry Willow Phase I 

and Dry Willow Phase II.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land 

Management. 2007. <http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/ 

information/NEPA/bfodocs/pods/anadarko.Par.97022.File.dat/Dry%20Willow%20Phase 

%20I%20EA.pdf> and <http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/information/ 

NEPA/bfodocs/pods/anadarko.Par.78198.File.dat/Dry%20Willow%20Phase%20II%20EA.pdf> 

(15 September 2009). 

BLM. “Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the Powder 

River Basin Oil and Gas Project.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land 

Management. January 2003. <http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/information/ 

NEPA/prbfeis/vol_1.Par.87286.File.dat/Chap_03.pdf> (17 September 2009). 

FWS. Letter to G.F. Suber, Branch Chief, from B.T. Kelly, Field Supervisor, Wyoming Field 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” Nichols Ranch ISR Project.” ML082840332. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. 

NCTHPO. E-mail from C. Fisher, Northern Cheyenne Tribal Historic Preservation Office, to 

I. Yu, Project Manager, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management 

Programs. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project.” ML090440030. Lame Deer, Montana: NCTHPO. 

2009. 

NRC. Letter from K. Hsueh, Branch Chief, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to R. Currit, 

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer. “Uranerz Energy Corporation, Nichols Ranch 

In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project—Section 106 Consultation—State Historic Preservation 

Office File #0708RLC009.” ML101310126. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). June 15, 2010a. 

NRC. Letter from K. Hsueh, Branch Chief, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to I. Posey, 

Chairman, Shoshone Business Council. “Request for Information Regarding Historic, Cultural, 

and Archaeological Resources Potentially Affected by the Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming, and Invitation To Become a Signatory to 

Associated Memorandum of Agreement.” ML100880084. Washington, DC: NRC. 

April 23, 2010b. 

NRC. Letter from D. Skeen, Branch Chief, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

to M. Hopkins, Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office. “Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) Regarding Mitigation of Adverse Effects to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP from the Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project in Campbell and Johnson Counties Wyoming.” ML101600535. 

Washington, DC: NRC. 2010c. 

NRC. NUREG–1910 Supplement 1, “Environmental Impact Statement for the Moore Ranch ISR 

Project in Campbell County, Wyoming Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities Final Report.” Washington, DC: NRC. 

August 2010d. 

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

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

 

1-19 
Introduction 

NRC. Memorandum to A. Kock, Branch Chief, from I. Yu, B. Shroff, and A. Bjornsen, Project 

Managers, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. 

“Informal Meetings with Local, State, and Federal Agencies in Wyoming Regarding the 

Environmental Reviews Being Conducted on the Moore Ranch, Nichols Ranch, and Lost Creek 

In-Situ Leach Applications for Source Material Licenses (Docket Nos. 040-09073, 040-09067, 

040-09068).” ML090500544. Washington, DC: NRC. March 2, 2009b. 

NRC. “Summary of Teleconference With Pedro Ramirez, Wyoming Field Office, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Regarding Endangered Species Act Informal Consultation for the Proposed 

Nichols Ranch Project (Docket No. 040-09067).” ML093130107. Washington, DC: NRC. 

November 10, 2009c. 

NRC. Letter from A. Kock, Branch Chief, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to R. Currit, 

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer. “Uranerz Energy Corporation, Nichols Ranch 

In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project—Section 106 Consultation—State Historic Preservation 

Office File #0708RLC009.” ML092320912. Washington, DC: NRC. August 26, 2009d. 

NRC. Letter to B.T. Kelly, Field Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, from G.F. Suber, Branch Chief, Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs. “Request for Information Regarding Endangered or 

Threatened Species and Critical Habitat for the Proposed License Application for Uranerz 

Energy Corporation’s Nichols Ranch Uranium Recovery Project (Docket No. 040-09067).” 

ML081820857. Washington, DC: NRC. July 3, 2008a. 

NRC. Letter to I. Posey, Chairman, Shoshone Business Council, from G. Suber, Branch Chief, 

Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. “Request for 

Information Regarding Tribal Historic and Cultural Resources Potentially Affected by the 

Proposed License Application for Uranerz Energy Corporation’s Nichols Ranch Uranium 

Recovery Project in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming (Docket No. 040-09067).” 

ML083260467. Washington, DC: NRC. December 24, 2008b. 

NRC. Letter to M. Hopkins, State Historic Preservation Officer, from G. Suber, Branch Chief, 

Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. “Initiation of 

Section 106 Process for Uranerz Energy Corporation’s Nichols Ranch Uranium Recovery 

Project License Request (Docket No. 040-09067).” ML081760693. Washington, DC: NRC. 

July 1, 2008c. 

NRC. Letter to M.P. Thomas, Uranerz Energy Corporation. “Acceptance for Review of License 

Application, Uranerz Energy Corporation Nichols Ranch In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project, 

Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming (TAC J0053).” ML080730090. Washington, DC: 

NRC. April 14, 2008d. 

NRC. Letter to T. Christiansen, Wyoming Game and Fish Department. “Request for 

Information Regarding Sage Grouse Habitats for the Proposed License Application for Uranerz 

Energy Corporation’s Nichols Ranch Uranium Recovery Project (Docket 040-09067).” 

ML082960565. Washington, DC: NRC. October 29, 2008e. 

NRC. NUREG–1508, “Final Environmental Impact Statement To Construct and Operate the 

Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mine Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico.” ML082170248. 

Washington, DC: NRC. February 1997. 

1-20 
 Introduction

1-21 

NRC. NUREG–0706, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling 

Project M-25.” ML032751663, ML0732751667, ML032751669. Washington, DC: NRC. 

September 1980. 

Uranerz. E-mail from M.P. Thomas, Uranerz Energy Corporation, to I. Wu, Project Manager, 

Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. “Nichols 

Ranch SEIS Table 1-2.” ML102800050. Casper, Wyoming: Uranerz Energy Corporation. 

October 6, 2010. 

Uranerz. Letter from M.P. Thomas, Uranerz Energy Corporation, to the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project Source Material License Application.” 

ML102800050. Casper, Wyoming: Uranerz Energy Corporation. November 30, 2007a. 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. 

Casper, Wyoming: 2007b. 

WGFD. “Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources Within Important 

Wildlife Habitats.” Version 6.0. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

April 2010. 

WY SHPO. Letter from R.L. Currit, Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office. “Uranerz 

Energy Corporation, Nichols Ranch In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project (SHPO File 

#0708RLC009).” ML102000147. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming State Historic Preservation 

Office (WY SHPO). July 25, 2010a. 

WY SHPO. Letter from R.L. Currit, Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office. “Uranerz 

Energy Corporation, Nichols Ranch In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project (SHPO File 

#0708RLC009).” ML102020089. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WY SHPO. July 15, 2010b. 

WY SHPO. Letter from R.L. Currit, Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office. “Uranerz 

Energy Corporation, Nichols Ranch In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project, Results of Native 

American Consultation and Determinations of Eligibility for Sites 48CA6148, 48CA6748, 

48CA6751, 48CA6753 (SHPO File #0708RLC009).” ML103081008. Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

WY SHPO. November 3, 2010c. 

WY SHPO. Letter from R.L. Currit, Senior Archaeologist, Wyoming State Historic Preservation 

Office, to G. Suber, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Uranerz Energy Corporation, 

Nichols Ranch Uranium Recovery Project License Request (Docket 040-09067) (SHPO File # 

0708RLC009).” ML082270716. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WY SHPO. July 25, 2008. 

2-1 

2 IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY AND ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter describes the proposed action and alternatives for issuance of a U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) license to Uranerz Energy Corporation (Uranerz), herein 

referred to as the applicant, for the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning of the Nichols Ranch In-Situ Recovery (ISR) Project. These alternatives 

include a consideration of the No-Action alternative as required under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Under the No-Action alternative, Uranerz would not 

construct, operate, restore the aquifer, or decommission the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project. The No-Action alternative is included to provide a basis for comparing and evaluating 

the potential impact of the proposed action and alternatives. 

Section 2.1 of this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) describes the 

alternatives considered for detailed analysis, including the proposed action described in Section 

2.2. Section 2.3 describes those alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed 

analysis. Section 2.4 of the SEIS compares the predicted environmental impacts of the 

proposed action and other alternatives. Section 2.5 sets forth the final NRC staff 

recommendation on the proposed federal action. Section 2.6 provides references cited for this 

chapter. 

2.1 Alternatives Considered for Detailed Analysis 

NRC used a variety of sources to determine a range of alternatives to consider for detailed 

analysis in this SEIS. Those sources included the application, including the environmental 

report (ER) (submitted by Uranerz); the scoping and draft comments on NUREG–1910, Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities (GEIS); the 

information gathered during the NRC staff site visit in January 2009; comments on the draft 

SEIS; and multidisciplinary discussions held among NRC staff and various stakeholders. This 

SEIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts from three alternatives: the Proposed 

Action (Alternative 1), the No-Action (Alternative 2), and the Modified Action—No Hank Unit 

(Alternative 3). The description of the alternatives is primarily based on information provided by 

the applicant in its license application unless otherwise noted. 

2.2 The Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

Under the proposed action, the applicant is seeking an NRC source material license for the 

construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an ISR facility at the 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project site as described in the license application. The applicant’s 

proposed action includes disposal via a Class I injection well discussed in Section 2.2.1.6.2 of 

this SEIS; however, alternative wastewater disposal options for the proposed action are 

discussed in Section 2.2.2 of this SEIS. 

2.2.1 Proposed ISR Facility Including Deep Well Injection 

The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project includes several facilities and wellfields, which are 

described in the following sections. The general ISR process is described in GEIS Chapter 2 

(NRC, 2009). The schedule for the proposed action is shown in Figure 2-1.
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-2 

Figure 2-1. Nichols Ranch ISR Project Schedule 

Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007) 

2.2.1.1 Site Description 

The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is located in the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium Mining 

District of the Powder River Basin in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming. The proposed 

site is located approximately 74 km [46 mi] south-southwest of the city of Gillette and 

approximately 98 km [61 mi] north-northeast of the city of Casper (Figure 1-1). The total area of 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project covers approximately 1,365 ha [3,371 ac]. Certain 

sections within the proposed project area are split estate, where two or more parties own the 

surface and subsurface mineral rights. The surface rights includes approximately 1,251 ha 

[3,091 ac] of privately owned land held mainly by the T-Chair Livestock Company and 

approximately 113 ha [280 ac] of surface rights owned by the U.S. Government and 

administrated by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The subsurface mineral rights are 

owned by private entities, including both oil and gas and mineral extraction companies, and the 

U.S. Government. 

Of the total land surface area, the applicant estimates that the proposed ISR operations would 

affect approximately 120 ha [300 ac]. The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be 

divided into two noncontiguous units, the Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit, located west 

and southwest of the North Middle Butte (see Figure 2-8). Two access roads would be 

constructed to connect the two units with existing roads. Additional details on the affected 

environment at the proposed site are contained in Chapter 3. 

The Nichols Ranch Unit (located in Township 43N; Range 76 West; Sections 7, 8, 17, 18, and 

20) would cover approximately two-thirds of the project site and be located in Johnson and 

Campbell Counties. The Nichols Ranch Unit is located near the confluence of the Cottonwood 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-3 

Creek drainage and the Dry Fork of the Powder River (see Figure 3-5). The topography at the 

proposed Nichols Ranch Unit is relatively flat with gently rolling hills and low ridges. The 

elevation in the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit ranges from 1,424 to 1,494 m [4,670 to 4,900 ft] 

above mean sea level (AMSL) (Figure 2-2). 

The Hank Unit (located in Township 44N; Range 75 West; Sections 30 and 31; Township 43N; 

Range 75 West; Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8) occupies one-third of the proposed project site and 

would be located near the western flank of the North Middle Butte in southwest Campbell 

County (Figure 2-3). The Hank Unit is located approximately 6.8 km [4.2 mi] northeast of the 

Nichols Ranch Unit in the Dry Willow and Willow Creek drainages and is located approximately 

26 km [16 mi] upstream of the confluence of Willow Creek with the Powder River. The 

topography at the proposed Hank Unit is gently rolling hills, low ridges, and steep terrain near 

the North Middle Butte and in and along Dry Willow Creek. The elevation at the proposed Hank 

Unit ranges from 1,541 to 1,588 m [5,055 to 5,209 ft] AMSL (Figure 2-3). 

2.2.1.2 Construction Activities 

As described in GEIS Section 2.3, general construction activities associated with ISR facilities 

include drilling wells, clearing and grading associated with road construction and building 

foundations, trenching, and laying pipelines (NRC, 2009). The proposed facilities would consist 

of the central processing plant, satellite facility, and associated infrastructure, such as the 

wellfields, pipelines, and roads. 

2.2.1.2.1 Site Preparation 

Tractor-trailers would deliver the materials and equipment necessary to construct the facilities 

and wellfields at both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units. Because the installation of ISR 

facilities is a small-magnitude construction project, the magnitude of trucking activities to 

support this stage of the project would be minor compared to other industrial activities 

(NRC, 2009). Beyond commuter traffic, trucks would transfer nonhazardous solid waste 

(e.g., rags, trash, packing materials, broken parts or equipment) to the local landfill. 

Construction equipment would be used intermittently and would generate diesel emissions. 

Gas and diesel vehicles associated with the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be 

equipped with air pollution control devices to limit combustion products (Uranerz, 2007). The 

applicant-estimated road traffic during the construction phase would include eight passenger 

vehicles (standard, light-duty trucks or 3⁄4-ton trucks, gas or diesel fuel) per weekday along with 

six tractor-trailers (diesel) per week (Uranerz, 2007). 

Topsoil salvaged during construction activities would be stored in designated topsoil stockpiles 

located onsite and designed to minimize material loss from wind and water erosion. Topsoil 

from building sites, permanent storage areas, main access roads, and chemical storage areas 

would be salvaged prior to construction in accordance with Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality-Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD) requirements. Both the central 

processing plant and satellite facility sites are expected to cover approximately 0.8 to 1.6 ha 

[2 to 4 ac]. Therefore, approximately 2,470 m3

 [3,230 yd3] of topsoil would be removed from 

each unit and stockpiled for the life of the project. Additional topsoil would be removed for the 

construction of wellfields, new access roads, and header houses. The applicant estimated an 

area of 37 ha [92 ac] would be affected by access road and header house construction resulting 

in the removal of approximately 56,781 m3

 [74,213 yd3] of topsoil. Topsoil would be salvaged 

from building sites, permanent storage areas, access roads, chemical storage areas, and at 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-4 

Figure 2-2. Nichols Ranch Unit Site Layout 

Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007) 

 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-5 

Figure 2-3. Hank Unit Site Layout 

Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007) 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-6 

header house locations in the wellfields prior to construction. The applicant committed to 

salvaging 15 cm [6 in] of topsoil in these areas resulting in a total of approximately 40 ha 

[100 ac] of topsoil during the life of the proposed project (Uranerz, 2007). The topsoil would not 

be reapplied until final reclamation and restoration had occurred. The applicant estimated that 

24 to 32 ha [60 to 80 ac] of land would be fenced to grazing activities at any given time over the 

life of the proposed project (Uranerz, 2007). 

2.2.1.2.2 Buildings 

The proposed infrastructure to be constructed as part of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project includes 

the buildings, wells, wellfield structures, underground piping, and access roads for both the 

Nichols Ranch and Hank Units. The Nichols Ranch Unit would contain the central processing 

plant, which includes ion exchange, resin elution, and the yellowcake drying and packaging 

systems. The Hank Unit would contain a satellite facility, which would include an ion-exchange 

system. Uranium-loaded resins from the Hank Unit satellite facility would be transported to the 

Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant for processing and packaging. The general 

location of the Nichols Ranch Unit buildings within the proposed project area is shown in 

Figure 2-2. The general layout of the Nichols Ranch Unit facilities (central processing plant and 

auxiliary buildings) is shown in Figure 2-4. The central processing plant would be a metal 

building with dimensions of approximately 46 × 76 m [150 × 250 ft] and eave heights of less 

than 15 m [50 ft]. Bulk storage tanks for process chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide, 

hydrochloric acid, oxygen, and carbon dioxide would be located outside of the central 

processing plant. Two auxiliary buildings would be located adjacent to the central processing 

plant. An office building, approximately 46 × 18 m [150 × 60 ft] in size, would house work space 

in addition to a lunch room, restroom facilities, a security monitoring room, a computer service 

room, and an onsite laboratory. A maintenance building would include a dedicated area for 

vehicle, electrical, and rotating equipment maintenance and additional office space for field and 

operating personnel. As shown in Figure 2-4, the central processing plant, outdoor storage 

areas, and support buildings would be fenced in a controlled access area. 

The general location of the Hank Unit facilities (satellite facility and maintenance building) within 

the proposed project area is shown in Figure 2-3. The Hank Unit would house a satellite facility, 

approximately 10 km [6 mi] northeast of the proposed central processing plant located at the 

Nichols Ranch Unit, and a maintenance building, as shown in Figure 2-5. The satellite facility 

would be an approximately 24 × 49 m [80 × 160 ft] metal building with eave heights less than 

15 m [40 ft]. Major processing equipment would be housed in the satellite facility except for 

some bulk oxygen and carbon dioxide storage tanks that would be located outside of the facility 

as shown in Figure 2-5. 

The applicant would construct both the Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant and the 

Hank Unit satellite facility on curbed concrete pads to minimize the potential for liquids to enter 

the environment. The applicant would implement engineering controls and an operational 

monitoring program designed to quickly detect spills and leaks and to minimize the potential 

impact (Uranerz, 2007). Potential leaks from vessels and equipment, including equipment 

washdown water, would drain to a sump and either be pumped back into the process circuit or 

pumped to Class I deep disposal wells located on each unit. The deep disposal well locations 

would be near the central processing plant and satellite facility. Concrete floors within the 

satellite facility would be designed to support the full weight of any vessel and its contents and 

to meet all building codes and standards. Outside chemical storage locations would be 

constructed with concrete curbed secondary containment for tanks. 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-7 

 

Figure 2-4. General Layout of the Nichols Ranch Unit Buildings 

Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007)

 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-8 

Figure 2-5. General Layout of the Hank Unit Buildings 

Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007) 

 

 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-9 

2.2.1.2.3 Access Roads 

The primary method of transportation to and from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site 

is via highways and roadways. The site is accessible either via SR50 to Van Buggenum Road 

to T-Chair Livestock Company ranch roads or from SR387 north to T-Chair Livestock Company 

ranch roads (Figure 2-6). Van Buggenum Road is a crowned-and-ditched, county-maintained 

gravel road that ranges in width from 5.5 to 7.3 m [18 to 24 ft] and can accommodate two 

tractor-trailers passing one another. It has a posted speed limit of 72 kilometers per hour (kph) 

[45 miles per hour (mph)]. Ranch roads located on T-Chair Livestock Company property are 

also gravel crowned and ditched, ranging in width from 4.6 to 6.1 m [15 to 20 ft]. The roads 

were built by either the property owner or the coal bed methane (CBM) producers operating in 

the area and have been routinely improved by the latter. The ranch roads have a speed limit 

range of 32 to 48 kph [20 to 30 mph]. Numerous oil and gas and CBM companies active in the 

area use the county and ranch roads. While the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would 

use existing roads to the extent possible, additional roads would need to be constructed. These 

roads fall into two categories: access roads to facilities within the Nichols Ranch and Hank 

Units and access roads to the wellfields. Two access roads would be constructed to connect 

the Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant and the Hank Unit satellite facility with existing 

roads, as shown in Figures 2-2 and 2-3. Both access roads would be approximately 0.32 km 

[0.20 mi] in length, constructed using 7.7 cm [3.0 in] of scoria, conglomerate, or gravel for the 

road surface following BLM criteria for road-building material. One of the roads would run 

straight and easterly from the ranch road to the location of the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit 

central processing plant, and the other would extend in an easterly direction toward the flank of 

the North Middle Butte from an existing spur road that currently terminates at a pumpjack. 

The road widths would be similar to those of the T-Chair Livestock Company access roads, 

which range in width from 4.6 to 6.1 m [15 to 20 ft]. An approximate area of 0.15 to 0.20 ha 

[0.36 to 0.48 ac] would be disturbed to construct new access roads. Existing two-track roads 

and CBM roads would be used to the maximum extent possible before constructing new roads. 

All access roads would be constructed per landowner instructions and in accordance with 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) specifications for roads used by heavy equipment. 

During construction, the roads would be wetted to reduce dust emissions; ephemeral channels 

would be crossed at two locations on the Nichols Ranch Unit and at three locations on the 

Hank Unit (Uranerz, 2007). 

2.2.1.2.4 Wellfields 

Wellfields are located on the surface above the ore bodies and comprise the area that the 

applicant delineated for the installation of injection and production wells. The wellfields and 

associated disturbed area would cover approximately 46 ha [113 ac] at the Nichols Ranch Unit 

and approximately 63 ha [155 ac] at the Hank Unit. Both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units 

would be divided into two production areas (or wellfields) as shown in Figures 2-7 and 2-8, 

respectively. The wellfields at each unit would be developed in sequence, moving from one 

area of the site to another. The Nichols Ranch Unit ore zone occurs at a depth of approximately 

91 to 240 m [300 to 800 ft] below the surface in the A Sand aquifer. The Hank Unit ore zone 

occurs at a depth of approximately 45 to 180 m [150 to 600 ft] below the surface and in the F 

Sand aquifer. The ore zone at each unit is detailed in Section 3.4.1 of the SEIS. The applicant 

estimated the uranium (as U3O8) content to be 1,145,000 kg [2,521,000 lb] for the Nichols 

Ranch Unit and 841,100 kg [1,852,000 lb] for the Hank Unit. The average ore grade of the two 

units is above 0.1 percent (Uranerz, 2007). 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-10 

Figure 2-6. Access Roads for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007) 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-11 

Figure 2-7. Nichols Ranch Unit Production Areas 

Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007)

 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-12 

Figure 2-8. Hank Unit Production Areas 

Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007)
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-13 

2.2.1.2.4.1 Injection and Production Wells 

The injection and production (or recovery) wells are used to inject the lixiviant and to recover 

pregnant lixiviant. GEIS Figure 2.3-1 shows a schematic diagram of a wellfield with typical 

injection/production well patterns, including five-spot and seven-spot patterns. In some cases, a 

line-drive pattern or staggered line-drive pattern may be utilized. The applicant plans to drill all 

wells so they could be used for either injection or recovery (Uranerz, 2007). By doing this, the 

applicant could change wellfield flow patterns as needed to improve uranium recovery and to 

more efficiently restore groundwater. Injection and recovery wells would be drilled using 

standard mud-rotary drilling techniques for deep-water wells. Within each wellfield, injection 

wells would be arranged near production wells in four-spot, five-spot, or seven-spot patterns. 

The injection and production wells would be completed in the ore zone intervals of the 

production sand (A Sand for the Nichols Ranch Unit, F Sand for the Hank Unit). The injection 

wells would be spaced between 15 and 46 m [50 and 150 ft] apart depending on the 

characteristics of the ore zone. Based on early delineation, the applicant estimates 490 

injection and recovery wells would be drilled at the Nichols Ranch Unit production area #1 and 

400 injection and recovery wells would be drilled at the Hank Unit production area #1. The 

applicant would conduct additional investigations to determine the number of injection and 

recovery wells needed for the second production areas located at the Nichols Ranch Unit and 

the Hank Unit. 

The actual number and location of header houses would depend on the well placement. The 

applicant would construct well header houses, also located in the wellfields, to house the 

manifolds that connect to the individual injection and production wells. The header house would 

have approximate dimensions of 12 × 6 m [40 × 20 ft] constructed on a 15-cm [6-in] concrete 

pad floor. Based on early delineation, the applicant estimated nine header houses would be 

located at the Nichols Ranch Unit production area #1 and seven header houses would be 

located at the Hank Unit production area #1. The applicant would conduct additional delineation 

to determine the number of header houses needed for the second production areas located at 

both the Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit (Uranerz, 2007). 

WDEQ-administered underground injection control (UIC) program regulates the design, 

construction, testing, and operation of injection wells. The WDEQ has primary regulatory 

authority for such actions as delegated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Injection wells for extraction are classified under UIC as Class III wells. The proposed operation 

would therefore require a UIC permit from WDEQ to use Class III injection wells. Before ISR 

operations could begin, the portion of the aquifer designated for uranium recovery must be 

exempted as an underground source of drinking water (USDW) in accordance with the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) under 40 CFR Part 146. Aquifer exemptions must be approved by 

the EPA. 

2.2.1.2.4.2 Monitoring Wells 

Horizontal and vertical excursion monitoring wells would be installed at each wellfield as 

dictated by the underlying geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. The proposed well locations 

may be adjusted as the project progresses, as the geometry of the ore body becomes better 

understood, and as needed for variation in surface topography. The applicant would consider 

both the geometry of the ore body and surface topography to determine the appropriate wellfield 

pattern and monitoring well locations. The horizontal monitoring wells screened in the 

production zone would be located in a ring around the wellfields, at an approximate spacing of 

150 m [500 ft] between monitoring wells. Vertical monitoring wells for underlying and overlying 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-14 

aquifers would be spaced at a density of one well for every 1.6 ha [4 ac] of wellfield area 

(Uranerz, 2007). Figures 2-7 and 2-8 show the proposed monitoring well locations for the 

Nichols Ranch and Hank Units, respectively, and the approximate distance between the 

monitoring wells located around the perimeter of the wellfields. 

2.2.1.2.4.3 Well Construction and Testing 

GEIS Section 2.3.1.1 describes well drilling techniques (NRC, 2009). The applicant has 

proposed to use standard mud rotary drilling techniques to drill production, injection, and 

monitoring wells at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The well casing for injection, 

production, and monitoring wells at both units would be constructed of plastic polyvinyl chloride 

(PVC) with centralizers to ensure the casing is centered in the borehole. The annular space 

between the well casing and the geologic formations would be grouted to ground surface with 

cement slurry and sand-cement grout to prevent vertical migration of fluids. After the well is 

cemented, the applicant proposes to underream the well through the mineralized zone and 

complete it either as an open hole or fit it with a slotted liner or screen assembly. Figures 2-9 

and 2-10 are schematics of a typical injection/recovery well and of a monitoring well 

construction design that the applicant indicates could be used at the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project (Uranerz, 2007). 

The applicant would perform a mechanical integrity test (MIT) at each well before operation 

(Uranerz, 2007). As described in GEIS Section 2.3.1.1, an MIT verifies that the well casing is 

not leaking, which could result in water loss during injection or recovery operations. The bottom 

and top of the casing are plugged (sealed) with a sealing device during an MIT, and the well is 

pressurized. Pressure gauges monitor pressure changes inside the casing. If a well fails the 

MIT and the casing cannot be repaired after several attempts, the well would be plugged and 

abandoned. MIT results are maintained onsite and would be available for NRC and WDEQ 

inspection. MIT results are also reported to the WDEQ on a quarterly basis. 

During wellfield construction, drilling activities would include mudpit construction. During the 

mudpit excavation, the applicant would first remove topsoil and place it in a separate location. 

The subsoil would then be removed and deposited next to the mud pit. After mud pit use was 

complete (usually within 30 days of initial excavation), the applicant would redeposit the subsoil 

in the mud pit covered by topsoil. The mudpits would be temporarily fenced to prevent entrance 

by livestock/wildlife. The fencing would be constructed in accordance with the WDEQ rules and 

regulations concerning drilling located in the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act §35-11-406. 

The applicant would use the same technique for pipeline ditch construction (Uranerz, 2007). 

2.2.1.2.4.4 Pipelines 

The applicant proposes to use HDPE, PVC, and/or stainless steel piping for the wellfield 

distribution pipelines that would run between the ion-exchange facilities, header houses, and 

individual well lines. The majority of distribution lines would be buried to prevent freezing during 

winter months. All piping would be designed for an operating pressure of 150 pounds per 

square inch gauge (psig) and tested for mechanical integrity before use. Piping would be 

equipped with automatic valves for flow control. Main trunk lines would have electronic 

pressure gauges to monitor control room information. Based on early delineation, the applicant 

estimates 4,210 m [13,800 ft] of piping would be needed for the Nichols Ranch Unit production 

area #1 and 4,000 m [13,000 ft] of piping would be needed for the Hank Unit production area #1 

(Uranerz, 2007). 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-15 

Figure 2-9. Typical Injection/Recovery Well Design 

Source: Uranerz (2007) 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-16 

Figure 2-10. Typical Monitoring Well Design 

Source: Uranerz (2007) 

 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-17 

2.2.1.2.5 Other Structures and Systems 

The applicant plans to dispose of liquid effluent generated during uranium recovery operations 

via Class I UIC disposal wells. Up to four deep disposal wells would be located at the Nichols 

Ranch Unit, and up to an additional four would be located at the Hank Unit (Uranerz, 2007). 

Uranerz has submitted an application to obtain UIC Class I permits for the construction and use 

of the Class I disposal wells from the WDEQ-Water Quality Division, which has EPA-authorized 

permitting authority. The application states that fluid would be injected in the Cretaceous 

Teckla, Teapot, and Parkman sandstones at depths of approximately 2,326 to 2,652 m 

[7,630 to 8,700 ft] below ground surface at the Nichols Ranch Unit and depths of approximately 

2,360 to 2,652 m [7,740 to 8,700 ft] below ground surface at the Hank Unit. The application 

also states that the average daily injection rate would not exceed a total of 568 Lpm [150 gpm] 

for the Nichols Ranch Unit disposal well(s). The same average daily injection total rate of 

568 Lpm [150 gpm] applies for the Hank Unit disposal well(s) (Uranerz, 2010a). 

Sanitary wastes from the lunchroom and restrooms would flow to septic leach fields located at 

both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units. The applicant stated the septic systems would be 

designed to accommodate 55 employees at each unit; the septic system for the Nichols Ranch 

Unit would be south of the central processing plant and the septic system for the Hank Unit 

would be located north of the satellite facility. The applicant would obtain a permit to construct 

the onsite septic systems from the respective county in which the unit was located 

(Uranerz, 2007). 

The applicant would fence certain areas during construction. An area of approximately 12 to 

16 ha [30 to 40 ac] would be fenced to grazing over the life of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project. The applicant would fence wellfields during construction with a typical three-strand 

livestock fence to prevent livestock from entering the wellfield. Both the Nichols Ranch Unit 

central processing plant and auxiliary facilities and the Hank Unit satellite facility and auxiliary 

facilities would also be fenced with a chain link fence at least 1.8 m [6 ft] in height 

(Uranerz, 2007). 

2.2.1.2.6 Construction Workers and Equipment 

Earthmoving equipment such as rubber tire scrapers and front-end loaders would be used 

during construction. Passenger vehicles transporting workers and tractor trailers would also be 

used during construction, as discussed in Section 2.2.1.7 of the SEIS. As discussed in Section 

4.11, the applicant estimated approximately 45 to 55 workers would be needed to support the 

construction phase (Uranerz, 2007). 

2.2.1.2.7 Schedule 

As shown in Figure 2-1, the applicant estimated that wellfield and building construction would 

take approximately 9 months to 1 year (Uranerz, 2007). The construction of the production area 

#1 wellfields at the Nichols Ranch Unit would overlap the construction of the production area #1 

wellfields at the Hank Unit. The construction of production area #2 wellfields at the Nichols 

Ranch Unit and of production area #2 wellfields at the Hank Unit would overlap the operations 

phase of both the Nichols Ranch Unit and Hank Unit production area #1 wellfields. 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-18 

2.2.1.3 Operation Activities 

As discussed in GEIS Section 2.4, the ISR process involves two primary operations. First, 

uranium mobilization occurs in underground aquifers when barren lixiviant is injected into the 

ore body and uranium-laden solutions are recovered. Second, the uranium-laden solutions 

(referred to as pregnant lixiviant) would be pumped from the production wells to ion-exchange 

systems within surface facilities to recover the uranium and prepare it for shipment 

(NRC, 2009). The applicant proposed to conduct operations at the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project consistent with those activities described in the GEIS. The following sections 

describe the proposed operations at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

2.2.1.3.1 Uranium Mobilization 

Uranium mobilization at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would consist of the following 

steps: (i) injection of barren lixiviant into the production zone, (ii) oxidation and complexation of 

the uranium underground, (iii) extraction or production of the pregnant lixiviant from the 

subsurface, and (iv) excursion monitoring. Figure 2-11 is a generalized flow diagram that 

illustrates the proposed ISR process at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

2.2.1.3.1.1 Lixiviant Chemistry 

The selected lixiviant must leach uranium from the host rock and keep it in solution during 

groundwater pumping from the host aquifer. The composition of the lixiviant is designed to 

reverse the natural geochemical conditions that led to the original deposition. At the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project, the applicant would use a lixiviant composed of native groundwater 

fortified with oxygen or hydrogen peroxide and sodium bicarbonate as a complexing agent 

(Uranerz, 2007). The lixiviant would oxidize the uranium to form a uranium-bearing solution of 

uranyl carbonate complexes. GEIS Table 2.4-1 summarizes typical lixiviant chemistry 

(NRC, 2009). As noted in GEIS Section 2.4.1.1, the principal geochemical reactions the lixiviant 

causes are the oxidation and subsequent dissolution of uranium and other metals from the ore 

body and its subsequent extraction (NRC, 2009). 

2.2.1.3.1.2 Lixiviant Injection and Recovery 

At the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, the applicant would pump lixiviant into the ore body 

via injection wells; the solution would oxidize and dissolve uranium from the formation, which 

would be recovered via production wells. The applicant estimated the production rates would 

range from approximately 3,800 to 13,300 Lpm [1,000 to 3,500 gpm] at the Nichols Ranch Unit 

and from 3,800 to 9,500 Lpm [1,000 to 2,500 gpm] at the Hank Unit. The uranium-enriched 

pregnant solution would be pumped from production wells to either the Nichols Ranch Unit 

central processing plant or to the Hank Unit satellite facility for uranium extraction by ion 

exchange. The resulting barren lixiviant would then be chemically refortified with 

carbonate/bicarbonate and an oxidant and reinjected into the wellfield to repeat the extraction 

cycle (Uranerz, 2007).
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-19 

Figure 2-11. General Flow Schematic for the ISR Process 

Source: Uranerz (2007) 

As described in GEIS Section 2.4.3, the production wells at an ISR facility would extract slightly 

more water than is reinjected into the host aquifer to create a net inward flow of groundwater 

into the wellfield. This excess water, referred to as production bleed, would be byproduct 

material that must be properly managed (NRC, 2009). The production bleed would be 

withdrawn as a small portion of the barren solution from the ion-exchange circuit and then 

disposed of via the deep disposal wells at both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units. Production 

bleed is detailed in SEIS Section 2.2.1.3.2. 

2.2.1.3.1.3 Excursion Monitoring 

GEIS Section 2.4.1.4 describes how ISR operations can potentially affect the groundwater 

quality near a site if lixiviant moves from the production zone away from the injection wells, 

resulting in either a vertical or lateral excursion (NRC, 2009). Excursions can be caused by 

improper water balance between injection and recovery rates, preferential flow paths through 

undetected high permeability strata or geological faults, improperly plugged and abandoned 

exploration boreholes, discontinuity within the confining layers, poor well integrity, or 

hydrofracturing of the ore zone or surrounding units (NRC, 2009). NRC regulations at 10 CFR 

Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 7, require ISR licensees to have an operational monitoring 

program to detect excursions. 

NRC guidance defines an excursion as occurring when two or more excursion indicators in a 

monitoring well exceed their upper control limits (UCLs). NRC license conditions require that 

licensees conduct biweekly sampling to detect excursions. If an excursion is detected, the 

licensee notifies the NRC and takes several steps to confirm the excursion through additional 
2-20 

Table 2-1. Comparison of Different Liquid Wastewater Disposal Options 

Class I Injection Well 

Class V Injection Well 

Evaporation Ponds Land Application 

DS

Land Size/ Footprint 0.1 ha 

[0.25 ac] 

0.1 ha [0.25 ac] Potential additional land area required for radiumsettling basins 0.1 to 1.6 ha [0.25 to 4 ac] and purge reservoirs 4 ha [10 ac] or more] 

Individual pond: 0.4 to 2.5 ha [1 to 6.25 ac], max 16.2 ha [40 ac] Pond System: about 40 ha [100 ac] 

40 ha [100 ac] Potential additional land area required for radium-settling basins 0.1 to 1.6 ha [0.25 to 4 ac] and purge reservoirs 4 ha [10 ac] or more 

0[oPlr04 r4 Ps(tss

Relevant Regulations and Permits 

10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D, K UIC Class I permit (WDEQ) 

10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D, K, Appendix B UIC Class V permit (WDEQ) WYPDES permit (WDEQ) 

10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A Wyoming State Engineer’s Office NESHAP permit (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W) Contract for byproduct material disposal (liners, sludges) 

10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D, K, Appendix B 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) Zero release WYPDES permit (WDEQ) NESHAP permit (40 CFR Part 61) 

SAZW(N(Zp4
2-21 

Table 2-1. Comparison of Different Liquid Wastewater Disposal Options (continued) Class I Injection Well Class V Injection Well Evaporation Ponds Land Application D

S

Construction Requirements Land clearing and excavation equipment for pad, mud pits Drilling rig Land clearing and excavation equipment for pad, mud pits, radium-settling basins, treatment facilities Drilling rig Land clearing and excavation equipment to prepare surface for pond(s) Construction equipment to construct pond liner(s) Land clearing and excavation equipment for roads, radium settling basins, treatment facilities L

eerrbf

Is wastewater storage required prior to disposal? Ten 64,350 L [17,000 gal] surge tanks Storage/surge tank(s) Radium settling basins, treatment facility if needed to reduce Ra, U, and other contaminant concentrations Storage/surge tanks Radium-settling basins, treatment facility if needed to reduce Ra, U, and other contaminant concentrations Y

mm““wsRbftacc

Wastewater Treatment Issues No additional treatment, but may add antifouling agent to reduce scaling in well Decontamination through ion exchange (IX)/reverse osmosis (RO). Additional treatment to injection zone class of use/primary drinking water, whichever more stringent. May add antifouling agent to reduce scaling in well Decontamination through IX/RO. No additional treatment Decontamination through IX/RO. Radium-settling basins, treatment facility if needed to reduce Ra, U, and other contaminant concentrations D

tAtudws
2-22 

Table 2-1. Comparison of Different Liquid Wastewater Disposal Options (continued

Class I Injection Well 

Class V Injection Well 

Evaporation Ponds Land Application 

DS

Decommissioning Issues 

Plug and abandon well in accordance with WDEQ requirements 

Radium-settling basin liners and sludges, treatment building debris to be disposed as byproduct material, additional transportation of wastes to licensed disposal facility Plug and abandon well in accordance with WDEQ requirements 

Pond liners and sludges to be disposed as byproduct material, additional transportation of wastes to licensed disposal facility 

Radium-settling basin liners and sludges, treatment building debris to be disposed as byproduct material, additional transportation of wastes to licensed disposal facility Application soils to be disposed as byproduct material if limits exceeded Additional transportation of wastes to licensed disposal facility 

Rltdbaod

Environmental Benefits Isolation from 

accessible environment. Low exposure to individuals at surface Smallest footprint, no additional decommissioning wastes No added transportation impacts for wastes No additional waste streams created Minimal and temporary visual impacts from drilling 

Wastewater treated to drinking water standards 

 Wastewater 

treatment to reduce uranium, radium, and other constituents Limited construction needed for land application area 

Wd
2-23 

Table 2-1. Comparison of Different Liquid Wastewater Disposal Options (continued) Class I Injection Well Class V Injection Well Evaporation Ponds Land Application Disc

Wate

Climatic Influences Deeper drilling requires longer rig time, higher diesel emissions (approximately 20 X typical production well) Deeper drilling requires longer rig time, higher diesel emissions (approximately 20 X typical production well) Additional equipment needed to construct wastewater storage and treatment facilities Additional equipment needed to construct evaporation ponds Additional equipment needed to construct wastewater storage and treatment facilities Addit

needwastand t

Health & Safety Issues Potential pipeline leaks Potential leaks from wastewater storage and treatment facilities Additional waste volume during decommissioning Potential leaks from evaporation ponds Additional waste volume during decommissioning Potential leaks from wastewater storage and treatment facilities Additional waste volume during decommissioning Pote

wastand tAdditvolumdeco
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-24 

sampling. As described in NRC guidance (Section 5.7.8.3), licensees typically retrieve 

horizontal excursions by adjusting the flow rates of the nearby injection and production wells to 

increase process bleed in the excursion area. If an excursion is suspected in a groundwater 

monitoring well, the licensee is required to notify WDEQ and NRC within 24 hours, confirm the 

excursion and the well on excursion is required to be monitored every 7 days until 

concentrations of excursion indicators are at or below the respective UCLs. The licensee is 

required to provide a report to NRC within 60 days, describing the excursion, the corrective 

actions taken and the results. If an excursion cannot be corrected in 60 days, the licensee may 

be required to stop lixiviant injection or increase the surety to cover the costs of cleanup of the 

excursion (NRC, 2003a). 

The applicant proposed an operational groundwater monitoring program to detect and correct 

conditions that could result in an excursion affecting groundwater quality near the wellfields 

(Uranerz, 2007). The operational groundwater monitoring program would (i) monitor both flow 

rates and the operating pressure of wells (injection, production, and monitoring) and the main 

pipelines connecting to the central processing plant and satellite facility and (ii) monitor well 

sampling. During the safety review, NRC staff identified issues that could only be resolved after 

wellfield testing was completed. The applicant will be required by license condition to provide 

for NRC staff review and approval the Product Area Pump Test reports used to determine the 

placement of overlying, underlying, and perimeter monitoring wells for both the Nichols Ranch 

and Hank Units to verify monitoring well placement and the ability of the monitoring wells to 

detect potential excursions. The proposed monitoring program is detailed in Chapter 6 of 

the SEIS.

2.2.1.3.1.4 Uranium Processing 

Figure 2-11 is a general flow schematic for the ISR process (Uranerz, 2007). At the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project, uranium would be recovered from the pregnant lixiviant and 

processed as yellowcake in a multistep process. Those steps include (i) loading uranium onto 

ion-exchange resin; (ii) eluting (stripping) uranium from the resin; and (iii) precipitating, 

drying, and packaging of uranium (Uranerz, 2007). This process is described in the 

following subsections. 

2.2.1.3.1.5 Ion Exchange 

At the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, the pregnant lixiviant would be pumped from the 

wellfields to the ion-exchange systems located at either the central processing plant at the 

Nichols Ranch Unit or at the Hank Unit satellite facility to extract uranium. The proposed 

ion-exchange system for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project consists of a series of downflow 

ion-exchange columns. The applicant estimated approximately six ion-exchange columns 

would be located at the Nichols Ranch Unit and four ion exchange columns would be located at 

the Hank Unit. Uranium ranging in concentration from 20 to 250 mg/L [20 to 250 ppm] would be 

absorbed by ion exchange onto resin beads. As the ion-exchange column resins became 

saturated with uranium, the column would be taken offline for the elution circuit, discussed in the 

next section. The applicant estimated production ion-exchange flow rates of up to 13,300 Lpm 

[3,500 gpm] at the Nichols Ranch Unit and up to 9,500 Lpm [2,500 gpm] for the ion-exchange 

system at the Hank Unit. After the lixiviant has been pumped through the ion-exchange 

systems, the resulting barren lixiviant would then be chemically refortified with 

carbonate/bicarbonate and an oxidant and reinjected into the wellfield to repeat the 

leaching cycle (Uranerz, 2007).
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-25 

2.2.1.3.1.6 Elution 

GEIS Section 2.4.2.2 describes the elution circuit at ISR facilities (NRC, 2009). The Nichols 

Ranch Unit central processing plant would be designed to accept and elute (strip) uranium from 

the ion-exchange resins. Resins would either originate from the Nichols Ranch Unit or the Hank 

Unit satellite facility. Trucks would be used to transfer uranium-loaded resin from the Hank Unit 

satellite facility to the central processing plant at the Nichols Ranch Unit. These specially 

designed tanker trailers could each hold approximately 14 m3

 [500 ft3] of loaded resin. The 

resin would flow via gravity into a dedicated elution vessel, which may include uranium-loaded 

resin from the Nichols Ranch Unit ion-exchange system. Based on the estimated yearly 

production rate at the Hank Unit, resin truck shipments from the Hank Unit to the Nichols Ranch 

Unit would occur approximately once every 2 to 3 days (Uranerz, 2007). 

Uranium would be released from the loaded ion-exchange resin in the dedicated elution vessel 

(tank) in the elution circuit by applying either an aqueous solution or brine composed of salt and 

sodium carbonate or sodium bicarbonate. The resulting pregnant eluant would contain 

approximately 20 to 40 g/L [20 to 40 oz/gal] of uranium. Final precipitation and drying occurs in 

the final circuit to produce yellowcake as shown in Figure 2-11 (Uranerz, 2007). 

2.2.1.3.1.7 Precipitation, Drying, and Packaging 

GEIS Section 2.4.2.3 describes precipitation, drying, and packaging at ISR facilities 

(NRC, 2009). During precipitation and drying at the central processing plant, the pregnant 

eluant would be treated with hydrochloric acid to lower the pH and to break the dissolved 

uranium complex. Hydrogen peroxide would be used to precipitate the uranium. Either sodium 

hydroxide or ammonia could also be added to adjust the pH and precipitate uranium yellowcake 

slurry. Following settling, the precipitated yellowcake slurry would be filtered to remove excess 

liquid, flushed with fresh water to remove dissolved chlorides, and then dried in a vacuum to 

reduce the moisture content, reducing the formation of water soluble uranium oxides and other 

compounds and minimizing the potential for releases. The dryer would operate at a 

temperature range of approximately 74 to 88 °C [165 to 190 °F]. The dryer design would be 

similar to that used at the Power Resources, Inc. Smith-Highland facility located approximately 

72 km [45 mi] southeast of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (Uranerz, 2010). 

After drying, the yellowcake would be packaged in approved 205-L [55-gal] drums and trucked 

offsite to a licensed uranium conversion facility located in Metropolis, Illinois, approximately 

1,900 km [1,200 mi] away. The applicant would transport the yellowcake to Metropolis via 

SR387 east to Wright, SR59 south to Douglas, Interstate (I)-25 south to Cheyenne, I-80 east to 

I-29, I-29 south to Kansas City, I-70 east to I-64 south, I-64 south to I-57 south, and then I-57 

south to I-24 east to Metropolis. Packaging and transporting of yellowcake would be completed 

in compliance with NRC and USDOT regulations (Uranerz, 2007). 

The applicant projects an initial production rate of 230,000 kg [500,000 lb] of yellowcake per 

year from the Nichols Ranch Unit and 140,000 kg [300,000 lb] of yellowcake per year from the 

Hank Unit (Uranerz, 2007). The project will be license to produce up to 907,100 kg [2 million lb] 

per year of yellowcake. 

2.2.1.3.2 Management of Production Bleed and Other Liquid Effluents 

As stated in GEIS Section 2.4.3, uranium mobilization would produce excess water that must be 

properly managed (NRC, 2009). The production wells at an ISR facility would extract slightly 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-26 

more water than is reinjected into the host aquifer to create a net inward flow of groundwater 

into the wellfield. This excess water, referred to as production bleed, is considered byproduct 

material that must be properly managed. 

The applicant has proposed to dispose of the production bleed via deep well injection at both 

the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units. The applicant would obtain a UIC permit for Class I 

injection wells from WDEQ, which EPA has authorized to implement the UIC program. The 

deep disposal wells would be located near the central processing plant and satellite facility and 

would be constructed similarly to the design of other permitted injection wells at other active ISR 

sites and drilled to comparable depths. The applicant’s projected production bleed at the 

Nichols Ranch Unit would be approximately 1 percent of the production flow rate or 150 Lpm 

[40 gpm], and the production bleed for the Hank Unit would be approximately 3 percent of the 

production flow rate or 280 Lpm [75 gpm] (Uranerz, 2007). 

Other liquid effluents produced as part of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would 

include liquids from process drains, well-development water, pump test water, elution circuit 

bleed, and washdown water. The applicant estimated the maximum flow rate of these other 

liquid effluents as 3.8 to 7.6 Lpm [1 to 2 gpm]. The applicant estimated a maximum flow rate of 

83 to 340 Lpm [22 to 90 gpm] from groundwater restoration. These liquid effluents would also 

be disposed of via Class I injection wells (Uranerz, 2007). 

2.2.1.3.3 Schedule 

The applicant estimated the wellfields at each production area in each unit would operate from 

1.25 to 2.5 years (Uranerz, 2007) with some overlap between wellfield operations at the Nichols 

Ranch and Hank Units. Because the timeframe for development of each wellfield is staggered, 

the construction of the second production area would overlap the restoration of the first 

production area, as shown in Figure 2-1. The applicant estimated approximately 45 to 55 

workers would be needed during the operations phase comparable to that during the 

construction phase (Uranerz, 2007). 

2.2.1.4 Aquifer Restoration Activities 

Aquifer restoration within the wellfield ensures that the water quality and groundwater use in 

surrounding aquifers would not be adversely affected by the uranium recovery operation, as 

discussed in GEIS Section 2.5 (NRC, 2009). After the uranium is recovered, the production 

aquifer contains constituents that were mobilized by the lixiviant. Groundwater monitoring for 

selected constituents throughout the life of the project is discussed in Section 6.3.1.2 of the 

SEIS. In compliance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5), groundwater quality in 

the exempted ore-bearing aquifer is required to be restored to (i) Commission-approved 

baseline; (ii) MCLs listed in Table 5C, if the constituent is listed in Table 5C and if the baseline 

level of the constituent is below the value listed; or (iii) alternate concentration limits (ACLs) the 

Commission established, if the constituent baseline level and the values listed in Table 5C are 

not reasonably achievable. The ACL development is described in Appendix C of the SEIS. 

These standards are implemented during aquifer restoration to ensure public health and safety. 

The applicant is required to provide financial sureties to cover planned and delayed restoration 

costs in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 9. NRC annually reviews the 

financial sureties. 

Under the federal UIC program, the exempted production aquifer will no longer be protected 

under the SDWA as a USDW. In compliance with 40 CFR 146.4, the exempted aquifer does 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-27 

not currently serve as a source of drinking water and cannot now and will not in the future serve 

as a source of drinking water. Hence, groundwater in exempted aquifers cannot be considered 

as a source of drinking water after restoration. 

GEIS Section 2.5 describes aquifer restoration (NRC, 2009). Aquifer restoration in each 

wellfield would begin as the uranium recovery operations end, thereby shortening the period of 

groundwater contamination within the exempted aquifer. Restoration would be demonstrated to 

meet WDEQ and NRC requirements. Consistent with current ISR restoration practices, the 

applicant proposed that restoration criteria or restoration target values (RTVs) be established on 

a parameter-by-parameter basis. The primary restoration goal would be to return all parameters 

to compliance with the groundwater protection standards in 10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A 

Criterion 5B(5). Prior to operation, background (baseline) groundwater quality would be 

determined based on data collected from monitoring wells before ISR operations were initiated, 

as required by 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 7. 

There are three possible phases of aquifer restoration: groundwater transfer, groundwater 

sweep, and groundwater treatment. These three phases of aquifer restoration would be 

designed to optimize restoration equipment used in treating groundwater and to minimize the 

volume of groundwater consumed during the aquifer restoration phase of the ISR lifecycle. 

Depending on the restoration progress, an applicant may not need to implement all three 

phases to achieve RTVs. NRC gives licensees the flexibility to select each wellfield restoration 

method (NRC, 2003a). The WDEQ UIC program would review aquifer restoration plans for 

compliance with the applicable terms and conditions of the UIC permit. Stability monitoring 

would also be conducted as part of the restoration program. The aquifer restoration program for 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would include two stages: restoration and stability 

monitoring. The following subsections describe the aquifer restoration phases proposed for the 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

2.2.1.4.1 Groundwater Transfer 

During the groundwater transfer phase of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, water would 

be transferred between a production area beginning restoration operations to either another 

wellfield beginning ISR operations or within the same wellfield, if one area is in a more 

advanced restoration state than another. Groundwater with less total dissolved solids (TDS) 

would be pumped from the new production area and injected into the area being restored. The 

groundwater with higher TDS concentrations than the area beginning restoration would be 

recovered and injected into the production area beginning ISR operations to both lower the TDS 

in the wellfield being restored and to blend the water in the two wellfields until they are similar in 

conductivity. If the concentration of suspended solids creates a blockage problem in the 

injection well screens, then the recovered water from the wellfield being restored may be 

passed through an ion-exchange column and filtered (Uranerz, 2007). 

For groundwater transfer to occur between production areas, a newly constructed production 

area must be ready to begin ISR. Therefore, the groundwater transfer this phase could be 

initiated at any time during the restoration process. If a new production area is not available to 

accept transferred water, then groundwater sweep would be used as the first phase of 

restoration. Because water is transferred from one wellfield to another, groundwater transfer 

does not typically generate liquid effluents. (NRC, 2009) 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-28 

2.2.1.4.2 Groundwater Sweep 

During the groundwater sweep phase of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, groundwater 

from a wellfield undergoing aquifer restoration would be pumped via production wells to the 

processing plant ion-exchange systems at the Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant and 

Hank Unit satellite facility without reinjection. This pumping draws native groundwater into the 

ore zone aquifer to flush constituents from areas impacted by the lixiviant injection during 

uranium recovery. Groundwater produced during the sweep phase would contain uranium and 

other constituents mobilized during uranium recovery and residual lixiviant. Following 

treatment, groundwater pumped during the groundwater sweep phase would be disposed of as 

byproduct material via deep well injection at both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units. The rate 

of groundwater sweep depends on the capacity of the deep disposal wells and the ability of the 

wellfield to sustain the withdrawal rate. The applicant may use a hydraulic barrier to prevent 

water from being drawn into a production area during the restoration phase from a production 

area in the extraction phase (Uranerz, 2007). 

2.2.1.4.3 Groundwater Treatment 

Groundwater treatment would occur either in conjunction with or following groundwater sweep. 

During the groundwater treatment phase of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, 

groundwater would be pumped from the area undergoing restoration to the processing facility 

and be passed through ion-exchange and reverse-osmosis treatment equipment. The 

ion-exchange columns would remove most of the soluble uranium. Either prior to or following 

ion exchange, groundwater would be passed through a decarbonation unit to remove residual 

carbon dioxide. During the reverse osmosis process, water would be forced through 

semipermeable membranes to remove the TDS and dissolved metals. Groundwater would be 

pretreated prior to passage through the reverse-osmosis system to avoid fouling the 

semipermeable membranes. The pH would be lowered, and chemicals to prevent mineral 

accumulation (antiscalants) would be added to the groundwater upstream of the reverseosmosis unit to prevent precipitation of minerals (particularly calcium carbonate). The reverseosmosis process would yield two fluids: treated water (permeate: about 70 percent) that could 

be reinjected into the aquifer and water with concentrated ions (brine: about 30 percent). The 

applicant proposed to either reinject the treated water or to store it for use in other parts of the 

production process. The brine would be disposed of via the Class I injection wells 

(Uranerz, 2007). 

Before the treated water is reinjected into the production aquifer, the applicant could add a 

chemical reductant (sulfite or sulfite compound) to the injection stream (Uranerz, 2007). The 

reductant creates a reducing environment in the ore zone, thereby decreasing the potential 

concentration of oxidation-reduction-sensitive elements (e.g., arsenic, molybdenum, selenium, 

uranium, and vanadium). The concentration and quantity of reductant injected into the ore zone 

undergoing restoration would be determined by how the groundwater reacts with the reductant. 

The applicant has committed to developing a comprehensive safety plan and to implement it 

before using a reductant. The applicant may also consider using biological restoration to 

achieve groundwater restoration (Uranerz, 2007). As stated in the NRC’s safety evaluation 

report, if the applicant chose this groundwater restoration technique, it would submit a detailed 

plan to NRC staff for review and approval. 

Make-up water (which could come from water from a wellfield in a more advanced state of 

restoration, water being exchanged with a new wellfield production area, or water from a 

different aquifer) would be added to the injection stream to control the volume of bleed, or 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-29 

consumed water, in the restoration area. The number of pore volumes treated and reinjected 

during this phase would depend on the efficiency of returning the production area back to 

pre-ISR baseline water quality conditions and the efficiency of the reverse osmosis process to 

remove contaminants (Uranerz, 2007). The rate of restoration in this phase would also be 

limited by the capacity of the deep disposal wells. NRC staff estimated the total volume of 

extraction solution as approximately 258,256 m3 [68,224 gal] per pore volume for the Nichols 

Ranch Unit and approximately 177,709 m3 [46,946 gal] per pore volume for the Hank Unit. 

2.2.1.4.4 Monitoring and Stabilization 

During aquifer restoration, lixiviant injection ceases and groundwater transfer, sweep, and 

treatment are used to attempt to restore the production aquifer groundwater quality to original 

background levels. Therefore, the possibility of an excursion is lessened and the frequency of 

sampling the monitoring wells can be reduced. During aquifer restoration, the applicant would 

sample the lateral and overlying and underlying aquifer monitoring wells once every 60 days for 

the excursion parameters of chloride, total alkalinity, and conductivity. The applicant would also 

measure static water levels prior to sampling (Uranerz, 2007). 

Restoration is complete when the applicant can demonstrate the groundwater quality in the 

production aquifer meets the regulatory groundwater protection standards and is stable. NRC 

regulations require the groundwater quality be returned to the standards identified in 10 CFR 

Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). Those standards are either baseline; equivalent to the 

MCLs provided in the table in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5C; equivalent to or an 

ACL NRC established in accordance with Criterion 5B(6). In accordance with this criterion, the 

applicant may propose ACLs, subject to NRC approval, when background concentrations or 

values listed in Table 5C are not practically achievable at the site and no substantial hazard to 

human health or the environment would be presented. A licensee would provide the bases 

required in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(6) for the ACLs, including consideration of 

practicable corrective actions, and must show that the ACLs are as low as is reasonably 

achievable. The NRC process for reviewing and approving ACLs is described in Appendix C. 

When the groundwater protection standard is reached, a licensee must demonstrate that the 

constituent concentrations are stable for four consecutive quarters (no statistically increasing 

trends). To demonstrate stability, a licensee would sample production aquifer wells on a 

quarterly basis and evaluate the data trends for the following parameters: 

• Bicarbonate • Dissolved lead • Nitrogen, Ammonia as N 

• Calcium • Dissolved manganese • Nitrate + Nitrite as N 

• Carbonate • Dissolved mercury • pH 

• Chloride • Dissolved molybdenum • Potassium 

• Conductivity • Dissolved nickel • Radium-226 (pCi/L) 

• Dissolved aluminum • Dissolved selenium • Radium-228 (pCi/L) 

• Dissolved arsenic • Dissolved uranium • Silica 

• Dissolved barium • Dissolved vanadium • Sodium 

• Dissolved boron • Dissolved zinc • Sulfate 

• Dissolved cadmium • Fluoride •Total Dissolved Solids 

• Dissolved chromium • Gross alpha (pCi/L) • Total iron 

• Dissolved copper • Gross beta (pCi/L) • Total manganese 

• Dissolved iron • Magnesium 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-30 

The perimeter ring monitoring wells would also be sampled once every 2 months and analyzed 

for the UCL parameters of chloride, total alkalinity, and conductivity (Uranerz, 2010a). 

2.2.1.4.5 Schedule 

The applicant estimated the duration of wellfield groundwater restoration in each of the 

production areas at each unit would range from 1 to 5 years. There would be some overlap 

between the restoration activities and operation activities of certain wellfields at the Nichols 

Ranch and Hank Units, because of the staggered wellfield production schedule, as shown in 

Figure 2-1. The applicant estimated approximately 20 workers would be needed during the 

restoration phase (Uranerz, 2007). 

2.2.1.5 Decontamination, Decommissioning, and Reclamation Activities 

The decommissioning of an ISR facility would be based on an NRC-approved decommissioning 

plan. GEIS Section 2.6 describes the general process for decontamination, decommissioning, 

and reclamation of an ISR facility (NRC, 2009). A licensee would be required by 40 CFR Part 

40.42 (d) to submit a detailed decommissioning plan to NRC for review and approval at least 

12 months before the planned commencement of final decommissioning. When approved, this 

plan would amend the license and initiate the decommissioning process. If an ISR facility is 

located on lands administered by BLM or other surface management agencies, other 

reclamation standards could be applicable. 

Prior to release of the property for unrestricted use, the licensee would conduct a 

comprehensive radiation survey to establish that any contamination is within limits identified in 

10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. A licensee would be required to return all lands to their previous 

land use, unless an alternative was justified and approved by both the state and landowner. For 

example, a rancher could decide to retain access roads. As part of the decommissioning and 

reclamation process, wells would be plugged and abandoned, disturbed lands would be 

reclaimed, contaminated equipment and materials would be removed, appropriate cleanup 

criteria for structures would be determined, items to be released for unrestricted use would be 

decontaminated to meet NRC requirements, and surveys would be performed to determine 

whether there was residual contamination in soils and structures. The following sections 

describe the general decommissioning activities that would occur at the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project. 

2.2.1.5.1 Radiological Surveys and Contamination Control 

Uranerz would conduct a preremediation radiological survey of soils, structures, and equipment 

to identify areas on the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site that would need to be cleaned 

up to the applicable regulatory limits (Uranerz, 2007). The decommissioning surveys would 

assist a licensee in determining how to dispose of contaminated soils, structures, and 

other materials. 

2.2.1.5.2 Wellfields 

All production, injection, monitoring wells, and drill holes would be plugged and abandoned in 

accordance with WDEQ regulations. Wells would be plugged with a gel specifically designed 

for well abandonment. The casing would be cut off at the surface and plugged with 

well-abandonment gel from total depth to within 1.5 m [5 ft] of the collar. Either a cement or 

plastic plug would be placed at the top of the well casing. Wellfield decommissioning would 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-31 

remove wellfield piping, well heads, and associated equipment. The wellfield piping, well heads, 

and associated equipment would be taken to a new production area if still usable. Equipment 

that could not be reused would be gamma surveyed and stored in either a contaminated or 

noncontaminated temporary storage area located near the central processing plant or satellite 

facility until disposal. If the final production area was being reclaimed, the unsalvageable 

contaminated piping, well heads, and associated equipment would be disposed of at an 

NRC-approved disposal facility. Uranerz has identified several low-level waste disposal sites: 

EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah; the uranium mill tailings site at Pathfinder-Shirley Basin in Mills, 

Wyoming; and White Mesa in Blanding, Utah (Uranerz, 2007). 

The applicant would provide a land reclamation plan to NRC for review and approval within 

12 months of wellfield reclamation beginning. The plan would include a description of the areas 

to be reclaimed, a description of the planned reclamation activities, a description of radiation 

protection methods for workers and the environment, a description of the planned final radiation 

survey, and a cost estimate (Uranerz, 2007). 

2.2.1.5.3 Process Buildings and Equipment and Other Structures 

According to Uranerz Technical Report Section 6.2.2 (2007), the Nichols Ranch Unit central 

processing plant, the Hank Unit satellite facility, and auxiliary facilities associated with both units 

would be decommissioned following completion of groundwater restoration in the final 

production area. All process equipment associated with the processing plant and satellite 

facility would be dismantled and either sold to another NRC-licensed facility or decontaminated 

in accordance with NRC regulations and guidance documents. Materials unable to be 

decontaminated would be disposed of at one of the NRC-approved facilities described in 

Section 2.2.1.5. Decontaminated materials would be reused, sold, or removed and disposed of 

offsite depending on the type of material, as further discussed in Section 2.2.1.5 of the SEIS. 

After buildings are removed, the former building sites would be contoured to blend in with the 

surrounding terrain. Gamma surveys would be conducted to verify that radiation levels were 

within acceptable NRC limits. The applicant would provide a decommissioning plan to NRC for 

review and approval within 12 months of wellfield reclamation beginning (Uranerz, 2007). 

2.2.1.5.4 Engineered Structures and Site Roads 

The site access and wellfield access roads would either be reclaimed or left in place when 

operations ceased, depending on the landowner. For those roads located on BLM lands, BLM 

would require complete reclamation. The scoria or gravel on the reclaimed road surface would 

be removed, and topsoil would be reapplied and then mulched and seeded (Uranerz, 2007). 

2.2.1.5.5 Final Contouring and Revegetation 

Topsoil salvaged during construction would be reapplied during reclamation. Surface 

disturbances would be contoured to blend in with the natural terrain. The stockpiled topsoil 

would be surrounded by a berm at its base and seeded with a mixture of Western Wheatgrass 

and Thickspike Wheatgrass to reduce sediment runoff. During final revegetation of the project, 

the area would be reseeded with a native seed mixture private landowners and WDEQ-LQD 

approved. For non-BLM-administered surface lands, the applicant’s proposed reclamation seed 

mix would be a combination of Western Wheatgrass, Revenue Slender Wheatgrass, Bozoisky 

Russian Wildrye, Greenleaf Pubescent, Gulf Annual Ryegrass, Yellow Blossom Sweet Clover, 

and Ladak 65 Alfalfa. For BLM-administered surface lands, the seed mix would include a 

combination of Thickspike Wheatgrass, Western Wheatgrass, Bluebunch Wheatgrass, Green 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-32 

Needlegrass, American Vetch, White or Purple Prairie Clover, Lewis, Winterfat, and Fourwing 

Saltbush. The seed mix would be applied at a rate of 7 to 14 kg [15 to 30 lb] per acre using a 

rangeland drill. Final revegetation and bond release for all the land within the proposed project 

area would be determined by the WDEQ-LQD (Uranerz, 2007). 

2.2.1.5.6 Schedule 

The applicant estimated that site 

reclamation of each wellfield 

production unit would range from 1 to 

2 years (Uranerz, 2007) with some 

overlap between the site reclamation 

activities and the groundwater 

restoration activities at the Nichols 

Ranch and Hank Units, as shown in 

Figure 2-1. 

2.2.1.6 Effluents and Waste 

Management 

ISR facility operations generate 

various types of effluents and waste. 

This section describes the types and 

volumes of effluents or wastes that 

operations the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project would generate. 

The textbox below defines the different 

liquid and solid wastes that would be 

generated. The proposed methods 

and locations for liquid and solid waste 

disposal are described in Section 3.13 

of the SEIS, and the impacts from 

generating and disposing of these 

wastes are described in Section 4.14 

of the SEIS. Air quality and air 

emission impacts are discussed in 

Sections 3.7 and 4.7 of the SEIS. 

2.2.1.6.1 Gaseous and Airborne 

Particulate Emissions 

Gaseous and particulate emissions 

generated during the lifetime of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

would primarily consist of fugitive 

dusts, combustion engine exhausts, 

and radon gas emissions from various 

stages of the processing system. 

Uranium airborne particulate emissions from yellowcake drying would be zero to near zero due 

to the use of the rotary vacuum drying process the applicant proposes. The vacuum draws 

solids and water vapor inward. No particulate emissions would be expected under normal 

The terms below define the various types of solid 

and liquid wastes generated at the Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project:

Liquid wastes

Liquid byproduct material (all liquid wastes 

resulting from the proposed action except for 

sanitary wastewater and well development and 

testing wastewater)

Sanitary Wastewater [ordinary sanitary 

(septic system) wastewater; this wastewater is 

nonhazardous, non-byproduct material 

wastewater]

Well development and testing wastewaters

(wastewater generated during well development 

and pumping tests; this water is nonhazardous, 

non-byproduct material wastewater and would not 

require treatment before disposal)

Solid wastes

Solid byproduct material (all solid wastes resulting 

from the proposed action that exceed NRC limits 

in 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release)

Nonhazardous solid waste [nonhazardous, solid 

waste, including domestic/municipal wastes 

(trash), construction/demolition debris, septic 

solids, and solid byproduct material resulting from 

the proposed action (e.g., equipment, soils) that 

has been determined to meet NRC criteria in 

10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release]

Solid hazardous waste (Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act or state-defined hazardous 

waste that is non-byproduct material and includes 

universal hazardous wastes)
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-33 

operating conditions for the proposed vacuum dryer. With the prevailing wind direction out of 

the south-southwest during the day time, airborne emissions from the Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project would generally blow in the northeast direction (Uranerz, 2007). 

2.2.1.6.1.1 Fugitive Dust and Diesel Emissions 

Fugitive dusts and engine exhausts would be generated primarily from construction equipment 

and vehicular traffic. Construction equipment emissions would be generated within the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site primarily during the construction and decommissioning 

phases, and vehicle emissions would occur on and off the project site during all four 

ISR phases. 

Travel on unpaved roads and disturbed land associated with the construction of wellfields, 

roads, and auxiliary facilities would generate fugitive dust. Using methods from EPA (1996) and 

estimated annual unpaved road traffic from the proposed action, the applicant estimates 

approximately 123 t [136 T] of fugitive dust would be emitted annually during the construction 

and operation phases of the project and approximately 99 t [109 T] of fugitive dust would be 

emitted annually during the decommissioning and aquifer restoration stages (Uranerz, 2007). 

The applicant expects that negligible amounts of fugitive dust would be generated from the soil 

disturbance during well construction based on its estimate that topsoil would be stripped from 

40 ha [100 ac] or less (Uranerz, 2007). The applicant proposes to maintain access roads via 

motorized patrol and to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation when possible to minimize 

wind erosion. 

Workers’ vehicles commuting to and from the project site, trucks transporting construction 

materials and product, drill rigs, diesel-powered water trucks, and other construction equipment 

generate combustion engine exhaust. The NRC staff calculated emissions from diesel 

combustion engines in drilling rigs and construction equipment used predominantly during the 

construction and decommissioning phases, detailed in Appendix D. These calculations 

evaluated emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), 

particulate matter (PM10), formaldehyde, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and carbon 

dioxide (CO2). Results indicate CO2 and NOx have the highest emissions of the pollutants 

evaluated. Based on the applicant’s proposed schedule for wellfield construction during the first 

year (construction of the first wellfield and a portion of the second wellfield) and an NRC staff 

assumption that the applicant would drill four deep disposal wells in the first year, the 

calculated annual CO2 and NOx emissions during the construction phase are 1,541 and 31 t/yr 

[1,700 and 34 T/yr]. The results of the NRC staff emission calculations indicate the drilling of 

deep wells contributes a high proportion to the total emissions during construction. Therefore, if 

the applicant chose to drill all eight proposed deep wells in the first year, the calculated 

emissions increase to 2,810 t/yr [3,100 T/yr] CO2 and 53 t/yr [58 T/yr] NOx. The NRC emissions 

calculations for the decommissioning phase are based, in part, on the applicant’s proposed 

schedule for plant and wellfield decommissioning (Figure 2-1). The maximum calculated annual 

emissions (considering overlapping wellfield reclamation activities) of CO2 and NOx during the 

decommissioning phase are 680 and 18 t/yr [750 and 20 T/yr]. These calculated annual 

emissions for the decommissioning phase are lower than the aforementioned annual emissions 

calculated for construction, in part because decommissioning activities would not involve drilling 

and the associated emissions from drilling equipment. Approximations of the total CO2 and 

NOx emissions from construction of all proposed wellfields and deep disposal wells and 

reclamation of the wellfields and all surface facilities are 5,712 and 132 t/yr [6,300 and 146 T/yr]. 

Results for all of the diesel engine emissions calculations are provided in Appendix D. Mobile 

road (vehicle) combustion emissions were not calculated, because these engine emissions are 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-34 

controlled at the source by mandated emission controls, and the magnitude of proposed road 

vehicle activity is small relative to existing road traffic (SEIS Section 4.3). 

2.2.1.6.1.2 Radioactive Emissions 

In its license application, the applicant described radon gas (Rn-222) as the principal gaseous 

radioactive airborne effluent at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (Uranerz, 2007). The 

applicant stated Rn-222 would be released in the wellfield when the pregnant lixiviant is brought 

to the surface from the ore zone aquifer. Specific Rn-222 sources addressed in the license 

application included wellfield drilling, production, operation of the central processing plant and 

satellite facility, resin transfer operations, and aquifer restoration activities. The applicant 

calculated the potential Rn-222 emissions from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

(Uranerz, 2007) using methods documented in NRC Regulatory Guide 3.59. The NRC staff 

assumed the highest annual Rn-222 releases occur when multiple, concurrent release activities 

occurred during a single year. Based on the proposed phased implementation of operations at 

each unit (Uranerz, 2007) and the proposed two wellfields per unit, the NRC staff selected the 

highest annual Rn-222 emissions from these results: approximately 28 TBq/yr [755 Ci/yr] for 

the combined operations of the Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit wellfields. As described 

in GEIS Section 2.7.1, radon gas quickly disperses in air. Additional information on proposed 

offsite radon emissions and the evaluation of potential impacts to the public is provided in SEIS 

Section 4.13.1.2.1. 

The applicant has proposed the use of general area and local ventilation systems to help control 

radon buildup within onsite facilities. During operations, for example, the applicant has 

proposed to release radon gas when the downflow ion-exchange columns are taken offline for 

resin transfer and opened to the atmosphere. General area ventilation would involve forced air 

ventilation of work areas in process buildings (Uranerz, 2007). Local ventilation is proposed for 

process vessels where radon releases would be more likely. The applicant stated the proposed 

local ventilation would involve ducting or piping near the point of release and fans that exhaust 

to the outside. Additional information on proposed in-facility radon emissions and the evaluation 

of potential impacts to workers is provided in SEIS Section 4.13.1.2.1. 

A potential source of airborne particulate emissions at an ISR facility is from yellowcake drying 

operations. The applicant has proposed using a vacuum yellowcake dryer located at the 

Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant. As described in NUREG/CR–6733 (NRC, 2001), a 

vacuum dryer utilizes a heating source that is contained in a separate, isolated system so no 

radioactive materials are entrained in the heating system or the exhaust it generates. The 

system proposed by the applicant would include a drying chamber containing yellowcake slurry 

that would operate at negative pressure, a baghouse filtration system under negative pressure 

that discharges back to the drying chamber, a post-baghouse condenser system that captures 

residual particulate in the gas stream, and instrumentation to monitor drying and packaging 

operations that would provide an audible and/or visible alarm if the vacuum level exceeded 

specifications (Uranerz, 2007). The NRC guidance in NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003a) for 

evaluating air emissions from an ISL facility states dust emissions from drying may be assumed 

to be negligible if a vacuum dryer is used for yellowcake. 

2.2.1.6.2 Liquid Wastes 

The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would generate liquid waste from production bleed, 

restoration, miscellaneous plant wastewater, and domestic liquid waste. These wastes are 

described as either liquid byproduct material or other liquid wastes. 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-35 

Liquid byproduct materials are generated during the uranium recovery process (NRC, 2000). 

Such effluents include liquid from maintaining a production bleed, process solutions, washdown 

water, and accidental releases during operations. 

Liquid byproduct materials would be disposed in Class I deep disposal wells located near the 

central processing plant and satellite facility. These wells would be approximately 2,326 to 

2,652 m [7,630 to 8,700 ft] below ground surface at the Nichols Ranch Unit and approximately 

2,360 to 2,652 m [7,740 to 8,700 ft] below ground surface at the Hank Unit (Uranerz, 2007). 

The deep disposal well design is shown in Figure 2-12. Restoration water would be treated by 

reverse osmosis and then reinjected into the production area undergoing restoration 

(Uranerz, 2007). Restoration water bleed would also be disposed of via the Class I deep 

disposal wells. The WDEQ application for the deep disposal wells states that the average daily 

injection rate would not exceed a total of 568 Lpm [150 gpm] for the Nichols Ranch Unit 

disposal well(s). The same average daily injection total rate of 568 Lpm [150 gpm] applies for 

the Hank Unit disposal well(s) (Uranerz, 2010a). If NRC issues a license, it will contain a 

license condition requiring the applicant to install adequate deep disposal well capacity prior to 

the commencement of operations of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The applicant would obtain 

a UIC permit from WDEQ, which has regulatory authority for the program as authorized by EPA, 

to issue Class I disposal well permits. The applicant has submitted an application to WDEQ for 

eight deep disposal wells, four wells at each the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units (Uranerz, 

2010b). 

A small amount of uncontaminated wastewater would result from well development and well 

pump testing. This water would not need treatment and would be discharged to the ground 

surface in accordance with a WYPDES permit (Uranerz, 2007). 

Sanitary wastewater would also be generated from restrooms and lunchrooms. Sanitary 

wastewater would be disposed of in onsite septic systems. The applicant estimated the 

proposed septic systems would be located south of the Nichols Ranch Unit central processing 

plant and north of the Hank Unit satellite facility. They would be designed to accommodate an 

estimated maximum of 55 employees at each unit. The applicant would obtain a county permit 

to construct the septic systems from the county in which the unit is located (Uranerz, 2007). 

Storm water runoff would also need to be managed at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

Facility drainage would be designed to route storm water runoff away from or around the 

processing facilities, ancillary buildings, chemical storage buildings, and parking areas. Federal 

and State agencies regulate the discharge of both storm water runoff and the discharge of 

wastewater to surface waters through their permitting processes (Uranerz, 2007). The status of 

obtaining a storm water permit for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, as required under 

the Clean Water Act and WDEQ regulations, is summarized in Table 1-2 of the SEIS. 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-36 

Figure 2-12. Deep Disposal Well Design 

Source: Uranerz (2007) 

2.2.1.6.3 Solid Wastes 

As discussed in GEIS Section 2.7.3, all phases of the operational lifecycle of an ISR facility 

would generate solid byproduct material and nonhazardous solid wastes (NRC, 2009). 

Byproduct material could include spent resin, empty chemical containers and packaging, pipes 

and fittings, tank sediments, contaminated soils from leaks and spills, and contaminated 

construction and demolition debris. Nonhazardous solid wastes would include septic solid 

waste, municipal solid waste (general trash), and other solid wastes. 

Solid byproduct material is material that does not meet the NRC criteria for unrestricted release 

(including any soils contaminated from the operations). This material must be disposed of at a 

licensed disposal site in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 2. 

The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is estimated to generate approximately 46 to 69 m3

[60 to 90 yd3

] of solid byproduct material annually from facility operations (Uranerz, 2007). 

Based on the use of covered roll-off containers with a nominal capacity of 15 m3

 [20 yd3], up to 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-37 

five solid byproduct material shipments would occur per year. NRC staff calculated the highest 

volume of solid byproduct material that could be annually generated from decommissioning 

activities based primarily on information provided in the applicant’s surety estimate 

(Uranerz, 2007) as 2,485 m3

 [3,250 yd3] plus an additional 240 t [270 T] of concrete demolition 

material. This estimate includes materials resulting from removal of facilities and equipment, 

wellfield equipment and piping, and removal of any contaminated soils that do not meet NRC 

limits for unrestricted release. Because the occurrence of wellfield spills and leaks varies 

among sites, the NRC staff estimated the contaminated soil volume for each well in a wellfield 

based on review of a similar licensed ISR facility (PRI, 2007). Because the applicant is 

proposing to construct four wellfields, the NRC staff estimates that the cumulative solid 

byproduct material from decommissioning the plant facilities and all wellfields (over a planned 

5-year period) would be 8,731 m3

 [11,410 yd3] plus 245 t [270 T] of concrete. 

The applicant does not have an agreement in place with a licensed site to accept the applicant’s 

solid byproduct material for disposal. However, a license condition will require that the applicant 

have an agreement in place prior to operations to dispose byproduct material. The applicant 

has considered disposal at Pathfinder-Shirley Basin in Mills, Wyoming; Energy Solutions in 

Clive, Utah; and White Mesa in Blanding, Utah. 

According to the license application, solid wastes that are nonhazardous and which either are 

nonradioactive or comply with NRC unrestricted release limits (hereafter referred to as 

nonhazardous solid waste) would be collected onsite in designated areas and disposed of in the 

Campbell County Landfill in the City of Gillette. The applicant estimated (Uranerz, 2007) 

approximately 540 to 770 m3

 [700 to 1,000 yd3] of nonhazardous solid waste would annually be 

generated by the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. NRC staff calculated the volume of 

nonhazardous solid wastes that could be generated annually from decommissioning activities 

based primarily on information provided in the applicant’s surety estimate (Uranerz, 2007) as 

917 m3

 [1,200 yd3] plus an additional 2,074 t [2,288 T] of concrete demolition material. This 

estimate includes materials resulting from removal of facilities and equipment and wellfield 

equipment that does not contain radioactive materials or that meets NRC limits for unrestricted 

release. Because the applicant is proposing to construct four wellfields, the NRC staff 

estimated the cumulative solid waste volume from decommissioning the plant facilities and all 

wellfields (over a planned 5-year period) at 941 m3

 [1,230 yd3] plus 2,074 t [2,288 T] of concrete. 

This cumulative estimate is similar to the single wellfield estimated nonhazardous solid waste 

because the applicant’s surety assumed most of the wellfield decommissioning waste would be 

solid byproduct material. Therefore, increasing the number of wellfields reclaimed for the 

cumulative (i.e., facility lifecycle) estimate proportionately increased the amount of byproduct 

material but did not increase the amount of nonhazardous solid waste. The nonhazardous solid 

waste in the aforementioned estimates originated from central plant facilities decommissioning. 

The applicant did not identify hazardous wastes that would be generated by the proposed 

project. Based on the operations and waste types generated at similar ISR facilities, NRC 

anticipates that the facility would be classified as a conditionally exempt small quantity 

generator of hazardous waste (CESQG), under RCRA and Wyoming regulations. This 

classification does not require a permit or license from WDEQ. A CESQG (i) must determine 

whether its waste is hazardous; (ii) must not generate more than 100 kg [220 lb] per month of 

hazardous waste or, except with regard to spills, more than 1 kg [2.2 lb] of acutely hazardous 

waste; (iii) may not accumulate more than 1,000 kg [2,205 lb]of hazardous waste onsite at any 

time; and (iv) must treat or dispose of its hazardous waste in a treatment storage or disposal 

(TSD) facility that meets specific requirements of 40 CFR 261.5. If the facility fails to meet these 

four criteria, it would lose CESQG status and be fully regulated as either a small-quantity 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-38 

generator {more than 100 [220] but less than 1,000 kg [2,205 lb] of nonacute hazardous waste 

per calendar month} or a large-quantity generator {at least 1,000 kg [2,205 lb] nonacute 

hazardous waste per calendar month}. Any hazardous waste, such as organic solvents, paints, 

waste oil and paint thinners, empty chemical containers, tank sediments/sludges, chemical 

waste, and spent batteries, would be disposed of in accordance with a management program 

that the facility would develop to meet applicable local, State, and Federal regulatory 

requirements. The Campbell County Landfill is permitted to accept hazardous waste 

for disposal. 

2.2.1.7 Transportation 

GEIS Section 2.8 discusses transportation activities for ISR facilities (NRC, 2009). Primary 

transportation activities would involve truck shipping and commuting workers. A variety of truck 

shipments are planned during all phases of the facility lifecycle to support the proposed 

activities. Construction equipment and materials, operational processing supplies, 

ion-exchange resins, yellowcake product, and waste materials would be shipped. 

Earth-moving equipment, such as rubber tire scrapers and front-end loaders, would be used 

during construction. 

During the construction and operation phases of the proposed project, the applicant estimated 

traffic volumes as consisting of eight passenger vehicles (standard light-duty trucks or 3⁄4-ton 

trucks, gas or diesel fuel) per day per week along with six tractor-trailers (diesel) per week 

(Uranerz, 2007). During the aquifer restoration phase, the applicant expected the traffic volume 

would decrease because there would be fewer workers, fewer yellowcake shipments would be 

expected, and there would be fewer chemical and supply shipments compared to the 

construction and operation phases. The decommissioning phase would be similar to the 

construction phase,, and most of the truck traffic during that phase would involve shipping waste 

materials offsite. 

NRC staff estimated the annual and average daily number of shipments from the proposed 

decommissioning activities based on the calculated volume of decommissioning solid wastes 

discussed in Section 2.2.1.6.3. of the SEIS and the waste volume per shipment. About 

340 waste shipments would occur, assuming the applicant completed decommissioning and 

reclamation of a single wellfield and of all the surface facilities in a single year. Approximately 

half of the waste shipments would go to a landfill, and the other half would go to a licensed 

byproduct material disposal facility. Assuming the disposal facilities accept shipments 5 days 

per week, shipments would occur throughout the year, and each shipment would result in 

2 one-way truck trips, the contribution to the annual average daily traffic volume would be 

approximately 1.3 truck roundtrips per day and about 6.5 shipments per week or 13 one-way 

trips per week. This is comparable to the applicant’s estimate of six tractor-trailers per week for 

truck traffic during the construction and operation phase at the site. 

2.2.1.8 Financial Surety 

As stated in GEIS Section 2.10, NRC regulations [10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion (9)] 

require applicants to cover costs to conduct decommissioning, reclamation of disturbed areas, 

waste disposal, dismantling, disposal of all facilities including buildings and wellfields, and 

groundwater restoration. The applicant would be required to maintain financial surety 

arrangements to cover such costs for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The initial 

surety estimate would be based on the first year of operation, which includes the construction of 

the Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant, startup of the Nichols Ranch Unit production 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-39 

area #1, construction of the Hank Unit satellite facility, and startup of the Hank Unit production 

area #1. NRC and WDEQ would require annual revisions to financial surety to cover existing 

and planned operations and existing and planned construction. When NRC, WDEQ-LQD, and 

Uranerz have agreed to the estimate, the applicant would submit a reclamation performance 

bond, irrevocable letter of credit, or other surety instrument to NRC and WDEQ-LQD. NRC 

reviews financial surety in detail as part of its review for the Safety Evaluation Report (SER). 

For additional information on financial surety requirements, see 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A 

and GEIS Section 2.10. 

2.2.2 Alternative Wastewater Disposal Options 

Liquid wastes would be generated during the operations and aquifer restoration phases of the 

lifecycle for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. These wastes are considered byproduct 

materials and must be managed and disposed of in compliance with applicable state and 

federal regulations, as established by license and permit. The applicant states the normal 

operational waste stream would be nonhazardous under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA). Predominantly, the liquid waste stream would consist of the following: 

 Process bleed ranging from 1 to 3 percent of the total water extracted from the 

ore horizon 

 Effluents from the central processing plant and satellite facility, such as process drains, 

elution circuit bleed, and washdown water 

 Wellfield purge water 

 Ion exchange and reverse-osmosis reject brines produced during aquifer restoration. 

Of these, the process bleed would be the largest component during operations. The applicant 

estimates operational wastewater that would ultimately need disposal could be as much as 

150 L/min [40 gal/min] for the Nichols Ranch Unit, and 280 L/min [75 gal/min] for the Hank Unit. 

Other operations’ effluent streams would comprise about 3.8 to 7.6 L/min [1 to 2 gal/min]. 

During the aquifer restoration phase, the majority of the liquid waste would consist of discharge 

from the ion exchange and/or reverse-osmosis processes used to treat groundwater. The 

applicant estimated that the total would increase to a maximum of about 340 L/min [90 gal/min] 

for disposal in each unit (Uranerz, 2007). 

Wastewater disposal via deep injection in a UIC Class I well is discussed in Section 2.2.1.6.2 of 

this SEIS. The applicant submitted its UIC permit application for the Nichols Ranch and Hank 

Units to WDEQ for review. The application states that the average daily injection rate would not 

exceed a total of 568 Lpm [150 gpm] for the Nichols Ranch Unit disposal well(s), and that this 

same rate applies for the Hank Unit disposal well(s) (Uranerz, 2010a). 

If the applicant fails to receive a UIC permit from WDEQ, then a licensee must apply for an 

amendment to utilize another disposal method. The NRC must approve the amendment 

request before the applicant initiates ISR operations. Though alternative wastewater disposal 

options were not proposed in the license application, NRC discussed alternative wastewater 

disposal options (described in the GEIS) and provides the following expanded discussion of 

these options. Table 2-1 compares the various options. The analysis of potential environmental 

impacts is discussed in Section 4.1.1.2 of the SEIS but is not included in the comparison of 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-40 

alternatives in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 considers the applicant’s proposed wastewater disposal 

option to use a Class 1 UIC injection well. 

Historically, ISR facilities have used several other methods to manage and dispose of liquid 

effluent. These other methods include solar evaporation ponds, land application, and surface 

water discharge. The following sections consider these disposal options, as well as disposal via 

injection through UIC Class V wells (NRC, 2003a). Characteristics of each of these different 

wastewater disposal options are summarized in Table 2-1. 

2.2.2.1 Evaporation Ponds 

One commonly used method to dispose of liquid wastes is to pump the liquids to one or more 

ponds and allow for natural solar radiation to reduce the volume through evaporation. The 

waste streams are usually treated prior to being discharged into evaporation ponds, but 

radionuclides and other metals may still be present, which will concentrate as the liquids 

evaporate. The basic design criteria for an evaporation pond system are contained in 10 CFR 

Part 40, Appendix A. The location of the pond(s), design, and construction of the necessary 

clay or geotextile liner systems and embankments for the ponds, as well as pond inspection and 

maintenance, would be conducted in accordance with NRC regulations and established by NRC 

license conditions as necessary. NRC Regulatory Guide 3.11, “Design, Construction, and 

Inspection of Embankment Retention Systems at Uranium Recovery Facilities” can assist the 

applicant (NRC, 2008). The siting and design of any impoundments would also take into 

account applicable EPA requirements at 40 CFR Part 264 (NRC, 2008). WSEO also has state 

permitting authority for new impoundments. 

The effectiveness of this wastewater disposal option will depend on the evaporation rate 

compared to the rate at which liquid wastes are generated. The evaporation rate varies 

seasonally, depending on temperature and relative humidity; the rate tends to be highest during 

warm, dry conditions and is lower under cool, humid conditions. If the evaporation rate is low or 

the seasonal conditions favoring evaporation are short in duration, the operator can compensate 

to some extent by increasing the size, and therefore the surface area, of the evaporation 

pond(s). Historically, the area of an individual evaporation pond at uranium ISR facilities has 

ranged from about 0.04 to 2.5 ha [0.1 to 6.2 ac] (NRC, 1997, 1998a, 1998b; Cohen and 

Associates, 2008b), although these areas are for facilities that use a combination of waste 

disposal methods. 

Regulatory requirements in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W limit maximum lined uranium mill 

tailings impoundments to 16.2 ha [40 ha], although these tailings ponds are intended for a 

somewhat different purpose. The total footprint of the evaporation pond system for all liquid 

waste streams has been estimated as high as 40 ha [100 ac] (NRC, 1997). The estimated 

average annual evaporation rate from free water surfaces in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project is approximately 102 cm/yr [40 in/yr] (Wyoming State Climate Office, 2004). 

Using this estimate, the minimum total evaporation pond area needed to handle the anticipated 

wastewater volumes for the Nichols Ranch and Hanks Units combined would be about 23 to 

35 ha [56 to 87 ac]. Taking into account annual precipitation effectively reduces the evaporation 

rate, thus requiring the pond system to be about 25 percent larger. Also, additional storage 

areas would need to be built to facilitate wastewater transfer between ponds for maintenance or 

repair work. During the winter months in Wyoming where temperatures would be anticipated to 

be below freezing, the ponds could ice over, effectively reducing the evaporation to zero. To 

maintain year-round liquid disposal capability at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project facility, 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-41 

the NRC staff conclude Uranerz would need to have either sufficient storage capacity or at least 

one other disposal option (e.g., deep well injection, land application) available. 

To identify potential leaks into the subsurface from the evaporation pond system, the applicant 

would design, construct, and monitor a leak detection system and conduct routine inspections, 

typically on a daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis, with special inspections as described 

in NRC guidance (NRC, 2008). According to Regulatory Guide 3.11, an applicant’s design 

would need to incorporate freeboard (i.e., distance from the water level to top of the 

embankment) of about 1 to 2 m [3 to 6 ft], depending on the size of the individual pond, so 

precipitation or wind-driven waves would not result in overtopping of the embankment 

(NRC, 2008). Additionally, an applicant would need to maintain sufficient reserve capacity in 

the evaporation pond system to allow the entire contents of one or more pond(s) to be 

transferred to other ponds in the event of a leak and subsequent corrective action and liner 

repair (NRC, 2009). An applicant would also implement measures such as perimeter fencing 

and netting to protect humans and wildlife, as necessary. These measures would be 

established by license condition in the NRC license and enforced through the NRC 

inspection program. 

An applicant may also be subject to a National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) review by WDEQ to evaluate whether radionuclides such as radon released to the 

air from this option would meet the criteria in 40 CFR Part 61, in particular with respect to the 

provisions of Subpart W that incorporate the requirements of 40 CFR Part 192 (NRC, 2008; 

Cohen and Associates, 2008a). In developing the impoundment design, an applicant would 

need to comply with EPA regulations for surface impoundments in 40 CFR Part 264 

(NRC, 2008; Cohen and Associates, 2008b). 

Because pond(s) are open to the air, dust and dirt can be blown into them, and dissolved solids 

concentrations may increase through evaporation to the point where salts precipitate from the 

solution. The ponds may need periodic maintenance to clean and maintain good repair and to 

adjust to the necessary freeboard. The accumulated salts and solids would be disposed as 

byproduct material at an NRC-licensed disposal facility. Similarly, when the operations and 

aquifer restoration phases end, the pond liners and any accumulated materials would be 

disposed of as byproduct material. As an example of decommissioning waste volumes, the 

amount of byproduct material generated during decommissioning and reclamation of 

evaporation ponds at the Smith Ranch ISR facility in Converse County, Wyoming, was 

estimated in 2007 at 52 m3

 [68 yd3] (NRC, 2009). 

2.2.2.2 Land Application 

Land application is a disposal technique that uses agricultural irrigation equipment to broadcast 

wastewater on a relatively large area of land for subsequent evaporation. Land application is 

authorized at several ISR facilities (NRC, 1995, 1998b). Water released in this fashion would 

require treatment to meet NRC release requirements in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and 

Appendix B, and WDEQ requirements imposed by a zero-release Wyoming Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System (WYPDES) permit (NRC, 2003a). Water, soils, and vegetation would be 

monitored on a regular basis established by license condition to ensure soil loadings and 

vegetation concentrations remained within permit limits (NRC, 1995, 2003a). 

Pretreatment of liquid wastes using ion-exchange columns, reverse osmosis, and precipitation 

of barium/radium sulfate is typically incorporated into this process to decrease uranium and 

radium levels. This pretreatment is necessary to meet regulatory release limits and to minimize 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-42 

the potential buildup of radionuclides in surface soils and vegetation. Despite pretreatment, 

however, liquid waste disposal by land application typically requires large areas to remain below 

release requirements. For example, the Crow Butte facility near Crawford, Nebraska, has 

identified about 40 ha [100 ac] as available for land application, if needed (NRC, 1998b), and 

the Highland Uranium Project in Converse County, Wyoming, identified two land application 

sites, each about 22 ha [54 ac] in area (NRC, 1995). Depending on how an applicant treated 

the wastewater prior to land application, this disposal option might have additional land 

requirements related to constructing radium-settling basins and storage reservoirs (NRC, 1995). 

The radium-settling basins would add to the required footprint for this disposal option. For 

example, radium-settling basins are typically on the order of 0.1 to 1.6 ha [0.25 to 4 ac] 

(NRC, 1995, 1997, 1998a); purge reservoirs for temporary storage of treated wastewater can be 

much larger, with a surface area on the order of 4 ha [10 ac] or more, depending on the terms of 

the necessary permit (NRC, 1998a). 

An additional EPA conducted NESHAP review is required to demonstrate that radionuclides 

such as radon released to the air from this option meet the 40 CFR Part 61 requirements. 

Calculations NRC staff performed for land application over an area of 42 ha [104 ac], assuming 

average wastewater concentrations of 37 Bq/m3

 [1 pCi/L] for radium and 1 mg/L [1 ppm] for 

uranium, indicated the potential doses would be below regulatory limits (NRC, 1997). Similarly, 

representative calculations for 7 years of land application to an area of 18.5 ha [46 ac] with an 

assumed wastewater application rate of 1,514 L/min [400 gal/min] estimated a radon flux of 

1.3 pCi/m2

-sec, not much greater than an assumed background of 1 pCi/m2-sec (NRC, 2003a, 

Appendix D). 

Areas used for land application would need to be included in decommissioning surveys at the 

end of the operation and aquifer restoration phases to ensure soil concentration limits would not 

be exceeded, potentially adding to the total amount of material for disposal at a licensed facility 

(NRC, 2003a). In addition, any pond liners and precipitated solids accumulated in a 

radium-settling basin system would need to be disposed of as byproduct material. For example, 

the annual amount of radium-bearing sludges generated in a 1.6-ha [4-ac] radium-settling basin 

was estimated to be about 22.4 m3

/yr [29.3 ft3/yr] (Powertech, 2009). 

2.2.2.3 Surface Water Discharge 

Another disposal method historically used at uranium ISR facilities is treatment of waste and 

discharge at the surface. Similar to land application, the water would need to be pretreated to 

meet NRC release requirements in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and Appendix B; the 

provisions of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A that require conformance with EPA regulations in 

40 CFR Part 440; and WDEQ requirements imposed by a zero-release WYPDES permit. The 

WYPDES permit would specify calculated limits to ensure the discharge does not violate water 

quality standards. WDEQ would not issue the permit if the discharge would cause or contribute 

to the violation of water quality standards. Specific requirements for uranium ISR facilities are 

provided in EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 440, Subpart C. Pretreatment of the liquid wastes 

using ion-exchange columns, reverse osmosis, and precipitation of barium/radium sulfate is 

typically incorporated into this process to decrease uranium and radium levels in the 

wastewater. As with the land application option, this treatment might require additional land for 

the construction of radium-settling basins and storage reservoirs (NRC, 2003a). 

The regulatory framework for wastewater disposal by surface discharge is complicated and 

requires an applicant to make the distinction between “process wastewater” generated during 

uranium recovery operations, and “mine wastewater” generated during aquifer restoration 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-43 

(NRC, 2003a). An applicant would need to develop storage capabilities, depending on whether 

it intended to maintain separate wastewater streams or commingle (mix) “process” and “mine” 

wastewater prior to treatment to 10 CFR Part 20 standards. In addition, an applicant would 

need to address any radioactivity at the discharge point or from storage facilities 

(tanks, impoundments), radium-settling basins, and related sludges as part of decommissioning 

the facility (NRC, 2003a; Cohen and Associates, 2008a). An applicant would not be allowed to 

discharge “process” wastewater to navigable waters of the United States in accordance with 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 440.34 (NRC, 2003a). 

2.2.2.4 Class V Injection Well 

The techniques employed in disposing of liquid wastes through a UIC Class V deep injection 

well would be similar to those for deep well injection of liquid wastes in a UIC Class I disposal 

well, as described in Section 2.2.1.6.2 of the SEIS. The main difference would be the nature of 

the permit (WDEQ, 2001). For disposal via a UIC Class V well, WDEQ regulations assume at 

least one USDW would underlie the potential injection zone. Furthermore, the waste stream to 

be injected could not be a hazardous waste. For this reason, an applicant would need to treat 

the wastewater to meet NRC release standards in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and 

Appendix B to ensure that all toxic substances remain at concentrations less than the WDEQ 

class-of-use standards or any federal primary drinking water standards, whichever is more 

stringent (WDEQ, 2001). Similar to land application and surface discharge, the wastewater 

would be pretreated using ion-exchange columns, reverse osmosis, and barium/radium sulfate, 

and potentially radium-settling basins to decrease the levels of uranium, radium, and other 

contaminants in the wastewater. As a result, an applicant would need to address storage 

facilities (tanks, impoundments) or radium-settling basins and sludges as part of 

decommissioning the facility (NRC, 2003a). In addition, the UIC Class V permit would require 

an applicant to implement a monitoring plan to ensure wastes were confined to the authorized 

injection zone (WDEQ, 2008). 

2.2.3 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, the NRC would not approve the license application for the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The No-Action alternative would result in Uranerz not 

constructing, operating, restoring the aquifer, or decommissioning the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project. No facilities, roads, or wellfields would be built and no pipeline would be laid, as 

described in Section 2.2.1.2 of the SEIS. No uranium would be recovered from the subsurface 

ore body; therefore, injection, production, and monitoring wells would not be installed to operate 

the facility. No lixiviant would be introduced in the subsurface, and no buildings would be 

constructed to process extracted uranium or store chemicals. Because no uranium would be 

recovered, neither aquifer restoration nor decommissioning activities would occur. No liquid or 

solid effluents would be generated. The No-Action alternative is included to provide a basis for 

comparing and evaluating the potential impacts of the other alternatives, including the 

proposed action. 

2.2.4 Modified Action—No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) 

Under this alternative, NRC would issue a license for the construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning of facilities for ISR uranium milling and processing for the 

Nichols Ranch Unit and not the Hank Unit. Thus, the project would consist of both extracting 

uranium and processing it at a central processing plant located at the Nichols Ranch Unit. The 

Hank Unit satellite facility, wellfields, access roads, and related infrastructure would not be 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-44 

developed. Thus, the potentially affected land surface area would range from approximately 

61 to 81 ha [150 to 200 ac] compared to the 120 ha [300 ac] that would be disturbed under the 

proposed action. The building and wellfield locations on the Nichols Ranch Unit and the access 

road connecting the buildings to existing ranch roads, described for the proposed action, would 

also be constructed under this alternative. Less land would be disturbed for wells, and less 

piping and associated structures would be needed for this alternative. The impacts from this 

alternative are further discussed in Chapter 4 of this SEIS. 

2.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 

As required by NRC regulations, the NRC staff considered other alternatives to the construction, 

operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project. The range of alternatives was determined by considering the purpose and need for the 

proposed action and the private party’s objectives to extract uranium from a particular ore body. 

Reasonable alternatives considered in a site-specific environmental review depend on the 

proposed action and site conditions. This section describes alternatives to the proposed action 

that were considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis for reasons described in the 

following sections. Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 describe different mining and associated milling 

alternatives for the proposed project site. Section 2.3.3 discusses the use of different lixiviant 

chemistry. Section 2.3.4 discusses the alternative where NRC would only issue Uranerz a 

license for the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of facilities for 

ISR uranium milling and processing for the Hank Unit but not the Nichols Ranch Unit. 

2.3.1 Conventional Mining and Milling at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project Site 

Uranium ore deposits at depth may be accessed either by open-pit (surface) mining or by 

underground mining techniques. Open-pit mining is used to exploit shallow ore deposits, which 

generally occur at depths of less than 170 m [550 ft] below ground surface (EPA, 2008a). To 

gain access to the deposit, the topsoil is first removed and may be stockpiled for later site 

reclamation, while the remainder of the material overlying the deposit (i.e., the overburden) can 

be removed via mechanical shovels and scrapers, trucks or loaders, or by blasting (EPA, 1995, 

2008a). The depth to which an ore body is surface mined depends on the ore grade, the nature 

of the overburden, and the ratio of the amount of overburden to be removed per extracted ore 

unit (EPA, 1995). 

Underground mining techniques vary depending on size, depth, orientation, grade of the ore 

body, stability of the subsurface strata, and economic factors (EPA, 1995, 2008a). In general, 

underground mining involves sinking a shaft near the ore body and then extending levels from 

the main shaft at different depths to access the ore. Ore and waste rock would be removed 

through shafts by elevators or by using trucks to carry these materials up inclines to the surface 

(EPA, 2008a). 

In addition, when the open pit or underground workings are established, the mine may need to 

be dewatered so the uranium ore can be extracted. Dewatering can be accomplished either by 

pumping directly from the open pit or through pumping of interceptor wells to lower the water 

table (EPA, 1995). The mine water likely would require treatment prior to discharge, due to 

contamination from radioactive constituents, metals, and suspended and dissolved solids. 

Discharge of these mine waters may have subsequent impacts to surface water drainages and 

sediments, as well as to near-surface sources of groundwater (EPA, 1995). 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-45 

Following the completion of mining, either by open-pit or underground techniques, the mine 

would be reclaimed. Stockpiled overburden can be reintroduced into the mine, either during 

extraction operations or following any topsoil reapplied to reestablish topography consistent with 

the surroundings. When dewatering ceases, the water table may rebound and fill portions of the 

open pit and underground workings. Historically, uranium mines have impacted local 

groundwater supplies and the waste materials from the mines have contaminated lands 

surrounding the mines (EPA, 2008b). 

Ore extracted from the open-pit or underground mine would be processed in a conventional mill. 

As discussed in GEIS Appendix C (NRC, 2009), ore processing at a conventional mill involves a 

series of steps (handling and preparation, concentration, and product recovery). While the 

conventional milling techniques recover approximately 90 percent of the uranium content of the 

feed ore (NRC, 2009), the process generates substantial wastes (known as tailings) because 

roughly 95 percent of the ore rock is disposed of as waste (NRC, 2006). This process also can 

consume large amounts of water {e.g., approximately 534 Lpm [141 gpm] for the proposed 

Piñon Ridge Mill in Colorado (EFRC, 2009)}. 

Tailings are disposed of in areally extensive lined impoundments; NRC reviews the design and 

construction of these to ensure the safe disposal of the tailings (NRC, 2009). Reclamation of 

the tailings pile generally involves evaporation of liquids in the tailings, settlement of the tailings 

over time, and covering the pile with a thick radon barrier and earthen material or rocks for 

erosion control. The area surrounding the reclaimed tailings piles would be transferred to either 

a State or Federal agency for long-term care (EIA, 1995). The costs associated with final mill 

decommissioning and tailings reclamation can run into the tens of millions of dollars (EIA, 1995). 

NRC evaluated the potential environmental impacts of conventional uranium milling operations 

in a programmatic context, including the management of mill tailings in the final GEIS on 

uranium milling (NRC, 1980). This GEIS evaluated the nature and extent of conventional 

uranium milling to inform the regulatory requirements for management and disposal of mill 

tailings and for mill decommissioning. The impacts from operating a conventional mill are 

significantly greater than for operating an ISR facility. For example, at the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project, approximately 121 ha [300 ac] would be used for uranium extraction 

operations (e.g., wellfields, central processing plant, satellite plant, pipeline infrastructure). 

However, for a conventional mill, more land would be affected by construction {approximately 

300 ha [741 ac]} and operations devoted to milling and allied activities {approximately 150 ha 

[370 ac]} (NRC, 1980). The deposition of windblown tailings could further restrict use of the 

land near the tailings. Levels of contamination extended several hundred meters beyond the 

model site boundary evaluated in the GEIS for conventional milling. Therefore, conventional 

milling was eliminated from detailed analysis in the SEIS. 

2.3.2 Conventional Mining and Heap Leaching at the Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project Site 

Heap leaching is discussed in GEIS Appendix C. For low-grade ores, heap leaching is a viable 

alternative. Low-grade ore removed from open-pit or underground mining operations undergoes 

further processing to remove and concentrate the uranium. Heap leaching is typically used 

when the ore body is small and situated far from the milling site. The low-grade ore is crushed 

to approximately 2.6 cm [1 in] in size and mounded above grade on a prepared pad. A sprinkler 

or drip system positioned over the top continually distributes leach solution over the mound. 

Depending on the lime content, an acid or alkaline solution can be used. The leach solution 

trickles through the ore and mobilizes the uranium, as well as other metals, into the solution. 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-46 

The solution is collected at the base of the mound by a manifold and processed to extract the 

uranium. The uranium recovery from heap leaching is expected to range from 50 to 80 percent, 

resulting in a final tailings material of around 0.01 percent U3O8 content. When heap leaching is 

complete, the depleted materials are considered byproduct material that must be placed in a 

conventional mill tailings impoundment unless NRC grants an exemption for disposal in place. 

While the impacts from heap leaching may be less than those from conventional milling, the 

impacts from the associated open-pit or underground mining would still be substantial. For 

these reasons, similar to those listed in Section 2.3.1 in the SEIS, this alternative was eliminated 

from detailed analysis. 

2.3.3 Alternate Lixiviants 

Alternate lixiviant chemistry was also considered for the operations phase of the proposed 

action, including acid leach solutions and ammonia-based lixiviants. Acid-based lixiviants such 

as sulfuric acid dissolve heavy metals and other solids associated with uranium in the host rock 

and other chemical constituents that require additional remediation and have greater 

environmental impacts. At a small-scale research facility in Wyoming, test patterns were 

developed using acid-based lixiviants. During operations, two significant problems developed. 

First, the mineral gypsum precipitated on the well screens and in the aquifer, which plugged the 

wells and reduced the efficiency of the wellfield restoration. Aquifer restoration had limited 

success because of the gradual dissolution of the precipitated gypsum, which resulted in 

increased salinity and sulfate levels in the affected groundwater. Because it is technically more 

difficult to restore acid mine sites, the use of an acid-based lixiviant was eliminated from detailed 

analysis in the SEIS. 

Ammonia-based lixiviants have been used at ISR operations in Wyoming. However, operational 

experience has shown that ammonia tends to adsorb onto clay minerals in the subsurface and 

then slowly desorb from the clay during restoration, therefore requiring a much larger volume of 

groundwater be removed and processed during aquifer restoration (Mudd, 2001). Because of 

the greater consumptive use of groundwater to meet groundwater restoration requirements, the 

use of an ammonia-based lixiviant was eliminated from detailed analysis. 

2.3.4 Modified Action—No Nichols Ranch Unit 

Under this alternative, NRC would issue the applicant a license for the construction, operation, 

aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of facilities for ISR uranium milling and processing at 

the Hank Unit but not the Nichols Ranch Unit. Thus, all activities associated with the project 

would be confined to the Hank Unit, and the project would be wholly located in Campbell 

County. The Hank Unit would support the central processing plant, office buildings, and 

maintenance buildings, and there would not be a satellite facility. Approximately 61 to 81 ha 

[150 to 200 ac] of the Hank Unit would be affected under this alternative compared to an 

approximate area of 40 ha [100 ac] under the proposed action. The NRC staff considered this 

alternative but eliminated it from detailed analysis because of more severe potential impacts 

to ecological and cultural resources than the proposed action, as described in the 

following paragraphs. 

First, impacts to Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) would be greater under this 

alternative. Eight of the nine Greater sage-grouse leks within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project are within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the Hank Unit, while only one of 

the nine leks is within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the Nichols Ranch Unit. The Greater 

sage-grouse is federally listed as a candidate species and is state-listed as a species of special 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-47 

concern. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) added the species as a candidate for the federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants in a rulemaking on March 5, 2010 

(75 FR 13909). The Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s (WGFD) most recent revision to its 

Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources Within Important Wildlife 

Habitats was published in April 2010 (WGFD, 2010). Appendix B of the recommendations 

specifies best management practices (BMPs) to minimize impacts to sage-grouse. Some of the 

recommended BMPs that would apply to the Nichols Ranch ISR Project, which is not located in 

a core area, include 

• Locating main haul roads used to transport production and/or waste products at a 

distance greater than 3.2 km [2.0 mi] from the perimeter of occupied leks 

• Reducing the number and height of aboveground facilities within 1 km [0.6 mi] of the 

perimeter of leks 

• Limiting human and vehicular traffic within 1 km [0.6 mi] of the perimeter of leks from 

6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. during the breeding season (March 15 through May 15) 

• Maintaining no surface occupancy within 0.42 km [0.25 mi] of the perimeter of 

occupied leks 

Because of the proximity of the eight leks to the Hank Unit the applicant would not be able to 

reasonably maintain BMPs such as those described previously if all activities associated with 

the Nichols Ranch ISR Project development were concentrated on the Hank Unit (which would 

involve more facilities on the Hank Unit than in the proposed action); therefore, the potential 

impacts to Greater sage-grouse would be more substantial than from either the proposed 

action, where the Hank Unit would be operated as a satellite facility, or the Modified Action 

(No Hank Unit), where the Hank Unit would not be developed. 

Second, adverse impacts to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible Pumpkin 

Buttes (Site 48CA268) and four associated traditional cultural properties (TCPs) 

(sites 48CA6148, 48CA6748, 48CA6751, and 48CA6753) would be greater under this 

alternative than under the Proposed Action or Modified Action (No Hank Unit). The western 

boundary of the Pumpkin Buttes TCP and the four additional TCPs are located within the 

proposed Hank Unit permit boundary. Concentrating all buildings and facilities associated with 

the Nichols Ranch ISR Project within the Hank Unit would result in greater impacts to the 

TCP viewshed. 

Additionally, the 113 ha [280 ac] of BLM-owned land within the Hank Unit would be subject to 

the programmatic agreement between BLM and Wyoming SHPO for mitigation of adverse 

effects to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP (BLM, 2009). Stipulations in the PA (applicable to BLM 

administrated land and federal uranium leaseholders that plan to construct ISR facilities on 

federally-owned subsurface minerals overlain by private surface lands) would make 

construction of buildings and wellfield siting more difficult. If wellfields are assumed to be 

located in the same areas of the Hank Unit as in the Proposed Action (see Figure 2-8 in the 

SEIS), the central processing plant, office buildings, and maintenance buildings would have to 

be located east of the wellfield to avoid locating them over an ore zone and to minimize adverse 

effects to the viewshed of the five TCPs. However, locating these buildings east of the wellfield 

would adversely affect four Greater sage-grouse leks that lie within 3.2 km [2 mi] of the east 

boundary of the Hank Unit. Additionally, because buildings subject to safety requirements 

would not be painted to blend in with the environment, locating the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-48 

Project on the Hank Unit would result in more unpainted buildings, further obstructing the TCP 

viewshed. Thus, cultural resource impacts and visual resource impacts would be greater under 

this alternative than with either the Proposed Action or Modified Action (No Hank Unit). 

Because of the potential impacts on ecological and cultural resources, this alternative was 

eliminated from detailed analysis. 

2.4 Comparison of the Predicted Environmental Impacts 

NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003b) categorizes the significance of potential environmental impacts as 

follows: 

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

neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the 

resource considered. 

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

 important attributes of the resource considered. 

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

 important attributes of the resource considered. 

Table 2-2 provides the potential environmental impacts (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) of 

the proposed action. Impacts to each resource area for the proposed action can be found in the 

Executive Summary, and impacts are detailed in SEIS Chapter 4. 

2.5 Final Recommendation 

After weighing the impacts of the proposed action and comparing the alternatives, NRC staff, in 

accordance with 10 CFR 51.91(d), sets forth its NEPA recommendation regarding the proposed 

action. Unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the NRC staff recommendation to the 

Commission related to the environmental aspects of the proposed action is that the source 

material license be issued as requested. This recommendation is based upon (i) the license 

application, including the ER Uranerz submitted and applicant supplemental letters and 

responses to NRC staff RAIs; (ii) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; 

(iii) NRC staff independent review; (iv) NRC staff consideration of comments received on the 

draft SEISs; and (v) the assessments summarized in this SEIS. 

2.6 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” 

10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40 

Appendix A, “Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and to the Disposition of 

Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores 

Processed Primarily from Their Source Material Content.” 

40 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment. Part 61, 

“National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).” 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-49 

40 CFR Part 146. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40. Protection of Environment. Part 146. 

“Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards.” 

40 CFR Part 192. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40. Protection of Environment. Part 192. 

“Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings.” 

40 CFR Part 264. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 264, 

“Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal 

Facilities.” 

40 CFR Part 440. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 440, 

“Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category.” 

75 FR 13909. Federal Register, Volume 75, No. 55, pp. 13,909–13,959, “Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings for Petitions To List the Greater 

Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered.” March 23, 2010. 

BLM. “Programmatic Agreement Between Bureau of Land Management and Wyoming State 

Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Mitigation of Adverse Effects on the Pumpkin Buttes 

TCP from Anticipated Federal Minerals Development.” ML092640122. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. 2009. 

Cohen and Associates. “Final Report History and Basis of NESHAPs and Subpart W.” 2008a. 

<http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/neshaps/subpart-w/neshap-history.pdf> (25 May 2010). 

Cohen and Associates. “Final Report Review of Existing and Proposed Tailings Impoundment 

Technologies.” 2008b. <http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/neshaps/subpart-w/tailingsimpoundment-tech.pdf> (25 May 2010). 

Davis, J.A. and G.P. Curtis. NUREG/CR–6870, “Consideration of Geochemical Issues in 

Groundwater Restoration at Uranium In-Situ Leaching Mining Facilities.” Washington, DC: 

NRC. January 2007. 

EFRC. Letter from F. Filas, EFRC, to Montrose County Commissioners. “Reply to Responses 

to Comments Received at Two Public Meetings, Pinon Ridge Mill Facility, Montrose County, 

Colorado.” Lakewood, Colorado: Energy Fuels Resources Corporation. September 16, 2009. 

EIA. “Decommissioning of U.S. Uranium Production Facilities.” DOE/EIA-0592. 

Washington, DC: Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate Fuels. February 1995. 

EPA. “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. April 2008a. 

EPA. “Health and Environmental Impacts of Uranium Contamination in the Navajo Nation: 

Five-Year Plan.” Requested by House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 9, 2008b. 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-50 

EPA. “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary and Point Area 

Sources.” AP-42, Fifth Edition, Chapter 13.2.2. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. October 1996. 

EPA. “Technical Resource Document: Extraction and Beneficiation of Ores and Minerals–

Uranium.” Volume 5. Office of Solid Waste/Special Waste Branch. EPA 530-R-94-032. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 1995. 

Mudd, G.M. “Critical Review of Acid In-Situ Leach Uranium Mining: 1-USA and Australia.” 

Vol. 41, pp. 390-403. St. Lucia, QLD 4072: Australia: December 2001. 

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

Milling Facilities.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). May 2009. 

NRC. Regulatory Guide 3.11, “Design, Construction, and Inspection of Embankment Retention 

Systems at Uranium Recovery Facilities.” Revision 3. Washington, DC: NRC. November 

2008. 

NRC. “Environmental Assessment for the Addition of the Reynolds Ranch Mining Area to 

Power Resources, Inc.’s Smith Ranch/Highlands Uranium Project Converse County, Wyoming.” 

ML062690386. Washington, DC: NRC. November 2006. 

NRC. NUREG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications—Final Report.” Washington, DC: NRC. June 2003a. 

NRC. NUREG–1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with 

NMSS Programs.” Washington, DC: NRC. August 2003b. 

NRC. Memorandum to William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations, from Annette L. 

Vietti-Cook, Secretary. “Staff Requirements—SECY-99-0013—Recommendations on Ways To 

Improve the Efficiency of NRC Regulation at In-Situ Leach Uranium Recovery Facilities.” 

Washington, DC: NRC. 2000. <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/ 

srm/1999/1999-013srm.html> (16 November 2009). 

NRC. NUREG/CR–6733, “A Baseline Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Approach for In Situ

Leach Uranium Extraction Licensees.” Washington, DC: NRC. September 2001. 

NRC. “Environmental Assessment for Renewal of Source Material License No. SUA–1341, 

Cogema Mining, Inc. Irigaray and Christensen Ranch Projects, Campbell and Johnson 

Counties, Wyoming.” Docket No. 40-8502. Washington, DC: NRC. June 1998a. 

NRC. “Environmental Assessment for Renewal of Source Material License No. SUA–1534 

Crow Butte Resources Incorporated Crow Butte Uranium Project Dawes County, Nebraska.” 

Docket No. 40-8943. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1998b. 

NRC. NUREG–1508, “Final Environmental Impact Statement To Construct and Operate the 

Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mining Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico.” Washington, DC: 

NRC. February 1997. 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-51 

NRC. “Environmental Assessment for Renewal of Source Materials License No. SUA–1511. 

Power Resources Incorporated Highland Uranium Project, Converse County, Wyoming.” 

Washington, DC: NRC. August 1995. 

NRC. NUREG–0706, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling 

Project M-25.” ML032751663, ML0732751667, ML032751669. Washington, DC: NRC. 

September 1980. 

PRI. Letter from J. McCarthy, Environmental, Health, and Safety Manager, Power Resources 

International, to G. Janosko, Branch Chief, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Smith 

Ranch: 2007–2008 Surety Estimate Revision.” ML072210876. West Babylon, New York: 

Power Resources International. June 29, 2007. 

Powertech (USA), Inc. “Dewey-Burdock Project. Supplement to Application for NRC Uranium 

Recovery License Dated February 2009. Appendices.” Greenwood Village, Colorado: 

Powertech (USA), Inc. August 2009. 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project Application For Wyoming Underground Injection Control 

Permit For Class I Non-Hazardous Injection Wells.” Prepared by Hydro-Engineering, LLC & Lyn 

George (Consulting Geologist), September, 2010. <https://gem.trihydro.com/default.aspx> 

(27 September 2010). Casper, Wyoming. Uranerz. 2010a. 

Uranerz. Letter from M. Thomas, Environmental, Safety, and Health Manager, Uranerz Energy 

Corporation, to R. Linton, Project Manager, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Responses 

to the Open Issues to the Safety Evaluation Report for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project License 

Application.” ML100740143. Casper, Wyoming: Uranerz Energy Corporation. February 24, 

2010b. 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. Casper, 

Wyoming: 2007. 

WDEQ. “UIC Program Policy: Permitting In-Situ Mine Waste Disposal Wells.” 08-001.POL. 

Cheyenne, Wyoming: WDEQ, Water Quality Division. July 16, 2008. 

WDEQ. “Water Quality Rules and Regulations, Chapter 16, Class V Injection Wells and 

Facilities Underground Injection Control Program.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. July 2001. 

WGFD. Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources Within Important 

Wildlife Habitats. Version 6.0. Cheyenne, Wyoming. April 2010. 

<http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/doc/ 

O&G%20Recommendations%20April%202010%20with%20changes%20identified.doc> 

(2 June 2010). 

Wyoming State Climate Office. “Wyoming Climate Atlas.” J. Curtis and K. Grimes, editors. 

Laramie, Wyoming: Wyoming State Climate Office. 2004. <http://www.wrds.uwyo.edu/sco/ 

climateatlas/evaporation.html> (3 June 2010). 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-52 

Table 2-2. Impacts Summary for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

Alternative 1: 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 2: 

No-Action 

Alternative 3: 

No Hank Unit 

4.2 Land Use Impacts 

Construction SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.2.1.1 4.2.2 4.2.3.1 

Operation SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.2.1.2 4.2.2 4.2.3.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.2.1.3 4.2.2 4.2.3.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.2.1.4 4.2.2 4.2.3.4 

4.3 Transportation Impacts 

Construction SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.3.1.1 4.3.2 4.3.3.1 

Operation SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.3.1.2 4.3.2 4.3.3.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.3.1.3 4.3.2 4.3.3.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.3.1.4 4.3.2 4.3.3.4 

4.4 Geology and Soils Impacts 

Construction SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.4.1.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 

Operation SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.4.1.2 4.4.2 4.4.3 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.4.1.3 4.4.2 4.4.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.4.1.4 4.4.2 4.4.3 

4.5 Water Resources Impacts (Surface Waters and Wetlands Impacts) 

Construction SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.5.1.1.1 4.5.1.2 4.5.1.3 

Operation SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.5.1.1.2 4.5.1.2 4.5.1.3 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.5.1.1.3 4.5.1.2 4.5.1.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.5.1.1.4 4.5.1.2 4.5.1.3 

4.5 Water Resources Impacts (Groundwater Impacts) 

Construction SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.5.2.1.1 4.5.2.2 4.5.2.3.1 

Operation SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.5.2.1.2 4.5.2.2 4.5.2.3.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.5.2.1.3 4.5.2.2 4.5.2.3.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.5.2.1.4 4.5.2.2 4.5.2.3.4 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-53 

Table 2-2. Impacts Summary for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project (continued) 

 Alternative 1: 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 2: 

No-Action 

Alternative 3: 

No Hank Unit 

4.6 Ecological Resources Impacts (Terrestrial) 

Construction SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.6.1.1.1 4.6.2 4.6.3 

Operation SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.6.1.2 4.6.2 4.6.3 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.6.1.3 4.6.2 4.6.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.6.1.4 4.6.2 4.6.3 

4.6 Ecological Resources Impacts (Aquatic) 

Construction NONE NONE NONE 

 4.6.1.1.2 4.6.2 4.6.3 

Operation NONE NONE NONE 

 4.6.1.1.2 4.6.2 4.6.3 

Aquifer Restoration NONE NONE NONE 

 4.6.1.3 4.6.2 4.6.3 

Decommissioning NONE NONE NONE 

 4.6.1.4 4.6.2 4.6.3 

4.6 Ecological Resources Impacts (Protected Species) 

Construction SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.6.1.1.3 4.6.2 4.6.3 

Operation SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.6.1.2 4.6.2 4.6.3 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.6.1.3 4.6.2 4.6.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.6.1.4 4.6.2 4.6.3 

4.7 Air Quality Impacts 

Construction SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.7.1.1 4.7.2 4.7.3.1 

Operation SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.7.1.2 4.7.2 4.7.3.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.7.1.3 4.7.2 4.7.3.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.7.1.4 4.7.2 4.7.3.4 

4.8 Noise Impacts 

Construction SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.8.1.1 4.8.2 4.8.3.1 

Operation SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.8.1.2 4.8.2 4.8.3.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.8.1.3 4.8.2 4.8.3.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.8.1.4 4.8.2 4.8.3.4 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-54 

Table 2-2. Impacts Summary for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project (continued) 

 Alternative 1: 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 2: 

No-Action 

Alternative 3: 

No Hank Unit 

4.9 Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Impacts 

Construction MODERATE NONE SMALL 

 4.9.1.1 4.9.2 4.9.3.1 

Operation SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.9.1.2 4.9.2 4.9.3.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.9.1.3 4.9.2 4.9.3.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.9.1.4 4.9.2 4.9.3.4 

4.10 Visual and Scenic Resources Impacts 

Construction MODERATE NONE SMALL 

 4.10.1.1 4.10.2 4.10.3.1 

Operation SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.10.1.2 4.10.2 4.10.3.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.10.1.3 4.10.2 4.10.3.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.10.1.4 4.10.2 4.10.3.4 

4.11 Socioeconomics (Demographics) 

Construction SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.1.1 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Operation SMALL NONE SMALL to MODERATE

 4.11.1.2.1 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.3 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.4 4.11.2 4.11.3 

4.11 Socioeconomics (Income) 

Construction SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.1.2 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Operation SMALL NONE SMALL to MODERATE

 4.11.1.2.2 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.3 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.4 4.11.2 4.11.3 
 In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-55 

Table 2-2. Impacts Summary for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project (continued) 

Alternative 1: 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 2: 

No-Action 

Alternative 3: 

No Hank Unit 

4.11 Socioeconomics (Housing) 

Construction SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.1.3 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Operation SMALL to MODERATE NONE SMALL to MODERATE

 4.11.1.2.3 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.3 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.4 4.11.2 4.11.3 

4.11 Socioeconomics (Employment Rate) 

Construction SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.1.4 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Operation NONE NONE SMALL to MODERATE

 4.11.1.2.4 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.3 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.4 4.11.2 4.11.3 

4.11 Socioeconomics (Local Finance) 

Construction SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.1.5 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Operation SMALL NONE SMALL to MODERATE

 4.11.1.2.5 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.3 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.4 4.11.2 4.11.3 

4.11 Socioeconomics (Education) 

Construction NONE NONE NONE 

 4.11.1.1.6 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Operation SMALL NONE SMALL to MODERATE

 4.11.1.2.6 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.3 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.4 4.11.2 4.11.3 

4.11 Socioeconomics (Health and Social Services) 

Construction SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.1.7 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Operation SMALL NONE SMALL to MODERATE

 4.11.1.2.7 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.3 4.11.2 4.11.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.11.1.4 4.11.2 4.11.3 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives 

2-56 

Table 2-2. Impacts Summary for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project (continued) 

Alternative 1: 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 2: 

No-Action 

Alternative 3: 

No Hank Unit 

4.12 Environmental Justice Impacts 

Construction NONE NONE NONE 

 4.12.2 4.12.3 4.12.4 

Operation NONE NONE NONE 

 4.12.2 4.12.3 4.12.4 

Aquifer Restoration NONE NONE NONE 

 4.12.2 4.12.3 4.12.4 

Decommissioning NONE NONE NONE 

 4.12.2 4.12.3 4.12.4 

4.13 Public and Occupational Health and Safety Impacts 

Construction SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.13.1.1 4.13.2 4.13.3.1 

Operation SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.13.1.2 4.13.2 4.13.3.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.13.1.3 4.13.2 4.13.3.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.13.1.4 4.13.2 4.13.3.4 

4.14 Waste Management Impacts 

Construction SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.14.1.1.1 4.14.2 4.14.3 

Operation SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.14.1.1.2 4.14.2 4.14.3 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.14.1.1.3 4.14.2 4.14.3 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE SMALL 

 4.14.1.1.4 4.14.2 4.14.3 
3-1 

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3.1 Introduction 

The proposed Nichols Ranch In-situ Recovery (ISR) Project is located in the Powder River 

Basin, in a rural area that bisects Johnson and Campbell Counties, Wyoming. The Powder 

River Basin is an energy-rich area that possesses some of the largest coal, coal bed 

methane (CBM), and natural gas deposits in the United States. The proposed project is 

approximately 74 km [46 mi] south-southwest of the city of Gillette and approximately 98 km 

[61 mi] north-northeast of the city of Casper (Figure 1-1). The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project includes approximately 1,365 ha [3,371 ac] of land. An estimated 120 ha [300 ac] of 

land surface could be directly disturbed by ISR construction and operations. 

This chapter describes the existing site conditions of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

The resource areas described in this section include land use, transportation, geology and soils, 

water resources, ecology, noise, air quality, historic and cultural resources, visual and scenic 

resources, socioeconomics, public and occupational health, and current waste management 

practices. The description of the affected environment are based upon information provided in 

the applicant’s environmental report (Uranerz, 2007, 2010) and supplemented by additional 

information identified by NRC and the public. The information in this chapter of the 

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) forms the basis for assessing the 

potential impacts (see Chapter 4) of the proposed action and each alternative (Chapter 2). 

3.2 Land Use 

The proposed project area is located within the Powder River Basin, which holds the largest 

deposits of coal in the United States, as well as other minerals and oil and gas. As a result, 

various mining operations have been, and continue to be, prevalent in the area. The lands 

within the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project have historically been used for cattle grazing 

and wildlife habitat (Uranerz, 2007). Ranching was the first major industry in the proposed 

project area and remained the predominant industry until the 1970s. Railroads grew 

simultaneously with ranching as cattle were shipped from Campbell and Johnson Counties to 

markets in the east. The emergence of Wyoming’s rich energy resources, including coal, oil 

and gas, natural gas, uranium, and wind, subsequently attracted energy-producing industries to 

the proposed project area. Presently, the lands within the proposed project area are used for a 

variety of purposes. Livestock grazing, oil and gas extraction, CBM extraction, and uranium 

recovery activities are all currently taking place on or near the proposed project area 

(Uranerz, 2007). The immediate future land use for the proposed project area and adjacent 

areas would be continued livestock grazing, ISR activities, CBM extraction, and oil and 

gas extraction. 

The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project includes approximately 1,365 ha [3,371 ac] of land 

and is divided into two units: the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units. The Nichols Ranch Unit 

encompasses approximately 453 ha [1,120 ac] located in Township 43 North, Range 76 West, 

Sections 7, 8, 17, 18, and 20. The Hank Unit encompasses approximately 911 ha [2,251 ac] 

located in Township 44 North, Range 75 West, Sections 30 and 31, and Township 43 North, 

Range 75 West, Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8. The main processing facility [central processing plant 

(CPP)], main office, and maintenance buildings would be located at the proposed Nichols 

Ranch facility. The Hank Unit would be a satellite operation, which would have a satellite 

ion-exchange plant, and office and maintenance buildings (Uranerz, 2007). 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-2 

Section 3.1.2.2 Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) described the concept of split 

estate where different entities can own the land surface rights and mineral rights can be owned 

by different entities, and in particular, where the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owns 

and leases the mineral rights (NRC, 2009a) and surface rights are privately owned. This 

situation occurs at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

The current surface ownership of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project includes 

approximately 1,251 ha [3,091 ac] of private ownership, mainly by the T-Chair Livestock 

Company, and approximately 113 ha [280 ac] of U.S. Government ownership administered BLM 

(Uranerz, 2007). The subsurface mineral ownership is divided among various private entities, 

including oil and gas and mineral extraction companies, and the U.S. Government, as 

administered BLM (Uranerz, 2007). Uranerz Energy Corporation (Uranerz) has formed surface 

use agreements with all of the proposed project area landowners. The applicant has obtained 

the rights to mine in certain areas of the proposed project area and has also identified the No 

Right to Mine lands within the proposed project area. 

The town of Wright, located approximately 32 km [20 mi] east of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project, is the closest major population center. The towns of Edgerton and Midwest are 

located approximately 40 km [25 mi] southwest of the proposed project area. No residential 

sites are located within the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area. The two residences 

located within 2 km [1 mi] of the proposed project area are Pfister Ranch, approximately 1 km 

[0.6 mi] north of the Hank Unit, and Dry Fork Ranch, approximately 1.5 km [0.9 mi] west of the 

Nichols Ranch Unit (Figure 3-1). The 110 ha [280 ac] of BLM land near the Hank Unit is 

landlocked by private land and thus has limited access. BLM recognizes Pumpkin Buttes, which 

flank the northern and southeastern boundaries of the Hank Unit, as a Traditional Cultural 

Property (TCP) (Uranerz, 2007). 

3.2.1 Rangeland 

Livestock grazing is the main activity at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area and 

adjacent lands. Hay was grown in the past on approximately 52 ha [128 ac] of the southern part 

of the Nichols Ranch Unit, but ceased due to past drought conditions (Uranerz, 2007). 

3.2.2 Hunting and Recreation 

The proposed project area is within the Pumpkin Buttes Pronghorn Herd Unit and Hunt Area 

23 and within portions of the Pumpkin Buttes Mule Deer Herd Unit, which comprises Hunt Areas 

19, 20, 29, and 31 (WGFD, 2007). Hunting is limited to the allowable seasons set for the 

respective game, which are predominantly elk and deer. 

Recreational activities within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project are mainly outdoor activities, such as camping, hiking, fishing, and hunting. Almost all of 

the land on and adjacent to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area is privately owned 

with limited access, but public lands such as the Thunder Basin National Grassland, located 

approximately 38 km [24 mi] east-southeast of the Hank Unit, and the Bighorn Mountains, 

approximately 43 km [27 mi] west of the proposed project area, are used for recreational 

activities. The Powder River, located approximately 14 km [9 mi] west of the proposed project 

area, also provides recreational opportunities for public users. Most recreational activities occur 

during the summer months when mild weather conditions grant easier and more diverse access. 

The historic Bozeman Trail, located approximately 3.2 km [2 mi] west of the proposed Nichols 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-3 

Figure 3-1. Nearest Residential Receptors to the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-4 

Ranch ISR Project area, was a route used first by Native Americans and then later by traders 

and homesteaders moving west during the 19th century (Uranerz, 2007). 

3.2.3 Minerals and Energy 

CBM activity is widespread throughout the Powder River Basin. The methane is produced 

at a depth of approximately 300 m [1,000 ft] and deeper, which is approximately 120 m 

[400 ft] deeper than the uranium mineralization found in the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units 

(Uranerz, 2007). In comparison, the typical depth to oil and gas-bearing strata generally ranges 

from 1,220 to 4,116 m [4,000 to 13,500 ft], but some wells are as shallow as 76 m [250 ft] 

(BLM, 2005). 

Currently, 24 permitted and completed CBM wells are located in or adjacent to the Nichols 

Ranch Unit, 6 of which are within the bounds of the Nichols Ranch Unit, and 33 permitted and 

completed CBM wells are located in or adjacent to the Hank Unit, 11 of which are within the 

bounds of the Hank Unit (Uranerz, 2007). There are approximately 472 oil and gas production 

units in the Powder River Basin in various stages of production. These are also evenly 

dispersed throughout the entire Powder River Basin. The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission reported that, in 2003, the oil and gas wells in the Powder River Basin produced 

approximately 13 million barrels of oil and 1.2 billion m3 [41 billion ft3

] of conventional gas 

(BLM, 2005). Six oil and gas wells are located on or adjacent to the Hank Unit, of which three 

are within the bounds of the Hank Unit; no oil and gas wells are located on or near the Nichols 

Ranch Unit (Uranerz, 2007). No CBM wells or oil and gas wells are located within a planned 

wellfield associated with the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

Table 3-1 summarizes the number of permitted or completed CBM wells and oil and gas wells 

within the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units and those within 4.8 km [3 mi] of the Nichols Ranch 

and Hank Units. Infrastructure such as pipes and pipelines are attendant structures associated 

with each energy extraction operation found within at least a 4.8-km [3-mi] radius of the Nichols 

Ranch and Hank Units. These infrastructure systems occupy vertical subsurface space for 

extraction purposes as well as horizontal surface area for pipelines that either transport fuel or 

wastewater to and from each facility. 

Three Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-licensed ISR facilities are located within 80 km 

[50 mi] of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The Uranium One, Inc. Irigaray/Christensen 

Ranch ISR facility is located approximately 6.4 km [4 mi] northwest of the Hank Unit. Power 

Resources, Inc. (PRI)-licensed North Butte amendment area is located approximately 3.2 km 

[2 mi] north of the Hank Unit. The PRI Smith Ranch-Highland ISR facility is located 

approximately 72 km [45 mi] southeast of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Two of the 

licensed facilities, Irigaray/Christensen Ranch and Smith Ranch-Highland, currently have 

existing yellowcake processing plants with the latter in operation (Uranerz, 2007). 

3.3 Transportation 

The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area lies within the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, 

wherein there are only two 4-lane interstate highways. Interstate 25 (I-25) extends north from 

Colorado, terminating where it merges with I-90 at Buffalo, Wyoming. I-90 enters northeastern 

Wyoming from South Dakota at Beulah, continues west through Gillette and turns north at 

Buffalo, exiting the state into Montana just beyond Sheridan (Figure 3-2). Primary two-lane 

highways within the Powder River Basin include U.S. 14 and U.S. 16. The paved roads closest 

to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area are State Route (SR) 387 and SR50. SR387 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-5 

Table 3-1. CBM and Oil and Gas Wells on and Within 4.8 km [3 mi] of the Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project 

CBM Wells Within Project Site Within 4.8 km [3 mi] 

Nichols Ranch Unit 6 200 

Hank Unit 11 180 

Oil and Gas Wells Within Project Site Within 4.8 km [3 mi] 

Nichols Ranch Unit 0 1 

Hank Unit 3 27 

Source: Uranerz, 2007 

runs east-west from Wright to I-25 at Midwest. SR50 commences in Gillette and runs southerly, 

terminating at the intersection with SR387 (Figure 3-2). Numerous county roads provide access 

to public and private lands, many of which consist of maintained gravel surfaces. Unimproved 

or minimally improved private roads are also common in this area. The maximum posted speed 

limit for rural portions of interstate highways is 120 kilometers per hours (kph) [75 miles per 

hours (mph)], with urban settings being 97 kph [60 mph]. State highways have a maximum 

posted speed limit of 105 kph [65 mph]. 

The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area can be accessed from the north via SR50 by 

travelling 13.7 km [8.5 mi] west along Van Buggenum Road and Christensen Road and 

continuing westerly for another 13.7 km [8.5 mi] on T-Chair Livestock Company ranch roads 

(Figure 2-6). Both Van Buggenum Road and Christensen Road are county-maintained gravel 

roads that provide access to several ranches located in the project region. These roads are 

7.3 m [24 ft] wide, which allows for two tractor-trailers to pass one another, and are crowned 

and ditched. Both Van Buggenum Road and Christensen Road are currently being used as 

access routes for tractor-trailer traffic associated with CBM activities in the vicinity. The speed 

limit is posted at 72 kph [45 mph]. Access from the south can be gained by traveling north from 

SR387 on T-Chair Livestock Company ranch roads (Uranerz, 2007). 

Ranch roads occurring on the T-Chair Livestock Company property are also crowned and 

ditched gravel roads. Recent CBM producer activities have improved the major ranch roads 

that the applicant would use. These roads range from 4.6 to 6.1 m [15 to 20 ft] wide and are 

constructed and maintained by the landowner and CBM producers. These roads would 

accommodate both passenger cars and tractor-trailers when traveling to and from the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The speed limit on these roads is 50 kph [30 mph]. 

The distance from the proposed Hank Unit satellite facility to the nearest major road (SR50), is 

approximately 16 km [10 mi]. The distance from the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit central 

processing plant to the nearest major road (SR387) is just over 19 km [12 mi]. In 2006, annual 

average daily traffic counts (AADTs) for trucks using SR387 in the vicinity of the proposed 

project ranged from 220 to 410 trucks and the AADT for all vehicle types combined was 970 to 

3,130 per day (NRC, 2009a). The AADT for SR50 for all vehicles was 550 in 1999, based on 

most recent available data (BLM, 2003). However, this estimate is likely low because new CBM 

development has increased traffic on this road. No traffic count data are available for Van 

Buggenum Road or the T-Chair Livestock Company ranch roads. Table 3-2 provides traffic 

count data for the state routes surrounding the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area. The 

expected route for yellowcake shipments from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are 

discussed in Section 2.2.1.3.1.7 in the SEIS. 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-6 

Figure 3-2. Transportation Routes Near the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-7 

Table 3-2. Traffic Counts for State Routes Near the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

Route 

Name Description All Vehicles Trucks 

1998 1999 2005 2006 2005 2006 

SR 59 Gillette South of 

Urban Limits 18,690 17,760 — — — — 

SR 59 Johnson-Campbell 

County Line 1,110 1,210 — — — — 

SR 59 Wright 2,150 2,250 3,630 3,930 690 750 

SR 59 ConverseCampbell County 

Line

1,350 1,450 — — — — 

SR 387 Johnson-Campbell 

County Line 1,110 1,210 — — — — 

SR 387 Between SR 50 

and SR 59 — — 970–

3,130 

970–

3,130 

210–

410 

220–

410 

Sources: NRC (2009a); BLM (2003) 

3.4 Geology and Soils 

The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be located in the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium 

District of the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region established in NUREG–1910, 

(NRC, 2009a). The Pumpkin Buttes Uranium District lies within the Powder River Basin. GEIS 

Section 3.3.3 provides a general description of the geology and soils of the Powder River Basin 

and Pumpkin Buttes Uranium District. The following is a discussion of the geology and soils of 

the region and, more specifically, the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area based on the 

description provided in the GEIS and by the applicant. 

3.4.1 Geology 

The Powder River Basin is a large structural and topographic depression parallel to the Rocky 

Mountain range. The boundaries of the basin are the Hartville Uplift and the Laramie Range to 

the south, the Black Hills to the east, the Big Horn Mountains and Casper Arch to the west, and 

the Miles City Arch in southeastern Montana to the north. Overall, the Powder River Basin 

consists of approximately 5.6 million ha [14 million ac] in Wyoming. As indicated in the GEIS, 

the dominant source of sediment in the Powder River Basin was Precambrian1

 granitic rock of 

the Sweetwater Arch and northern Laramie Range. The Powder River Basin formed during the 

Laramide Orogeny (mountain-building era) during the Paleocene to early Eocene.1

 Rapidly 

subsiding portions of the basin received thick clastic wedges (i.e., made of fragments of other 

rocks) of predominantly arkosic sediment (i.e., sediments containing a significant fraction of 

feldspar), while large, more slowly subsiding portions of the basin received a greater proportion 

of paludal (marsh) and lacustrine (lake) sediments. 

 

1

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) defines the Precambrian Era to be between 544 million and 2.5 billion 

years ago; the Eocene Era to be between 33.7 and 55.5 million years ago and the Paleozoic Era to be between 248 

and 544 million years ago. <http://geology.er.usgs.gov/paleo/glossary.shtml#p> (17 September 2009). 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-8 

The Powder River Basin hosts a sedimentary rock sequence with sediments that range in age 

from recent (Holocene) to early Paleozoic1 and overlie a basement complex of Precambrian-age 

igneous and metamorphic rocks (Figure 3-3). As noted in the GEIS, the upper part of the 

sedimentary sequence present in other portions of central Wyoming has been eroded away in 

the Powder River Basin, leaving only the Tertiary-aged White River, Wasatch, and Fort Union 

Formations. The White River Formation is of Oligocene age and is the shallowest Tertiary unit 

in the Powder River Basin. Underlying the White River Formation is the Wasatch Formation, 

which is of Eocene age. The Paleocene age Fort Union Formation directly underlies the 

Wasatch Formation, which directly overlies the Cretaceous Lance Formation. 

The White River Formation is the youngest Tertiary unit that still exists in the Powder River 

Basin with remnants that can be found on top of the Pumpkin Buttes. A basal conglomerate 

forms the resistant cap rock of the Pumpkin Buttes. Elsewhere, the White River Formation 

consists of thick sequences of buff-colored tuffaceous sediments mixed with lenses of fine sand 

and siltstone. This formation is not known to contain significant uranium resources in this area. 

The next underlying unit, the Wasatch Formation, consists of interbedded mudstones, 

carbonaceous shales, silty sandstones, and relatively clean sandstones. In the vicinity of the 

Pumpkin Buttes, the Wasatch Formation is approximately 480 m [1,575 ft] thick. The 

interbedded mudstones, siltstones, and relatively clean sandstones in the Wasatch Formation 

contain varying degrees of lithification from uncemented to moderately well-cemented 

sandstones, and from weakly compacted and cemented mudstones to fissile shales. The 

Wasatch Formation contains significant uranium resources and hosts the ore bodies for which 

the applicant is proposing to conduct ISR operations. The Fort Union Formation in the Powder 

River Basin is lithologically similar to the Wasatch Formation. The Fort Union Formation 

includes interbedded silty claystones, sandy siltstones, relatively clean sandstones, claystones, 

and coal with varying degrees of lithification ranging from virtually uncemented sands to 

moderately well cemented siltstones and sandstones. The total thickness of the Fort Union 

Formation in this area is approximately 915 m [3,000 ft]. The Fort Union Formation contains 

significant uranium resources at various locations in the basin and is also the target formation 

for CBM extraction operations. 

The uranium deposits for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site are located on the 

outcrop of the Wasatch Formation. With the exception of alluvial deposits overlying the 

Wasatch Formation along Cottonwood Creek, the Wasatch Formation comprises the most 

surficial deposits in the proposed project area. The stratigraphy of the Wasatch Formation in 

the proposed project area consists of alternating layers of sand and shale with lignite marker 

beds. The mineralized intervals are found in these sands. These mineralized sand horizons 

are in the lower part of the Wasatch Formation, at an approximate average depth of 168 m 

[550 ft] as depicted in Figure 3-4. These host sands are mostly arkosic in composition, friable, 

and have trace amounts of carbonaceous material and organic debris. There are locally sandy 

mudstone/siltstone intervals within the sands, which may thicken or thin to the point of removal 

in some areas. 

The ore zones in the Wasatch Formation at the Nichols Ranch and Hank units are typical 

Powder River Basin roll front deposits. Where present, uranium ore is found at the naturally 

occurring chemical boundary between reduced and oxidized sandstone facies. The Nichols 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-9 

Figure 3-3. Geologic Composition at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-10 

Figure 3-4. Aquifers at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

Source: (Uranerz, 2007)

Ranch and Hank Units ore zones have uranium mineralization comprising amorphous uranium 

oxide, sooty pitchblende, and coffinite. The uranium is deposited upon individual detrital sand 

grains and within authigenic clays in the void spaces. The host sandstones are made up of 

quartz, feldspar, accessory biotite and muscovite mica, and locally occurring carbon fragments. 

The sand grain sizes range from very fine-grained sand to conglomerate. The sandstones are 

weakly to moderately cemented and friable. The reduced facies are associated with pyrite and 

calcite, whereas the oxidized facies are associated with hematite or limonite stain from pyrite 

and montmorillonite and kaolinite clays from oxidized feldspars (Uranerz, 2007). 

The applicant has identified a series of sand layers in the upper portion of Wasatch Formation 

present in the proposed project area and has labeled these layers from the shallowest to the 

deepest as the H, G, F, C, B, A, and 1 Sands (Figure 3-4). The intervening shales that separate 

these sands have been identified by the overlying and underlying sands (i.e., the shale 

separating the H and G Sands is the HG Shale or Aquitard). While generally present 

throughout the proposed project area, the nature and extent of these sands differ somewhat 

across the proposed project area from the Nichols Ranch Unit to the Hank Unit. In addition, 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-11 

depth and expression of these sands at the ground surface is influenced by the topographical 

relief of the proposed project area. The sand layers have been observed to dip gently 0.5 to 

1.0 degrees to the west. The following sections provide more information on the site-specific 

geology at each unit. 

The applicant did not identify the proposed geologic formation for deep well disposal. At other 

NRC-licensed ISR operations in the Powder River Basin that are permitted by the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ), deep well injection is typically into formations 

exceeding 1,130 m [3,700 ft] deep. If NRC approves the license, the licensee is required to 

obtain the WDEQ permits for the deep disposal wells and install the wells before ISR operations 

may begin. 

3.4.1.1 Nichols Ranch Unit Geology 

There are three primary Wasatch Formation sand members in the Nichols Ranch Unit and 

one minor sand unit. The primary sand members are the F, B, and A Sands, while the minor 

sand unit is the 1 Sand (Figure 3-4). The F Sand member is the shallowest, and the 1 Sand 

is the deepest. The main uranium ore zone sand member is the A Sand which is 12 to 30 m 

[40 to 100 ft] thick and is located 91 to 213 m [300 to 700 ft] below the surface. The A Sand is 

thickest to the northeast, thins to the southwest, and is fine to coarse grained. The A Sand is 

extensive and has been correlated across the site from the Nichols Ranch Unit to the Hank Unit. 

Underlying the A Sand ore zone at the Nichols Ranch Unit are the A1 Aquitard and the 1 Sand. 

The A1 Aquitard comprises mudstones and carbonaceous shale with occasional thin lenses of 

poorly developed coal. This unit ranges in thickness from 6 to 24 m [20 to 80 ft]. 

The underlying 1 Sand is variable in thickness. The 1 Sand is missing or in a range of less than 

1.5 m [5 ft] in thickness and occurs at depths of 171 to 216 m [560 to 710 ft] below ground 

surface (bgs). The sand is very fine to coarse grained. 

Overlying the A Sand ore zone at the Nichols Ranch Unit are the BA Aquitard and the B Sand. 

In this portion of the unit, the BA Aquitard varies from 3 to 40 m [10 to 130 ft], thickening to 

the northwest and thinning to the southeast. The BA Aquitard consists of mudstones and 

thin discontinuous light gray siltstones. The B Sand ranges in thickness from 12 to 55 m 

[40 to 180 ft] at the Nichols Ranch Unit and is fine to coarse grained. The body of the B Sand is 

occasionally separated by lenses of mudstone, siltstone, and carbonaceous shale. Some of 

these mudstone lenses exceed 8 m [25 ft] in thickness and may extend for thousands of feet. 

The B Sand is very extensive and has been correlated across the gap between the Nichols 

Ranch and Hank Units. 

3.4.1.2 Hank Unit Geology 

There are four primary Wasatch Formation sand members and two minor sand units at the 

Hank Unit. The primary sand members at the Hank Unit are the F, C, B, and A Sands, and the 

minor sand units are the G and H Sand units (Figure 3-4). The main uranium ore zone sand 

member at the Hank Unit is the F Sand, which is approximately 6 to 37 m [20 to 120 ft] thick and 

61 to 83 m [200 to 600 ft] bgs in this portion of the unit. At the Hank Unit, the F Sand is 

composed of fine- to coarse-grained sand. 

Underlying the F Sand at the Hank Unit are the FC Aquitard and the C Sand. The C Sand 

at the Hank Unit is 3 to 18 m [10 to 60 ft] thick, discontinuous, and is composed of fine and 

very fine-grained sand. The C Sand is not always present below the F Sand at the Hank Unit. 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-12 

When the C sand is not present, the B Sand underlies the production sand (F Sand). The FC 

Aquitard is composed of mudstones, siltstones, gray carbonaceous shales, and poorly 

developed coal. The Aquitard ranges in thickness from 14 to 24 m [45 to 110 ft] depending on 

the presence of the C Sand. Where the C Sand is not present, it merges with the CB Aquitard 

overlying the B Sand. 

Overlying the F Sand at the Hank Unit are the GF Aquitard and the G Sand. At the Hank Unit, 

the G Sand comprises up to three individual sand units that are fine to very fine grained and 3 to 

7.6 m [10 to 25 ft] thick. The entire G Sand sequence is up to 23 m [75 ft] thick with intersand 

zones composed of gray mudstone. The GF Aquitard at the Hank Unit is composed mostly of 

gray mudstones and is 9.1 to 17 m [30 to 55 ft] thick. 

3.4.2 Soils 

The applicant, inventoried and mapped soils based on National Cooperative Soil Survey 

Standards. Physical and chemical characteristics of the topsoil within the potential disturbance 

areas at both units and the depths of salvageable topsoil were also estimated (Uranerz, 2007). 

The soils occurring at the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units were found to be generally fine 

textured throughout. Patches of sandy loam were identified on upland areas and fine-textured 

soils occurred in or near drainages. The proposed project area was found to contain deep soils 

on the lower slopes and flat areas near drainages with shallow and moderately deep soils 

located on upland ridges and shoulder slopes (Uranerz, 2007). The applicant also conducted 

soil sampling, which indicated the topsoil is suitable for plant growth (in the case of reclamation) 

and that the soils had a clay texture. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 

conducted a reconnaissance survey, which indicated that no prime farmland2

 is present in the 

proposed project area. 

3.5 Water Resources 

3.5.1 Surface Waters and Wetlands 

Surface water in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site includes CBM stock 

ponds and ephemeral streams that flow after snow melt or heavy storms. Generally, the 

ephemeral streams flow west to the Powder River, a tributary of the Yellowstone River in 

eastern Montana. The Powder River Basin, in which the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is 

located, includes the Powder River, Little Powder River, Clear Creek, Piney Creek, Crazy 

Woman Creek, and eight major reservoirs. As discussed in GEIS Section 3.3.4.1, WDEQ 

classifies water bodies for designated uses. The channels within the Nichols Ranch and Hank 

Units are classified as Class 3B waters, which are generally intermittent, ephemeral, or isolated 

waters that support aquatic life other than fish and may include adjacent wetlands along stream 

channels (HKM, 2002). 

 

2

Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, 

feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is also available for these uses. <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ 

NRI/maps/meta/t5839.html> (16 September 2009). 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-13 

3.5.1.1 Drainage Basins 

Within the Powder River Basin, the Nichols Ranch Unit lies within the Cottonwood Creek 

drainage areas and the Hank Unit lies within the Willow Creek and Dry Willow Creek drainage 

areas (Figure 3-5). 

Cottonwood Creek is a tributary that flows west from the proposed project site The Cottonwood 

Creek drainage area encompasses about 20,800 ha [51,300 ac] and has an elevation range of 

1,400 to 1,820 m [4,590 to 5,974 ft] above mean sea level (AMSL) to the Dry Fork of the 

Powder River. The majority of the channels on the Nichols Ranch Unit drain to Cottonwood 

Creek, though channels in the northern portion of the site drain to Tex Draw, another tributary of 

the Dry Fork. The Tex Draw channel is located outside of the Nichols Ranch Unit. 

The Willow Creek and Dry Willow Creek drainage areas encompass about 3,420 ha and 

3,160 ha [8,450 ac and 7,800 ac] with elevation ranges of 1,529 to 1,536 m [5,015 to 5,040 ft] 

AMSL and 1,522 to 1,550 m [4,995 to 5,084 ft] above AMSL. Dry Willow Creek flows into 

Willow Creek, which is a tributary of the Powder River. 

3.5.1.2 Surface Water Features 

Approximately 6,020 m [21,722 ft] of ephemeral channels and washes occur within the Nichols 

Ranch Unit (Uranerz, 2007). Channels are moderately to deeply incised and have banks 

ranging from 0.3 to 4.5 m [1 to 15 ft] high and 0.3 to 4.5 m [1 to 15 ft] wide. Irrigation ditches 

used for hay production divert some ephemeral channel waters for agricultural use. Four 

emergent wetland areas, discussed further in Section 3.5.1.5 in this SEIS, were identified within 

the Nichols Ranch Unit. 

Ephemeral channels and washes on the Hank Unit total 15,133 linear m [49,649 ft] 

(Uranerz, 2007). Channels are deeply incised at the western boundary of the Hank Unit and 

have banks ranging from 3.0 to 15 m [10 to 50 ft] high. Typical channel widths range from 6.1 to 

9.1 m [20 to 30 ft] at the western boundary of the Hank Unit and 0.3 to 0.6 m [1 to 2 ft] over the 

remainder of the unit. The channels generally flow from east to west. 

The CBM discharges are monitored through eight Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (WYPDES) permits issued to CBM operators located within and adjacent to the 

proposed license area. These CBM discharges are further discussed in Section 3.5.1.3 of 

this SEIS. 

3.5.1.3 Surface Water Flow 

The channels within both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units are ephemeral and remain dry 

during the majority of the year. These streams only flow in response to heavy snow melt and 

large rainfall events. The rolling terrain and deeply incised channels generally yield confined 

flow patterns without defined floodplains. Flood waters conveyed during storm events are 

expected to remain within the channel banks, with the exception of one stretch of Cottonwood 

Creek. The anticipated 25-year flood event on Cottonwood Creek showed water in its 

floodplain, which included the lower tip of the west limb of the Nichols Ranch Unit ore body. 

This floodwater may inundate any wellfield in the lower portion of the proposed license area. 

The applicant predicted that flow in the smaller tributaries within the license area would be 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-14 

Figure 3-5. Drainage Basins at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007)

 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-15 

confined to the channels. The proposed location of the Nichols Ranch Unit central processing 

plant is north of the region, which is anticipated to be flooded by Cottonwood Creek. The 

applicant would install a ditch and berm on the upgradient side of the Nichols Ranch Unit central 

processing plant to convey waters from a 25-year flood event away from the plant 

(Uranerz, 2007). Peak flows and velocities for Cottonwood Creek, Tex Draw, Dry Willow Creek, 

and Willow Creek using the Lowham methodology (Lowham, 1976) are presented in Table 3-3. 

For the Nichols Ranch Unit, there are 5 active CBM WYPDES permits containing 17 permitted 

outfalls for CBM-produced water within or adjacent to the proposed area. Discharge to surface 

water drainages has only occurred at 5 of the 17 permitted outfalls (Uranerz, 2007). Each of 

these active outfalls is currently located outside and hydrologically downgradient of the Nichols 

Ranch Unit and is therefore unlikely to have impacted the surface water quality at the site. The 

remaining permitted outfalls are associated with impoundments that are designed to infiltrate to 

groundwater and prohibited from direct discharge to surface water drainage. Two impoundment 

outfalls, which have not received discharge, are located upgradient of the site. These 

impoundments may impact surface water quality in Cottonwood Creek if they overflow during 

significant runoff events. Two other impoundment outfalls are located on drainages that 

discharge to Cottonwood Creek and are located upgradient and downgradient of the license 

area. If they overflow during significant rainfall events they may also enter Cottonwood Creek, 

but impacts to surface water quality from the CBM outfalls should be unlikely with the dilution 

from runoff. The applicant stated that the permit and freeboard requirements for the 

impoundments should prevent any impacts to surface water quality in the license area or on 

Cottonwood Creek (Uranerz, 2007). 

For the Hank Unit, there are three active CBM WYPDES permits with five permitted outfalls for 

CBM-produced water within or adjacent to the proposed area. According to discharge 

monitoring reports submitted through June 30, 2008, no discharge has been made to any of 

these outfalls (Uranerz, 2007). One of the CBM operators at the Hank Unit will apparently not 

discharge any CBM water in the near future in the proposed license area but will instead pump it 

offsite for reinjection into the Madison Formation at a site 56 km [35 mi] west of the site. The 

applicant will notify NRC if any new CBM ponds or basins are installed within or adjacent to the 

Hank Unit. 

3.5.1.4 Surface Water Quality 

In its license application, the applicant presented surface water quality data from the historical 

investigation of the site in 1978 and 1979. The applicant also presented recent surface water 

quality from samples taken in June 2008. The June 2008 data included surface water samples 

both upstream and downstream of both units within channels with flowing water namely, 

Dry Willow Creek and Cottonwood Creek (Uranerz, 2007, 2010). The applicant provided results 

for four sampling locations within and adjacent to the Nichols Ranch Unit that NRC staff 

evaluated (Uranerz, 2007). The first sampling point was the Brown Water Pond located on a 

tributary of Cottonwood Creek 3.2 km [2 mi] upstream of the proposed license area. The 

second location was Cottonwood Creek at Brown Ranch, which is located approximately 3.2 km 

[2 mi] upstream of the proposed license area. A third sampling point was Cottonwood Upstream 

Nichols located immediately upstream of the proposed license area on the southern boundary. 

The last sampling point was Cottonwood Downstream Nichols located immediately downstream 

of the proposed license area on the southern boundary. The surface water quality measured at 

the Cottonwood Downstream location in 2008 exceeded the Wyoming Class I (domestic use) 

and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) secondary drinking water standard for iron. The 

Cottonwood Upstream location exceeded Wyoming Class I and EPA primary and secondary 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-16 

Table 3-3. Peak Flows of Major Drainages for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

Drainage Area 

in ha [ac] 

Cottonwood 

Creek Tex Draw 

Dry Willow 

Creek Willow Creek 

20,800 

[51,300] 

1350 

[3,330] 

3160 

[7,800] 

3420 

[8,450] 

Estimated Peak Flows [m3/s (cfs)] by Recurrence Interval 

2-Year 12.9 [454] 4.81 [170] 6.54 [231] 6.71 [237] 

5-Year 34.5 [1220] 12.9 [456] 17.6 [620] 18.1 [638] 

10-Year 60.1 [2150] 22.1 [782] 30.3 [1070] 31.1 [1100] 

25-Year 106 [3760] 38.8 [1370] 52.9 [1870] 54.7 [1930] 

50-Year 153 [5420] 55.8 [1970] 76.5 [2700] 78.7 [2780] 

100-Year 212 [7500] 77.0 [2720] 106 [3730] 109 [3840] 

Source: Uranerz (2007) 

drinking water standards for total dissolved solids (TDS) sulfate, uranium, and manganese in 

2008. Cottonwood Creek at Brown Ranch exceeded Wyoming Class I and EPA secondary 

standards for TDS and sulfate in 1979. Lastly, the Brown Water Pond sample from 1979 did not 

exceed any drinking water standards. 

The applicant provided results for two sample locations within and adjacent to the Hank Unit 

that NRC staff evaluated (Uranerz, 2007). The first sampling point was on Dry Willow Creek 

Reservoir, which is located upstream of the project boundary in the southern portion of the 

proposed license area. The second sampling point was on Dry Willow Creek, which is 

downstream of the proposed license area in the southern portion. Surface water quality 

measured at the Dry Willow Creek location downstream of the Hank Unit did not exceed any 

Wyoming Class of Use standards or EPA primary or drinking water standards in 2008. 

However, it did exceed the Wyoming Class I and EPA secondary drinking water standards for 

TDS, sulfate, and uranium in 1979. The Dry Willow Creek Reservoir sample did not exceed any 

drinking water standards in 1978. However, it did exceed the Wyoming Class I and EPA 

secondary drinking water standards for pH and iron in 1979. 

3.5.1.5 Wetlands 

A survey for wetlands and other waters of the U.S. (WUS) was performed on behalf of the 

applicant for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site in 2006 by a U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE)-certified wetland delineator with TRC Environmental Corporation 

(Uranerz, 2007). The survey was conducted as a requirement of the WDEQ–Land Quality 

Division Permit to Mine application. Four potential jurisdictional emergent wetlands were 

identified in the southeastern portion of the Nichols Ranch Unit. Three of these are linear, 

palustrine depressions found within the Cottonwood Creek floodplain, which were created prior 

to 1950 due to excavation to the groundwater table. The fourth wetland is also in the 

Cottonwood Creek floodplain and occurs downstream of an overflowing stock tank associated 

with ranching operations. The total area of wetlands on the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit is 

0.5 ha [1.2 ac]; because none of the individual wetlands delineated at the Nichols Ranch Unit 

exceed 0.2 ha [0.5 ac] in size, no Nationwide Permit 44 under Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act was required. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) indicates the 

potential for wetlands on the Hank Unit; however, the site-specific wetland survey concluded 

that no wetlands exist on the Hank Unit (Uranerz, 2007). The delineated wetlands in 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-17 

Cottonwood Creek at the Nichols Ranch Unit are located south of the proposed extraction area, 

and the channel does not cross the area where extraction activities would occur. 

3.5.2 Groundwater 

3.5.2.1 Regional Groundwater Resources 

As discussed in GEIS Section 3.3.4.3 the Northern Great Plains aquifer system is the major 

regional aquifer system in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region. This regional aquifer 

system has been subdivided into five major aquifers (Whitehead, 1996). These aquifers, from 

the shallowest to the deepest, are the Lower Tertiary, Upper Cretaceous, Lower Cretaceous, 

Upper Paleozoic, and Lower Paleozoic aquifers. The Lower Tertiary aquifers consist of the 

sandstone beds with the Wasatch Formation and the Fort Union Formation. Both formations 

consist of alternating sandstone, siltstone, and claystone beds and contain lignite and 

subbituminous coal. Most water is stored in and flows through the more permeable sandstone 

beds. In the Lower Tertiary aquifers, which include the ore horizons as described next, the 

regional flow direction is northward and northeastward from the recharge area in northeastern 

Wyoming. In Wyoming, the potentiometric surface of the Lower Tertiary aquifers is higher than 

the underlying Upper Cretaceous aquifers; consequently, groundwater moves vertically 

downward from the Lower Tertiary aquifers to the Upper Cretaceous units through the confining 

layer separating the two aquifers (NRC, 2009a). 

The Upper Cretaceous aquifer consists of sandstone beds interbedded with siltstone and 

claystone in the Lance Formation and the Fox Hill Sandstone. The Fox Hills Sandstone is one 

of the most continuous water-yielding formations in the Northern Great Plains aquifer system. 

The Upper Cretaceous aquifers are separated from the Lower Cretaceous aquifers by several 

thick, confining units. The Pierre Shale, Lewis Shale, and Steele Shale are the thickest and 

most extensive confining units in the region. The Lower Cretaceous aquifers are the most 

widespread aquifers in the Northern Great Plain aquifer system and contain several sandstones. 

However, the Lower Cretaceous aquifers contain little fresh water. The water becomes saline in 

the deep parts of the Powder River Basin. The Paleozoic aquifers cover a larger area, but they 

are deeply buried in most places and contain little fresh water. An exception is the Madison 

Aquifer, which in some locales provides water with total dissolved solids below 10,000 mg/L 

[1.34 oz/gal]. 

As previously discussed in Section 3.4 of this SEIS, the Wasatch Formation outcrops in the 

study area and represents most of the surficial deposits in the area except for limited 

Quaternary deposits within surface drainages. Extensive alluvial deposits are present in the 

proposed project area along Cottonwood Creek. The sandstone beds within the Wasatch 

Formation comprise the shallowest aquifers within the proposed project area. There are 

commonly multiple water-bearing sands within the Wasatch Formation. Due to their higher 

permeability, these water-bearing sands provide the primary sources for groundwater 

withdrawal. Groundwater within the Wasatch Formation aquifers is typically under confined 

(artesian) conditions, although locally unconfined conditions exist. Well yields from the Wasatch 

Formation in the southern part of the Powder River Basin where the proposed site is located are 

reported to be as high as 1,900 Lpm [500 gpm]. In the vicinity of the Pumpkin Buttes, the 

Wasatch Formation is known to be 480 m [1,575 ft] thick (Sharp and Gibbons, 1964). 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-18 

3.5.2.2 Local Groundwater Resources 

As discussed in Section 3.4 of this SEIS, the applicant has identified a series of sand layers in 

the upper portion of Wasatch Formation, present in the proposed project area, and labeled 

these layers from the shallowest to the deepest as the H, G, F, C, B, A, and 1 Sands. The 

sands are considered aquifers in the proposed project area. The intervening shales that 

separate these sands are considered aquitards due to their hydraulic properties (i.e., low 

permeability) and have been identified by the overlying and underlying sands. For example, the 

shale separating the H and G Sands has been labeled the HG Aquitard. A schematic of the 

typical aquifer and aquitard sequence in the proposed project area is shown in Figure 3-4. 

While generally present throughout the proposed project area, the nature and extent of these 

sands differ somewhat across the proposed project area from the Nichols Ranch Unit to the 

Hank Unit. In addition, depth and expression of these sands at the ground surface are 

influenced by the topographical relief of the proposed project area. The production aquifer at 

the Nichols Ranch Unit is the A Sand, while the production aquifer at the Hank Unit is the F 

Sand. The geologic nature and extent of the specific sands and aquitards identified in the 

proposed project area are discussed further in Section 3.4. 

The depth at which groundwater is first encountered across the site varies and depends on 

surface topography. The specific sand that acts as the surficial aquifer similarly varies across 

the proposed project area depending on the outcropping of these sands and the surface 

topography. Limited groundwater-level data are available to define depth to shallow 

groundwater across the Nichols Ranch Unit, and additional wells are planned to better define 

shallow groundwater levels in this area. In the southern portion of the Nichols Ranch Unit, 

shallow groundwater is first encountered in the Cottonwood alluvium and has been shown 

to come within 3 m [10 ft] of the ground surface. Moving north from the Cottonwood alluvium, 

shallow groundwater is first encountered in the F Sand aquifer at depths ranging from 15 to 

30 m [50 to 100 ft]. However, in the northernmost portion of the Nichols Ranch Unit, the G Sand 

is likely to be the shallow aquifer, with depth to groundwater ranging between 15 and 30 m 

[50 and 100 ft] (Uranerz, 2007, 2010). Groundwater flow in the F and G Sands is projected to 

be in a westerly direction, most likely a result of the local topography. 

Depth to shallow groundwater at the Hank Unit is similarly uncertain, and the installation of 

additional wells is planned to identify shallow water levels in the Hank Unit. However, the 

H Sand should be the surficial aquifer in this area with depth to groundwater ranging between 

15 m [50 ft] in the low-lying areas west of the Hank Unit to 61 m [200 ft] along the eastern 

border of the Hank Unit (Uranerz, 2007). Groundwater flow in the H Sand at the Hank Unit is 

expected to be in a westerly direction. The Willow Creek and Dry Willow Creek alluvial 

materials in the Hank Unit are not expected to contain water except during short periods of time 

after runoff events. 

Groundwater in the surficial aquifers is likely unconfined, although portions of these aquifers 

may be locally confined. Those sands that underlie the surficial aquifer, particularly at depth, 

are generally confined. 

3.5.2.3 Uranium-Bearing Aquifer 

The principal uranium-bearing aquifer at the Nichols Ranch Unit is the A Sand (Figure 3-4). As 

indicated in Section 3.4.2.1 of this SEIS, the A Sand is 12 to 30 m [40 to 100 ft] thick and is 

located 91 m to 213 m [300 to 700 ft] below the surface at the Nichols Ranch Unit. The A Sand 

is thickest to the northeast, thins to the southwest, and is fine to coarse grained. Groundwater 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-19 

in the A Sand is confined. The A Sand is underlain by the A1 Aquitard and the 1 Sand. The 1 

Sand has been identified as the underlying aquifer. The A1 Aquitard comprises mudstones and 

carbonaceous shale with occasional thin lenses of poorly developed coal. This unit ranges in 

thickness from 6 to 24 m [20 to 80 ft]. The underlying 1 Sand is missing or less than 1.5 m [5 ft] 

in thickness and occurs at depths of 171 to 216 m [560 to 710 ft] bgs. The sand is very fine- to 

coarse-grained. 

The A Sand is overlain by the BA Aquitard and the B Sand. The B Sand has been identified 

as the aquifer overlying the production aquifer. The BA Aquitard varies from 3 to 40 m 

[10 to 130 ft] in this area, thickening to the northwest and thinning to the southeast. This unit 

consists of mudstones and thin discontinuous light gray siltstones. The BA Aquitard has been 

shown to extend across the site from the Nichols Ranch Unit to the Hank Unit, where it is 24 m 

[80 ft] thick and is composed mainly of mudstones. The B Sand ranges in thickness from 12 to 

55 m [40 to 180 ft] at the Nichols Ranch Unit. This unit is fine to coarse grained. The body of 

the B Sand is occasionally separated by lenses of mudstone, siltstone, and carbonaceous 

shale. Some of these mudstone lenses exceed 8 m [25 ft] in thickness and may extend for 

thousands of feet. The B Sand is very extensive and has been correlated across the gap 

between the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units. 

The principal uranium ore zone sand member at the Hank Unit is the F Sand, which is 

approximately 6 to 37 m [20 to 120 ft] thick and is 61 to 183 m [200 to 600 ft] bgs in this portion 

of the proposed project area. The water levels in the F Sand fall below the base of the overlying 

GF Aquitard in the northern portion of the Hank Unit and slightly above in the southern portion. 

The F sand is therefore both an unconfined and slightly confined aquifer across the Hank Unit. 

The F Sand is underlain by the FC Aquitard and the C Sand. The C Sand has been designated 

the aquifer underlying the production zone in areas where it is present. The C Sand at the 

Hank Unit is 3 to 18 m [10 to 60 ft] thick, discontinuous, and is composed of fine- and very 

fine-grained sand. The C Sand is not always present below the F Sand at the Hank Unit. At 

these locations, the B Sand is the sand unit underlying the production sand. The FC Aquitard is 

composed of mudstones, siltstones, gray carbonaceous shale, and poorly developed coal. The 

aquitard ranges in thickness from 14 to 24 m [45 to 110 ft], depending on the presence of the 

C Sand. Where the C Sand is not present, it merges with the CB Aquitard overlying the B Sand. 

Water levels have been measured in wells installed in the proposed project area to define the 

direction and gradient of groundwater movement. The location of wells installed at the Nichols 

Ranch and Hank Units is shown in Figures 3-6 and 3-7. While wells have been installed in 

many of the identified sand aquifers, these wells have been concentrated in the production 

zones at the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units. Based on these water level measurements, a 

potentiometric map has been presented for the A Sand at the Nichols Ranch Unit 

(Uranerz, 2007, Figure 2-19). This potentiometric map indicates groundwater in the A Sand is 

flowing northwest with an average gradient of 0.0033. Based on this gradient, an effective 

porosity of 0.05, and an average hydraulic conductivity of 0.15 m/day [0.5 ft/day], the average 

rate of groundwater flow is estimated to be 0.01 m/day [0.033 ft/day]. A similar potentiometric 

map has been presented for the F Sand across both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units 

(Uranerz, 2007, Figure 2-20). This map indicates water in the F Sand is flowing west with an 

average gradient of 0.005. Based on this gradient, an effective porosity of 0.05, and an average 

hydraulic conductivity of 0.18 m/day [0.6 ft/day], the average rate of groundwater flow in the F 

Sand aquifer across the proposed project area is estimated to be 0.018 m/day [0.06 ft/day]. 

Similar gradients and flow directions have been observed in the B and C Sand aquifers as in the 

A and F Sand aquifers. The shallow sands in the Hank Unit are more likely to be affected by 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-20 

Figure 3-6. Nichols Ranch Unit Location of Existing Wells 

Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007)
Description of the Affected Environment

3-21 

Figure 3-7. Hank Unit Location of Existing Wells 

Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007) 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-22 

local topographical changes than the deeper sands. Water level data for the G Sand in the 

Hank Unit show a much steeper groundwater gradient. 

3.5.2.3.1 Hydrogeologic Characteristics 

The hydraulic properties of the production aquifers, as well as the associated underlying and 

overlying aquifers, have been evaluated in the proposed project area using both multiwell 

pumping tests and single-well tests. Cleveland Cliffs3

 previously conducted aquifer testing 1978 

and 1979. The applicant conducted additional aquifer testing in 2006 and 2007. The hydraulic 

conductivity of the A Sand at the Nichols Ranch Unit varied from approximately 0.55 to 

21.3 cm/day [0.018 to 0.7 ft/day]. The applicant estimated hydraulic conductivity of 15.2 cm/day 

[0.5 ft/day] best represents the A Sand in this area. A single-well test for the B Sand aquifer 

indicated hydraulic conductivity of 11.3 cm/day [0.37 ft/day] for this sand. Two single-well tests 

for the 1 Sand resulted in hydraulic conductivities of 5.5 and 7.9 cm/day [0.18 and 0.26 ft/day] 

for this sand. A single-well test in the F Sand yielded a higher hydraulic conductivity of 

110 cm/day [3.6 ft/day]. 

The hydraulic properties of the F Sand at the Hank Unit varied greatly from 4.3 to 287 cm/day 

[0.14 to 9.4 ft/day]. The applicant estimated hydraulic conductivity of 18.3 cm/day [0.6 ft/day] 

best represents the majority of the F Sand in this area. The water level in the ore zone at the 

Hank Unit is near the top of the sand; therefore, the F Sand is not fully saturated. Accordingly, 

the F Sand aquifer is an unconfined aquifer. The primary storage property for an unconfined 

aquifer is specific yield. The applicant estimated specific yield of 0.05 best represents the 

F Sand in this area. Test results from two G Sand wells yielded hydraulic conductivity 

measurements for this sand of 0.15 and 0.67 cm/day [0.005 and 0.022 ft/day]. A single 

measurement in the C Sand indicated a hydraulic conductivity value of 0.76 cm/day 

[0.025 ft/day]. Two single-well tests in the B Sand yielded hydraulic conductivity measurements 

of 11.6 and 67.1 cm/day [0.38 and 2.2 ft/day]. 

3.5.2.3.2 Level of Confinement 

Vertical permeabilities of the aquitards in the Powder River Basin have been defined at 

numerous locations, including just north of the Hank Unit during the permitting of the PRI North 

Butte ISR Project. These permeabilities have been measured using multiwell pumping tests, a 

variety of analytical methods, and laboratory measurements. The applicant reported that data 

and analysis presented in the PRI North Butte ISR Project application indicate the vertical 

permeability for the aquitard separating the F and C Sands was 0.004 cm/day [1.1 × 10−4

 ft/day]. 

A second multiwell test at the PRI North Butte ISR Project site indicated the aquitard 

permeability between the A Sand and the 1 Sand was 0.004 cm/day [1.2 × 10-4 ft/day]. 

Laboratory measurements of permeabilities of samples from two aquitards were submitted for 

the PRI North Butte ISR Project site. These permeabilities varied from 54.9 to 0.001 cm/day 

[1.8 to 3.7 × 10−5

 ft/day]. NRC staff found these data sufficient to demonstrate the confinement 

of the uranium-bearing sands at the proposed project area. Aquifer confinement would be 

further verified by the applicant at each of the wellfields during the required wellfield multiwell 

pumping tests. 

 

3

 In the 1980s, Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company installed wells in the area when it was exploring the Pumpkin Buttes 

Uranium District. 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-23 

3.5.2.3.3 Groundwater Quality 

In Wyoming, the quality of groundwater is measured against either EPA Drinking Water 

Standards (40 CFR Parts 142 and 143), which establish Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) 

for specific chemical constituents, or Wyoming Groundwater Quality standards. The Wyoming 

standards are based on ambient water quality and are divided into five classes (WDEQ, 2005): 

 Class I is defined as suitable for domestic use 

 Class II is defined as suitable for agriculture 

 Class III is defined as suitable for livestock 

 Class IV is defined as suitable for industrial use 

 Class Special (A) is defined as suitable for fish and aquatic life. 

For ISR operations to be conducted in a proposed ore-bearing aquifer within the permit 

boundaries of the proposed ISR Site, the aquifer must be declared as an exempted aquifer, in 

compliance with 40 CFR Part 146. The applicant is required to obtain a Class III underground 

injection control (UIC) exemption permit from the State. The state requests an aquifer 

exemption from the EPA for the proposed Class III UIC permit. The applicant must have both 

the UIC permit and the exemption before operations may begin. 

The applicant evaluated the groundwater quality in the proposed project area by sampling 

numerous wells in many of the aquifers identified in the area. The resulting groundwater quality 

data are presented in Tables 3-4 and 3-5. The data in this summary have been grouped for the 

A Sand, the F Sand, the B and C Sands, the G and H Sands, and the 1 Sand. Included in this 

summary table are EPA Drinking Water Standards (40 CFR Parts 142 and 143) and Wyoming 

Class I, Domestic Ground Water Quality standards. 

The groundwater quality summary data indicate the A Sand water has very low TDS [less than 

500 mg/L [0.067 oz/gal], with major components being sodium, sulfate, and bicarbonate. 

Uranium concentrations in A Sand groundwater varied between detection and 0.027 mg/L 

[3.6 × 10-6 oz/gal]. Radium-226 concentrations varied between detection and 1,343 Bq/m3

[36.3 pCi/L]. Typically, uranium-bearing aquifers, particularly in the ore zone, exhibit uranium 

and radium-226 levels exceeding their respective EPA MCLs (NRC, 2009a). The relatively low 

concentrations found in the A Sand in the area of Nichols Ranch and Hank Units appear to be 

related to the length of the well screens (ranging from 21 to 34 m [69 to 110 ft] in length), which 

extend over the entire A Sand and are not limited to the ore zone. This would lead to dilution of 

the samples with water from outside the ore zone. 

Groundwater quality data for the F Sand indicate average TDS concentrations were greater 

than 1,000 mg/L [0.134 oz/gal]. Sodium, calcium, bicarbonate, and sulfate are the major 

dissolved constituents in this water. Uranium concentrations were measured in this ore-bearing 

sand at an average of 0.16 mg/L [2.1 × 10-5 oz/gal], with a maximum concentration of 5.25 mg/L 

[7.01 × 10−4

 oz/gal]. Radium concentrations as high as 20,794 Bq/m3 [562 pCi/L] were also 

measured, with an average value of 1,591 Bq/m3

 [43 pCi/L]. Consequently, the F Sand does 

not meet the Wyoming Class I, II, or III groundwater quality standards and exceeds the EPA 

MCL for uranium. 

These B and C Sands lie between the two production zones and are connected in some areas. 

TDS in these aquifers averaged 793 mg/L [0.106 oz/gal] with the major constituents being 

sodium, bicarbonate, and sulfate. Uranium concentrations in these aquifers averaged 0.059 

mg/L [7.9 × 10-6 oz/gal], with a maximum of 2.16 mg/L [2.88 × 10-4 oz/gal]. Radium 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-24 

Table 3-4. Water Quality of Specific Aquifers in the Nichols Ranch Unit 

Water Quality Parameter 

B and C 

Sands 

Overlying 

Aquifer 

A Sand 

Ore Zone 

Aquifer 

1 Sand 

Underlying 

Aquifer 

Water Quality 

Standards*

Bicarbonates as HCO3

(mg/L)† 120.65 138.86 233.75 

Carbonates as CO3 (mg/L) 3.43 4.41 15.75 

Chloride (mg/L) 53.22 8.06 5.00 250 

Conductivity (umhos/cm) 1162.68 564.13 411.5 

Fluoride (mg/L) 0.174 0.24 0.65 2.0–4.0 

pH (s.u.) 8.15 8.48 8.63 6.5–8.5 

Total Dissolved Solids 

(mg/L) 797.11‡ 333.14 232.0 500 

Sulfate (mg/L) 466.24‡ 135.05 1.5 250 

Radium-226 (pCi/L)§ 15.44‡† 5.02† 0.1 5.0 

Nitrogen, Ammonia as N 

(mg/L) 0.627‡ 0.09 0.07 0.5 

Nitrogen, Nitrate+Nitrite as N 

(mg/L) 0.069 0.05 0.05 10 

Aluminum (mg/L) 0.095 0.05 0.05 0.05 to 0.2 

Arsenic (mg/L) 0.002 0.0 0.0005 0.01 

Barium (mg/L) 0.052 0.05 0.05 2.0 

Boron (mg/L) 0.110 0.08 0.05 

Cadmium (mg/L) 0.004 0.0 0.0025 0.005 

Calcium (mg/L) 53.22 7.61 3.75 

Chromium (mg/L) 0.016 0.02 0.025 0.1 (total) 

Copper (mg/L) 0.012 0.01 0.005 1.0 

Iron (mg/L) 0.109 0.07 0.015 0.3 

Lead (mg/L) 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.015 

Magnesium (mg/L) 10.94 0.57 0.50 

Manganese (mg/L) 0.025 0.01 0.005 0.05 

Mercury (mg/L) 0.001 0.0 0.0005 0.002 

Molybdenum (mg/L) 0.069 0.07 0.05 

Nickel (mg/L) 0.02 0.02 0.025 0.1 

Potassium (mg/L) 6.89 2.23 2.25 

Selenium ( mg/l) 0.0 0.0 0.0005 0.05 

Sodium ( mg/l) 189.49 113.62 99.5 

Uranium (mg/L) 0.06‡ 0.01 0.00015 0.03 

Vanadium (mg/L) 0.05 0.05 0.05 

Zinc (mg/L) 0.23 0.01 0.005 5.0 

*EPA Drinking Water Standards - 40 CFR Part 142 and 40 CFR Part 143, Wyoming Water Quality, Rules and 

Regulations, Chapter 8, Class I, Domestic Ground Water

†To convert mg/l to oz/ gal, multiply by 1.34 × 10−4

‡Bolded values exceed either EPA or Wyoming Class I Groundwater Standards

§To convert pCi/L to Bq/m3

, multiply by 37
Description of the Affected Environment

3-25 

Table 3-5. Water Quality of Specific Aquifers in the Hank Unit 

Water Quality Parameters 

G Sand 

Overlying 

Aquifer 

F Sand 

Ore Zone 

Aquifer 

B and C 

Sand 

Underlying 

Aquifer 

Water Quality 

Standards* 

Bicarbonates as HCO3 (mg/L)† 151.1 171.43 120.65 

Carbonates as CO3(mg/L) 8.8 0.63 3.43 

Chloride (mg/L) 7.6 5.53 53.22 250 

Conductivity (umhos/cm) 804.9 1426.96 1162.68 

Fluoride (mg/L) 0.2486 0.15 0.174 2.0–4.0 

pH (s.u.) 8.4 7.82 8.15 6.5–8.5 

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 504.4‡ 1020.95‡ 797.11‡ 500 

Sulfate (mg/L) 243.1 597.33‡ 466.24‡ 250 

Radium-226 (pCi/L)§ 0.73 44.6‡ 15.44‡ 5.0 

Nitrogen, Ammonia as N (mg/L) 0.103 0.05 0.627‡ 0.5 

Nitrogen, Nitrate+Nitrite as N 

(mg/L) 0.05 0.05 0.069 10 

Aluminum (mg/L) 0.425‡ 0.05‡ 0.095 0.05 to 0.2 

Arsenic (mg/L) 0.0033 0.0068 0.002 0.01 

Barium (mg/L) 0.055357 0.05 0.052 2.0 

Boron (mg/L) 0.24643 0.08 0.110 

Cadmium (mg/L) 0.00329 0.0034 0.004 0.005 

Calcium (mg/L) 48.6 99.77 53.22 

Chromium (mg/L) 0.0221 0.02 0.016 0.1 (total) 

Copper (mg/L) 0.00714 0.02 0.012 1.0 

Iron (mg/L) 0.499‡ 0.30‡ 0.109 0.3 

Lead (mg/L) 0.0231‡ 0.01 0.01 0.015 

Magnesium (mg/L) 9.8 24.37 10.94 

Manganese (mg/L) 0.051‡ 0.07‡ 0.025 0.05 

Mercury (mg/L) 0.00047 0.0005 0.001 0.002 

Molybdenum (mg/L) 0.05 0.05 0.069 

Nickel (mg/L) 0.0232 0.02 0.02 0.1 

Potassium (mg/L) 6.0 7.12 6.89 

Selenium (mg/L) 0.0026 0.02 0.00 0.05 

Sodium (mg/L) 110.9 185.73 189.49 

Uranium (mg/L) 0.009475 0.15‡ 0.06‡ 0.03 

Vanadium (mg/L) 0.0363 0.05 0.05 

Zinc (mg/L) 0.021 0.02 0.23 5.0 

*EPA Drinking Water Standards – 40 CFR Part 142 and 40 CFR Part 143, Wyoming Water Quality, Rules and 

Regulations, Chapter 8, Class I, Domestic Ground Water 

†To convert mg/l to oz/gal, multiply by 1.34 × 10−4

‡Bolded values exceed either EPA or Wyoming Class I Groundwater Standards 

§To convert pCi/L to Bq/m3

, multiply by 37 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-26 

concentrations in the B and C Sand aquifers average 592 Bq/m3

 [16 pCi/L] with a maximum 

measured concentration of 4,736 Bq/m3

 [128 pCi/L]. Consequently, the B and C Sands do 

not meet the Wyoming Class I, II, or III groundwater quality standards and exceed the EPA 

MCL for uranium. TDS in the H and G Sands averaged 427 mg/L [5.7 × 10-2 oz/gal] with the 

major constituents being sodium, bicarbonate, and sulfate. Uranium concentrations in these 

aquifers were generally low, averaging 0.004 mg/L [5.3 × 10-7 oz/gal]. Radium concentrations 

in the H and G Sand aquifers average 16 Bq/m3

 [0.44 pCi/L] with a maximum 

measured concentration of 70 Bq/m3

 [1.9 pCi/L]. Uranium concentrations averaged 0.059 mg/L 

[7.9 × 10-6 oz/gal]. As a result of the data presented, the H and G Sands would meet the 

Wyoming Class II groundwater quality standards and are suitable for agriculture. 

TDS in the 1 Sand averaged 232 mg/L [3.09 × 10-2 oz/gal] with the major constituents being 

sodium, bicarbonate, and sulfate. Uranium concentrations in this aquifer were very low, 

averaging 0.00015 mg/L. Radium concentrations were on average 0.1 pCi/L. Consequently, 

the 1 Sand meets the Wyoming Class I groundwater quality standards. 

3.5.2.3.4 Current Groundwater Uses 

The applicant contacted the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (WSEO) to identify all permitted 

wells within each unit and within a 4.8-km [3-mi] radius of each unit. Numerous wells have been 

identified in these surveys, including wells associated with mining and aquifer monitoring, stock 

watering wells, and domestic wells. The survey indicates, excluding the monitoring and 

mining-related wells, most wells are used for livestock watering through the use of windmills 

or electric well pumps. The depth of these wells generally ranges between 30 and 305 m 

[100 and 1,000 ft]. A number of the identified wells have sufficient hydraulic heads so the wells 

can discharge to the surface without pumping (flowing wells). In the proposed project area, 

wells that are completed in the ore-bearing zone would be abandoned per Wyoming regulations 

or would be used as monitoring wells if deemed appropriate (i.e., proper screen interval). 

Inspection of these data for wells identified within the Nichols Ranch Unit and within a 4.8-km 

[3-mi] radius of the unit with depths of between 91 and 210 m [300 and 700 ft] bgs 

(i.e., potentially screened within the A Sand) indicates available groundwater head averages 

around 136 m [446 ft]. The survey has identified nine existing wells within the Nichols Ranch 

Unit excluding aquifer testing or monitoring wells. All of these wells are used for stock watering. 

The applicant review conducted of these wells indicates several are completed in the 

ore-bearing sands and would need to be abandoned or converted to monitoring wells. The 

survey also indicates three domestic wells within 4.8 km [3 mi] of the Nichols Ranch Unit 

wellfields. Two of the wells (Doughstick and Garden Well) are approximately 3.62 km [2.25 mi] 

southeast and upgradient of the proposed wellfields, while Dry Fork #1 is about 2.01 km 

[1.25 mi] southwest and cross gradient from the proposed wellfields. 

Inspection of these data for wells identified within the Hank Unit and within a 4.8-km [3-mi] 

radius of the unit with depths between 61 and 180 m [200 and 600 ft] bgs (i.e., potentially 

screened within the F Sand) indicates available groundwater head averages around 75 m 

[246 ft]. Six permitted wells were identified within 0.8 km [0.5 mi] of the Hank Unit. All of these 

are used for stock watering. Several of these wells appear to be completed in the F Sand, while 

other wells are screened through multiple sands including the C, B, and A Sands. Several of 

these wells would need to be abandoned or converted to monitoring wells. The survey also 

indicates three domestic wells within 4.8 km [3 mi] of the Hank Unit. A domestic well was 

identified 1 km [0.6 mi] north of the northern boundary of the Hank Unit. This well (BR-T) is 

reported to be completed in the B Sand below the westward-flowing production zone (F Sand) 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-27 

at the Hank Unit. The other two domestic wells (Doughstick and Garden Well) are 

approximately 4.8 km [3 mi] southwest and cross gradient from the proposed wellfields. 

For its safety review, NRC recommends groundwater samples should be collected quarterly 

from each well within 2 km [1.2 mi] of a proposed license area that is or could be used for 

drinking water, watering of livestock, or crop irrigation. Uranerz did not perform this sampling. 

NRC staff cannot conclude that the radiological sample results were provided for groundwater 

used for domestic water supplies and livestock watering to determine the background 

radiological characteristics. This situation is not consistent with the standard review plan 

recommendations; therefore, the staff is including a license condition, the wording of which is 

presented in SER Section 2.6.4. Staff based the license condition on NRC Regulatory Guide 

4.14 that recommends groundwater sampling 2 km [1.2 mi] from a tailings impoundment for 

both domestic and livestock wells within 2 km [1.2 km] of the licensed ISR boundary. However, 

the staff will only require semiannual monitoring to determine background at these wells. 

As a result of the NRC’s safety review, a license condition will require the applicant will be 

required to submit to NRC by license condition monitoring well sampling results for domestic 

and livestock wells located within 1.2 mi [2 km] of the boundary of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project before uranium recovery operations begin. 

The applicant sampled two monitoring well locations in the surficial aquifers at both the 

proposed Nichols Ranch and Hank Units’ proposed license area to assess surficial groundwater 

quality. NRC staff notes the surficial aquifer water quality may be impacted by spills; piping and 

casing leaks, which routinely occur at ISR operations; and potentially artificial connections 

between the surficial aquifer and other aquifers. Additionally, as mentioned in Section 3.5.1.3 of 

this SEIS, the applicant reported that CBM-produced water would be discharged at the surface 

into impoundments that are designed to infiltrate the surficial aquifers at both license areas. 

Therefore, CBM produced water is and will continue to be discharged to surface impoundments, 

which are designed to infiltrate the surficial aquifer near the Nichols Ranch Unit and potentially 

the Hank Unit. 

During its safety review, NRC staff determined this number of monitoring well locations was 

insufficient to establish background ground water quality in the surficial aquifers at either the 

Nichols Ranch Unit or the Hank Unit. The NRC staff finds the lack of characterization of 

preoperational background ground water quality in the surficial aquifers of each license area will 

hinder the ability of the applicant to assess impacts to the surficial aquifer from ISR operations. 

NRC staff therefore found that the applicant should establish the preoperational water quality of 

surficial aquifers in the Nichols Ranch Unit and Hank Unit license area. This background is 

important to allow the applicant and NRC to distinguish between CBM-produced water 

infiltration to the surficial aquifer and impacts from surface spills, well and pipeline leaks, or 

excursions from ISR operations. 

As a result of the NRC’s safety review, a license condition will require the applicant will be 

required by a license condition to establish the average background water quality of the surficial 

aquifers at both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Unit before operations begin so that impacts to 

these aquifers from future CBM or ISR operations may be assessed. 

3.5.2.4 Surrounding Aquifers 

As indicated in GEIS Section 3.3.4.3.4, the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations are important 

aquifers for regional water supply. The Fox Hill Sandstone is one of the most continuous 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-28 

water-yielding formations in the Northern Great Plains aquifer system. Except at outcrop areas, 

the Paleozoic aquifers are not usually used for water production, because they are either deeply 

buried or contain saline water. 

Based on the survey of water wells within a 4.8-km [3-mi] radius of the proposed site, water 

supply wells are generally completed within 300 m [1,000 ft] of the ground surface in the sands 

of the Wasatch Formation. The Fort Union Formation is not extensively used, because 

sufficient yields of groundwater are available from the overlying Wasatch Formation. 

Deep well injection has been proposed for the disposal of liquid effluent. Typically, deep well 

injection in the Powder River Basin occurs in the Upper Cretaceous Lance Formation 

(e.g., Irigaray/Christensen Ranch) several thousand feet below the Lower Tertiary production 

zones. The applicant has indicated it would apply for a UIC permit through WDEQ. The State 

and EPA would only grant such a permit if the applicant can demonstrate that liquid effluent 

could be safely isolated in a deep aquifer. As required by the WDEQ UIC permit, the deep 

disposal well would be completed (i.e., screened) in an approved subsurface formation and 

would be operated according to permit requirements. 

3.6 Ecology 

The Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, as described in the GEIS, encompasses the 

Wyoming Basin, Northern Great Plains, Southern Rockies, and Western High Plains. The 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is located within the Powder River Basin of the 

Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion. GEIS Section 3.3.5.1 provides the following description 

of this region: 

The Northwestern Great Plains encompass the Missouri Plateau section of the Great Plains. 

This area includes semiarid rolling plains of shale and sandstone derived soils punctuated by 

occasional buttes and badlands. For the most part, it has not been influenced by continental 

glaciation. Cattle grazing and agriculture with spring wheat and alfalfa farming are common 

land uses. Agriculture is affected by erratic precipitation and limited opportunities for irrigation. 

In Wyoming, mining for coal and coal-bed methane production is prevalent, with a large 

increase in the number of coal-bed methane wells drilled in recent years. Native 

grasslands and some woodlands persist, especially in areas of steep or broken topography 

(Chapman, et al., 2004). 

GEIS Section 3.3.5.1 provides the following description of the Powder River Basin: 

The Powder River Basin ecoregion of the Northwestern Great Plains covers rolling prairie and 

dissected river breaks surrounding the Powder, Cheyenne, and Upper North Platte Rivers. The 

Powder River Basin has less precipitation and less available water than the neighboring 

regions. Vegetation within this region is composed of sagebrush and mixed-grass prairie 

dominated by blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), western wheatgrass (Elymus smithii), prairie 

junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), Sandberg Bluegrass (Poa secunda), needle-and-thread grass 

(Stipa comata), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), fringed sage (Artemisia frigida), and 

other forbs, shrubs, and grasses (Chapman, et al., 2004). 

The Nichols Ranch Unit has elevations ranging from 1,423 to 1,494 m [4,670 to 4,900 ft] AMSL. 

Topography in this area is relatively flat with gently rolling hills and low ridges that drain south 

toward Cottonwood Creek, an intermittent stream that is located in the southern portion 

of the unit. 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-29 

The Hank Unit is located approximately 6.7 km [4.2 mi] northeast of the Nichols Ranch Unit, 

with elevations ranging from 1,541 to 1,588 m [5,055 to 5,209 ft] AMSL. The topography 

includes gently rolling hills and low ridges, as well as steep terrain near North Middle Butte and 

some steeply eroded areas associated with Dry Willow Creek, an ephemeral stream that is 

located in the southern portion of this unit. 

The applicant conducted a number of ecological studies at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project to accomplish the objectives specified in NUREG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for 

In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications,” (NRC, 2003) and to meet the 

applicable State of Wyoming requirements. These studies include vegetation and wildlife 

surveys, which are detailed in the following sections. 

3.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology 

The proposed project site comprises primarily sagebrush shrubland and mixed grasslands. 

Sagebrush shrubland dominates the Hank Unit, and mixed grasslands cover most of the Nichols 

Ranch Unit (Uranerz, 2007). No perennial streams or other permanent water bodies exist within 

either unit; however, four wetlands were found in the southeast corner of the Nichols Ranch 

Unit. These wetlands are detailed in Section 3.5.1.5 of this SEIS. 

3.6.1.1 Vegetation 

The proposed project area comprises eight vegetation/habitat types, with approximately 

88 percent of the area represented by two vegetation communities: sagebrush shrubland 

and mixed grasslands. In June and July 2006, the applicant conducted vegetation studies 

in accordance with a study plan the WDEQ–Land Quality Division (LQD) approved for noncoal 

project areas (Uranerz, 2007). 

Sagebrush shrublands are dominated by shrubs and also contain some grasses and forbs. 

The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site contains 774.7 ha [1,914.4 ac] of sagebrush 

shrublands, which accounts for 56.8 percent of the site. The community is dominated by 

threadleaf sedge (Carex filifolia), a grasslike species. Other characteristic species include 

Wyoming sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis) and a number of perennial and annual 

grasses. Alyssum (Alyssum parvifolia) and wooly plantain (Plantago patagonia), both annual 

forbs, as well as several scattered plains cottonwood (Populus deltoids) and Rocky Mountain 

juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) trees, occur in this community and are generally found growing 

along the drainages. 

Mixed grasslands are common across eastern Wyoming and generally receive more moisture 

and have greater species diversity than other types of prairie habitats (WGFD, 2006a). The 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site contains 428.3 ha [1,058.3 ac] of mixed grasslands, 

which accounts for 31.4 percent of the site. The community is composed of mainly perennial 

grasses such as needle-and-thread (Stipa comata), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), blue 

grama (Bouteloua gracilis), western wheatgrass (Elymus smithii), bluebunch wheatgrass 

(Elymus spicatus), and grasslike species such as threadleaf sedge. Some perennial forbs, 

annual forbs, and shrub species are scattered in low-density stands throughout this community. 

No trees occur in this plant community. 

Other vegetative communities present on the project site include 60.0 ha [148.3 ac] of 

juniper outcrop (4.4 percent of the site), 50.4 ha [124.6 ac] of bottomland (3.7 percent), 

25.9 ha [64.0 ac] of greasewood shrubland (1.9 percent), 0.5 ha [1.1 ac] of wetland 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-30 

(less than 0.1 percent), 7.1 ha [17.5 ac] of rock outcrop (0.5 percent), and 17.1 ha [42.3 ac] of 

disturbed lands (1.2 percent). A full list of species identified in each plant community during the 

vegetation study is presented in Table 3-6. 

No federal threatened, endangered, candidate, or proposed plant species are known to 

occur on or in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. A number of state 

listed species are known to occur on and in the vicinity of the site and are detailed in Section 

3.6.3 in the SEIS. One designated noxious weed species, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), 

was found during surveys Uranerz (2007) conducted in disturbed areas and in small numbers. 

3.6.1.2 Wildlife 

The applicant conducted wildlife inventories on the proposed project site and surrounding 

3.2-km [2.0-mi] radius in April, May, June, and July 2006 and February 2007 (Uranerz, 2007). 

The wildlife inventories included a big game winter survey; Greater sage-grouse lek monitoring; 

raptor nest activity and productivity surveys; prairie dog colony mapping; federal threatened, 

endangered, candidate, or proposed species surveys; bald eagle winter roost and nesting 

surveys; surveys for sensitive species or their habitat; and incidental wildlife observations 

(big game, birds, mammalian predators, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians). 

The vegetative communities on the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site, which the 

applicant identified through vegetation studies, have the potential to provide habitat for a great 

diversity of wildlife. Predominant species include mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus; pronghorn 

antelope (Antilocapra Americana); jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii); cottontail rabbit 

(Sylvilagus audubonii); coyote (Canis latrans); bobcat (Lynx rufus); Greater sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus); gray partridge (Perdix perdix); and a number of small mammals, 

songbirds, and raptors. Most species are yearlong residents of Wyoming. However, during 

migration periods, some species such as elk, eagles, songbirds, and waterfowl are more 

abundant (Uranerz, 2007). Wildlife species identified during the wildlife inventories the applicant 

conducted are listed in Table 3-7. The characterization of the predominant wildlife species in 

the wildlife inventories is consistent with the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 

Wright Area Coal Lease Applications (BLM, 2009a), which analyzes lands in Campbell County. 

3.6.1.2.1 Big Game 

The applicant (Uranerz, 2007) conducted a formal big game winter survey in February 2007, 

which included the proposed project area and land within a 1.6-km [2-mi] radius. The survey 

was completed in accordance with WDEQ and Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) 

guidelines, and wildlife biologists recorded the number of individuals, sex, age composition, and 

habitat type for each group of big game observed within this area. Additionally, the applicant 

(Uranerz, 2007) conducted opportunistic big game surveys in conjunction with other wildlife 

surveys in 2006 and 2007. Two species of big game, pronghorn antelope and mule deer, were 

observed during the survey; a total of 460 and 322 individuals each were recorded. Pronghorn 

antelope were mainly observed in mixed grassland and sagebrush shrubland vegetation types. 

The proposed project area lies within habitat WGFD designated as winter/yearlong and 

yearlong range for pronghorn antelope. WGFD identified the pronghorn antelope herd in this 

area as the Pumpkin Buttes Antelope Herd Unit, which occupies a total of 2,485 km2

 [1,544 mi2] 

and has exceeded the objective population size (18,000 individuals) since 1999 (WGFD, 2005a 

in Uranerz, 2007). There are no crucial pronghorn antelope ranges within the proposed project 

area. The nearest crucial range for pronghorn occurs approximately 63 km [39 mi] south of the 

proposed project area (University of Wyoming, 2008). 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-31 

Table 3-6. Plant Species by Habitat Occurrence at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Sagebrush Shrubland Mixed Grassland Juniper Outcrop Bottomland Greasewood Shrubland 

Perennial Grass 

Agropyron cristatum Crested wheatgrass X 

Aristida purpurea 

longiseta 

Three-awn X X 

Bromus inermis Smooth brome X 

Bouteloua gracilis Blue grama X X X X 

Calamovilfa longifolia Prairie sandreed X X X 

Distichlis stricta Inland saltgrass X X 

Elymus cinereus Basin wild rye X 

Elymus intermedium Intermediate wheatgrass X 

Elymus spicatus Bluebunch wheatgrass X X X X 

Elymus smithii Western wheatgrass X X X X 

Hordeum jubatum Foxtail barley X X 

Koeleria macrantha Prairie junegrass X X X X X 

Poa secunda Sandberg bluegrass X X X X X 

Poa spp. Bluegrass species X X 

Oryzopsis hymenoides Indian ricegrass X X X X 

Sporobolus airoides Alkali Sacaton X X 

Stipa comata Needle-and-thread X X X X 

Stipa viridula Green needlegrass X X 

Unknown perennial 

grass 

— X X 

Annual Grasses 

Festuca octoflora Six-week fescue X X 

Bromus japanicus Japanese brome X X X X 

Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass (Downy 

brome) X X X X X 

Other Grasslike Species 

Carex filifolia Threadleaf sedge X X X X X 

Carex praegracilis Clustered field sedge X 

Equisetum spp. Scouring rush X 

Juncus balticus Baltic rush X 

Perennial Forb 

Achillea millefolium Yarrow X X 

Arenaria hookeri Sandwort X 

Asclepias specious Milkweed X X 

Astralagus bisulcatus Two-groove milkvetch X X X X 

 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-32 

Table 3-6. Plant Species by Habitat Occurrence at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

(continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Sagebrush Shrubland Mixed Grassland Juniper Outcrop Bottomland Greasewood Shrubland 

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle X X 

Chaenactis douglasii Chaenactis X 

Cryptantha flava Cryptantha 

Eriogonium ovalifolium Oval-leaf desert 

buckwheat X 

Eriogonium spp. Buckwheat X 

Grindellia squarosa Curlycup gumweed X 

Haplopappus acaulis Goldenweed X X 

Heterotheca villosa Golden aster X X 

Iva axillaris Poverty sumpweed X X X 

Lupinus spp. Lupine X X 

Lygodesmia juncea Skeletonweed X X 

Melilotus officinalis Yellow sweetclover 

Phlox hoodii Hood's phlox X X 

Psoralea tenuiflora Scurfpea X X X 

Sphaeralcea coccinea Globe mallow X X X 

Unknown forb — X 

Unknown aster — X 

Yucca glauca Yucca X 

Annual Forbs 

Alyssum parvifolia Alyssum X X X X X 

Descurainia sophia Flixweed tansymustard X 

Kochia scoparia Summer cypress X X 

Lappula redowski Blue-seed stickseed X X 

Madia glomerata Tarweed X 

Plantago patagonia Wooley plantain X X X X 

Unknown annual forb — X X 

Subshrub 

Artemisia frigida Fringed sage X X X X 

Artemisia pedatifida Birdfoot sage X 

Leptodactylon 

pungens 

Granite prickly gila X X X 

Gutierrezia sarothrae Broom snakeweed X X X 

Succulent 

Opuntia polyacantha Pricklypear cactus X X X X 

 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-33 

Table 3-6. Plant Species by Habitat Occurrence at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

(continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Sagebrush Shrubland Mixed Grassland Juniper Outcrop Bottomland Greasewood Shrubland 

Shrub 

Artemisia cana Silver sagebrush X X X X X 

Artemisia tridentata 

wyomingensis 

Wyoming big sagebrush X X X X 

Atriplex gardneri Gardner's saltbrush X 

Cercocarpus 

montanus 

Mountain mahogany X X 

Chrysothamnus 

nauseosus 

Rubber rabbitbrush X X 

Chrysothamnus 

viscidiflorus 

Douglas rabbitbrush X X 

Krascheninnikovia 

lanata 

Winterfat X X X X 

Rhus tribolata Skunkbrush X 

Sarcobatus 

vermiculatus 

Greasewood 

Symphoricarpos 

occidentalis 

Snowberry X 

Trees 

Juniperus scopulorum Rocky Mountain juniper X 

Pinus flexilis Limber pine X 

Populus deltoides Plains cottonwood X X 

Source: Uranerz (2007) 

 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-34 

Table 3-7. Wildlife Species Observed on or Near the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Mammals 

Antilocapra americana pronghorn antelope 

Canis latrans coyote 

Cynomys ludovicianus black-tailed prairie dog 

Erethizon dorsatum porcupine 

Lepus townsendii white-tailed jackrabbit 

Lynx rufus bobcat 

Odocoileus hemionus mule deer 

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus thirteen-lined ground squirrel 

Sylvilagus auduboni desert cottontail 

Sylvilagus nutallil mountain cottontail 

Taxidea taxus badger 

Vulpes velox swift fox 

Birds 

Anas platyrhynchos mallard 

Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle 

Asio otus long-eared owl 

Bubo virginianus great horned owl 

Buteo jamacensis red-tailed hawk 

Buteo lagopus rough-legged hawk 

Centrocercus urophasianus greater sage-grouse 

Eremophila alpestris horned lark 

Falco mexicanus prairie falcon 

Falco sparverius american kestrel 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle 

Perdix perdix gray partridge 

Pica pica black-billed magpie 

Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow 

Reptiles 

Coluber constricter flaviventris Eastern yellowbelly racer 

Crotalus viridis viridis Prairie rattlesnake 

Pituophis melanoleucas sayi Bullsnake 

Source: Uranerz (2007) 

Mule deer were generally observed in mixed sagebrush grassland and juniper outcrop 

vegetation types. WGFD identified the mule deer population in this area as the Pumpkin Buttes 

Mule Deer Herd Unit, and it occupies 4,355 km2

 [2,706 mi2] (WGFD, 2005a in Uranerz, 2007). 

This population was slightly below the objective population size of 11,000 individuals in 2005 

and 2006 (WGFD, 2005a in Uranerz, 2007). The proposed project area lies within habitat 

designated as winter/yearlong and yearlong range for mule deer. There are no crucial mule 

deer ranges within the proposed project area. The nearest mule deer crucial winter range 

occurs approximately 77 km [48 mi] southwest of the proposed project area (University of 

Wyoming, 2008). 

3.6.1.2.2 Upland Game Birds 

During the wildlife inventories the applicant conducted, two species of upland game birds, the 

Greater sage-grouse and gray partridge, were recorded on the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-35 

Project site. While no sage-grouse leks are within the proposed project area, 10 occupied 

sage-grouse leks were reported within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project during the applicant survey for Greater sage-grouse lek activity in April 2006 

(Uranerz, 2007). In addition, the applicant gathered information from BLM and WGFD for 

previous monitoring events initiated by the development of CBM mining in the area 

(Uranerz, 2007). WGFD provided NRC staff with updated sage-grouse information in 2009 and 

2010, which is presented on SEIS Figure 3-8 (WGFD, 2010). According to the most recent 

WGFD information, nine active leks are located within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project (WGFD, 2010). The Greater sage-grouse is a candidate species for 

the federal list of endangered and threatened species, and is listed at the state level as a 

species of special concern, and is discussed in more detail in Section 3.6.3 in the SEIS. This 

information is further discussed in Section 3.6.3 in the SEIS. 

The University of Wyoming (2006) Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) reports the 

applicant did not indicate the potential presence of any other species of upland game birds in 

the vicinity of the proposed site. 

3.6.1.2.3 Raptors 

The applicant (Uranerz, 2007) conducted raptor nesting surveys in April and May 2006 as part 

of the wildlife inventories. Follow-up productivity surveys for nests determined to be active were 

conducted in June 2006 (Uranerz, 2007). A winter bald eagle roost survey was conducted in 

January and February 2007, as detailed in SEIS Section 3.6.3. Additionally, incidental sightings 

of raptor species were recorded during other portions of the 2006 and 2007 wildlife inventories. 

Six raptor species were observed during the wildlife inventories: the red-tailed hawk 

(Buteo jamaicensis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), 

long-eared owl (Asio otus), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and the rough-legged hawk 

(Buteo lagopus) (Uranerz, 2007). All but the rough-legged hawk were determined to have 

active nests in the area. A total of 40 raptor nests were identified within the 3.2-km [2.0-mi] 

radius. Ten of these nests were determined to be active, and the remaining 30 nests were 

inactive or abandoned by an undetermined species. Nine of the active nests (three red-tailed 

hawks, three long-eared owls, and three great horned owls) were located in the Hank Unit, and 

the remaining active nest (golden eagle) was located in the Nichols Ranch Unit. The red-tailed 

hawks nests were located in isolated cottonwood trees within drainages. The long-eared owls’ 

nests were in juniper trees. The great horned owl nest was located in a cliff/bank of an incised 

drainage. The active golden eagle nest was observed in a cottonwood tree. 

3.6.1.2.4 Waterfowl and Shorebirds 

Limited habitat exists on or in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site for 

waterfowl and shorebirds (Uranerz, 2007). Four wetlands {totaling 0.5 ha [1.2 ac] in size} occur 

within the southeast portion of the Nichols Ranch Unit three are linear, palustrine depressions 

found within the Cottonwood Creek floodplain and one is also in the Cottonwood Creek 

floodplain and occurs downstream of an overflowing stock tank associated with ranching 

operations (Uranerz, 2007). These wetlands are detailed in Section 3.5.1.5 in the SEIS. A 

small pond on the Nichols Ranch Unit and small human-made stock ponds within the vicinity of 

the site provide seasonal sources of water (Uranerz, 2007). No open-water systems occur on 

the Hank Unit that waterfowl or shorebirds could use. Because such limited habitat occurs on or 

in the vicinity of the site, the applicant did not conduct formal surveys for waterfowl or 

shorebirds; however, incidental sightings were recorded during the course of the wildlife 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-36 

inventories conducted in 2006 and 2007. Only one mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) was 

observed in a stock pond on the Nichols Ranch Unit (Uranerz, 2007). 

WYNDD reports indicated the following additional waterfowl and shorebird species or 

populations may be found in the vicinity of the site: the sandhill crane (Grus canadensis), 

American avocet (Recurvirostra americana), black tern (Chlidonias niger) breeding colonies, 

and American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus). None of these species were recorded during the 

wildlife inventories the applicant conducted; however, this does not preclude their potential 

occurrence on or in the vicinity of the proposed site. 

Sandhill cranes can be found throughout Wyoming in spring and summer months. Two 

distinct populations of sandhill cranes have been identified in Wyoming: the Rocky Mountain 

Population and the Mid-Continental Population (WGFD, 2005e). Any sandhill crane 

individuals seen on the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site would most likely be from the 

Mid-Continental Population as this population occupies the eastern portion of the State. The 

WGFD issues 1-year limited-quota sandhill crane permits to hunters as an effort to regulate the 

state’s population. 

The American avocet is designated as a Level III, Local Interest species by the Wyoming Bird 

Conservation Plan (Nicholoff, 2003). The species is found throughout Wyoming in marshes, 

ponds, and wet meadows and feeds on aquatic invertebrates, small fish, insects, and seeds 

(Nicholoff, 2003). Because the wetland and open water areas on the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project site and surrounding vicinity are small in size and seasonal, they do not support 

aquatic life and would not, therefore, provide the diet necessary for this species. Though the 

American avocet is unlikely to inhabit the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site, this species 

may migrate through the area. 

The black tern is listed as a Level I, Conservation Action Species (also referred to as migratory 

bird species of management concern) by the Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan 

(Nicholoff, 2003). The black tern occurs across Wyoming in small, loose colonies and most 

commonly nests in emergent wetlands with cattail (Typha spp.) or bulrush (Scirpus spp.). The 

species prefers marshes or a series of marshes greater than 20 ha [50 ac] in size (Nicholoff, 

2003); therefore, the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site is unlikely to provide sufficient 

habitat for this species, though some individuals may migrate through the area. 

The American dipper is listed as a Level II, Monitoring species by the Wyoming Bird 

Conservation Plan (Nicholoff, 2003). This species requires rapidly flowing mountain streams 

near coniferous forest and is unlikely to inhabit the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. 

3.6.1.2.5 Nongame/Migratory Birds 

The applicant recorded incidental sightings of nongame/migratory birds during 2006 and 2007 

wildlife inventories but did not conduct any formal surveys specifically for these species 

(Uranerz, 2007). Three species were observed during the wildlife inventories: the horned lark 

(Eremophila alpestris), black-billed magpie (Pica pica), and Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella pusilla). 

The Brewer’s sparrow is a State of Wyoming species of concern and a BLM-designated 

sensitive species and is discussed in more detail in Section 3.6.3 in the SEIS. 

WYNDD reports indicated the following additional nongame/migratory bird species may be 

found in the vicinity of the site: the Williamson’s sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus), canyon 

wren (Catherpes mexicanus), and chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica). The Williamson’s 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-37 

sapsucker is designated as a Level II, Monitoring species by the Wyoming Bird Conservation 

Plan (Nicholoff, 2003). This species inhabits coniferous forests and aspen stands and is 

unlikely to occur within the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. The canyon 

wren is designated as a Level III, Local Interest species by the Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan 

(Nicholoff, 2003). The species generally inhabits cliffs, canyons, and rock outcrops in 

pine-juniper and woodland-chaparral habitat (Nicholoff, 2003). The chimney swift has no 

designation within the State of Wyoming. 

Additional nongame/migratory birds with a protected status and the potential to occur on or in 

the vicinity of the site are listed in Section 3.6.3 in the SEIS. 

3.6.1.2.6 Other Mammals 

The applicant recorded incidental sightings of mammals during 2006 and 2007 wildlife 

inventories but did not conduct any specific formal surveys (Uranerz, 2007). Three species of 

mammalian predators were observed within a 3.2-km [2.0-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project site: bobcat (Lynx rufus), badger (Taxidea taxus), and coyote (Canis 

latrans). In addition, a swift fox (Vulpes velox) was observed approximately 8 km [5 mi] east of 

the proposed site. 

Desert cottontails (Sylvilagus audubonii) and white-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus townsendii) were 

observed in all types of vegetative communities; however, both species were observed in 

highest concentration near disturbed areas, which included existing CBM well pads, a CBM 

compression station, and along existing roads. During the wildlife inventories, an outbreak of 

tularemia, an infectious bacterial disease, was confirmed by a Wyoming State laboratory 

biologist to be present within the rabbit population. Outbreaks of this disease, caused by the 

bacterium Francisella tularensis, are found primarily in rodent populations, and documented 

cases occur in Wyoming nearly every year (WGFD, 2006b). 

Additional mammal species observed within the vicinity of the site include ground squirrels 

(Spermophilus tridecemlineatus) and black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) 

(Uranerz, 2007). A total of 381.1 ha [941.8 ac] of black-tailed prairie dog colonies occur on or 

within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site (Uranerz, 2007). 

Black-tailed prairie dogs are a State of Wyoming species of concern and are discussed in more 

detail below in Section 3.6.3 in the SEIS. 

3.6.1.2.7 Reptiles and Amphibians 

The applicant recorded incidental sightings of reptiles and amphibians during 2006 and 2007 

wildlife inventories but did not conduct any specific formal surveys (Uranerz, 2007). Two 

species of reptiles were observed: the prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) and bullsnake 

(Pituophis melanoleucas sayi). Prairie rattlesnakes were observed in juniper outcrop and 

bottomland vegetation. One bullsnake was observed along a road in the northern portion of the 

Hank Unit. 

Additional protected reptile and amphibian species that may occur in the vicinity of the proposed 

site are listed in Section 3.6.3 in the SEIS. 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-38 

3.6.2 Aquatic Ecology 

The majority of the surface water features on the proposed project area are ephemeral streams 

and washes that maintain flow during snow melt or major summer storms. Four small wetlands 

with human-made ponds are located within one of the channels in the southeast corner of the 

Nichols Ranch Unit. These wetlands and ponds are seasonal in nature, and thus do not 

provided a year-round source of surface water sufficient to maintain a population of aquatic 

species. The wetlands, specifically, are detailed in Section 3.5.1.5 in the SEIS. 

3.6.3 Protected Species 

Table 3-8 presents species that are federally listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

state-listed under the Final Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Wyoming, and/or 

BLM-listed as sensitive species and occur in Campbell and Johnson Counties. No federal 

candidate or proposed species, such as the Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

and the mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), are known to occur on or in the vicinity of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. Of the state-listed species, the black-tailed prairie 

dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) and swift fox (Vulpes velox) are known to occur on or in the vicinity 

of the site and were observed during the wildlife inventories the applicant conducted (Uranerz, 

2007). These species are detailed as follows. 

Bald Eagle 

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which was delisted from the federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in July 2007 (72 FR 37346), is known to occur within the 

vicinity of the proposed project. Numerous bald eagles were observed during the wildlife 

inventories the applicant conducted (Uranerz, 2007). A raptor nest inventory was conducted in 

April and May 2006 to determine the presence of raptor nests onsite. Additionally, in January 

and February 2007, three specific bald eagle winter roost site surveys were conducted that 

included land within a 0.6-km [1-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. One 

winter roost was identified from available BLM data and is located 7.2 km [4.5 mi] southwest of 

the Nichols Ranch Unit (Uranerz, 2007). The closest known nest is about 16 km [10 mi] west of 

the proposed site along the Powder River (Uranerz, 2007). In addition to the wildlife inventories 

the applicant conducted, a BLM Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Yates Petroleum 

Corporation All Day Plan of Development (BLM, 2009c) identifies bald eagle roosts within the 

Hank Unit of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project as the projects are located near one 

another. The Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the observation of 7 bald eagles on 

December 3, 2007, 5 bald eagles on December 16, 2008, 1 bald eagle on January 12, 2009, 

and 13 bald eagles on February 11, 2009, all within the Hank Unit (BLM, 2009c). 

The species continues to be protected federally by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 

as well as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and at the state level as a species of concern. FWS 

published its National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines in FWS (2007) to ensure the 

continued protection of the species. The bald eagle is a large raptor species with a white head 

and tail, and brown body feathers and is generally associated with lakes and other large, open 

bodies of water. Bald eagles prey on fish, small mammals, birds, and occasionally carrion. 

 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-39 

Table 3-8. Federal-, State- and BLM-Listed Species That Occur in Johnson and 

Campbell Counties 

Scientific Name 

Common 

Name 

Federal 

Status* State Status† 

County of 

Occurrence‡ 

Amphibians 

Ambystoma tigrinum tiger 

salamander 

— SGCN CAM; JOH 

Bufo cognatus Great Plains 

toad 

— SGCN CAM 

Rana pipiens northern 

leopard frog 

— SGCN; BLM-SS CAM; JOH 

Rana pretiosa spotted frog — BLM-SS CAM; JOH 

Rana sylvatica wood frog — SGCN JOH 

Birds 

Accipiter gentilis northern 

goshawk 

— SGCN; BLM-SS JOH 

Aegolius funereus boreal owl — SGCN JOH 

Ammodramus bairdii Baird’s 

sparrow 

— BLM-SS CAM; JOH 

Ammondramus 

savannarum 

grasshopper 

sparrow 

— SGCN CAM; JOH 

Amphispiza belli sage 

sparrow 

— SGCN; BLM-SS CAM; JOH 

Asio flammeus short-eared 

owl 

— SGCN CAM; JOH 

Athene cunicularia burrowing 

owl 

— SGCN; BLM-SS CAM; JOH 

Buteo regalis ferruginous 

hawk 

— SGCN; BLM-SS CAM; JOH 

Calcarius mccownii McCown’s 

longspur 

— SGCN CAM; JOH 

Calcarius ornatus chestnutcollared 

longspur 

— SGCN CAM 

Centrocercus 

urophasianus 

Greater 

sage-grouse 

C SGCN; BLM-SS CAM; JOH 

Charadrius montanus mountain 

plover 

— SGCN CAM; JOH 

Coccyzus americanus yellow-billed 

cuckoo 

— SGCN; BLM-SS JOH 

Cygnus buccinator trumpeter 

swan 

— BLM-SS CAM; JOH 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus boblink — SGCN CAM 

Egretta thalus snowy egret — SGCN JOH 

Falco peregrinus 

anatum 

American 

peregrine 

falcon 

DL SGCN; BLM-SS CAM; JOH 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-40 

Table 3-8. Federal-, State- and BLM-Listed Species That Occur in Johnson and 

Campbell Counties (continued) 

Scientific Name 

Common 

Name 

Federal 

Status* State Status† 

County of 

Occurrence‡ 

Gaviea immer common 

loon 

— SGCN JOH 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

bald eagle DL SGCN CAM; JOH 

Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead 

shrike 

— BML-SS CAM; JOH 

Numenius americanus long-billed 

curlew 

— SGCN; BLM-SS CAM 

Nycticorax nycticorax blackcrowned 

night-heron 

— SGCN CAM; JOH 

Oreoscoptes montanus sage 

thrasher 

— BLM-SS; SGCN CAM; JOH 

Plegadis chihi white-faced 

ibis 

— BLM-SS CAM; JOH 

Rallus limicola Virginia rail — SGCN JOH 

Sitta pygmaea pygmy 

nuthatch 

— SGCN CAM; JOH 

Spizella breweri Brewer’s 

sparrow 

— BLM-SS; SGCN CAM; JOH 

Fish 

Hiodon alosoides goldeye — SGCN JOH 

Hybognathus argyritis western 

silvery 

minnow 

— SGCN CAM; JOH 

Macrhybopsis gelida sturgeon 

chub 

— SGCN CAM; JOH 

Oncorhynchus clarki 

bouvieri 

Yellowstone 

cutthroat 

trout 

— BLM-SS CAM; JOH 

Scaphirhynchus 

platorynchus 

shovelnose 

sturgeon 

— SGCN CAM; JOH 

Stizostedion canadense sauger — SGCN CAM; JOH 

Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s 

big-eared 

bat 

– BLM-SS; SGCN CAM; JOH 

Cynomys leucurus white-tailed 

prairie dog 

– SGCN JOH 

Cynomys ludovicianus black-tailed 

prairie dog 

— SGCN JOH 

Euderma maculatum spotted bat — BLM-SS CAM; JOH 

Lasionycteris 

noctivagans 

silver-haired 

bat 

— SGCN CAM; JOH 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-41 

Table 3-8. Federal-, State- and BLM-Listed Species That Occur in Johnson and 

Campbell Counties (continued) 

Scientific Name 

Common 

Name 

Federal 

Status* State Status† 

County of 

Occurrence‡ 

Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat — SGCN CAM; JOH 

Lontra canadensis river otter — SGCN JOH 

Martes pennanti fisher — SGCN JOH 

Microtus richardsoni water vole — SGCN JOH 

Mustela nigripes black-footed 

ferret 

E SGCN CAM; JOH 

Mustela nivalis least weasel — SGCN JOH 

Mammals 

Myotis ciliolabrum western 

small-footed 

myotis 

— SGCN JOH 

Myotis evotis long-eared 

myotis 

— BLM-SS; SGCN CAM; JOH 

Myotis thysanodes fringed 

myotis 

— BLM-SS; SGCN JOH 

Myotis volans long-legged 

myotis 

— SGCN JOH 

Perognathus fasciatus olive-backed 

pocket 

mouse 

— SGCN CAM; JOH 

Sorex haydeni Hayden’s 

shrew 

— SGCN JOH 

Sorex nanus dwarf shrew — SGCN CAM; JOH 

Vulpes velox swift fox — BLM-SS; SGCN CAM; JOH 

Reptiles 

Coluber constrictor 

flaviventris 

eastern 

yellowbelly 

racer 

— SGCN CAM; JOH 

Plants 

Anemone narcissiflora 

ssp. zephyra 

zephyr 

windflower 

— PSC JOH 

Arnica lonchophylla northern 

arnica 

— PSC JOH 

Cymopterus williamsii Williams’ 

waferparsnip

— BLM-SS; PSC JOH 

Cypripedium montanum mountain 

lady-slipper 

— PSC JOH 

Draba fladnizensis var. 

pattersonii 

white artiv 

whitlow 

grass 

— PSC JOH 

Festuca hallii Hall’s fescue — PSC JOH 

Juncus triglumis var. 

triglumis 

three-flower 

rush 

— PSC JOH 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-42 

Table 3-8. Federal-, State- and BLM-Listed Species That Occur in Johnson and 

Campbell Counties (continued) 

Scientific Name 

Common 

Name 

Federal 

Status* State Status† 

County of 

Occurrence‡ 

Papaver kluanense alpine poppy — PSC JOH 

Parnassia kotzebuei Kotzebuei’s 

grass-ofparnassus 

— JOH 

Pedicularis contorta var. 

ctenophore 

coil-breaked 

lousewort 

— PSC JOH 

Penstemon haydenii blowout 

penstemon 

E – CAM; JOH 

Physaria lanata woolly 

twinpod 

— PSC CAM; JOH 

Polygala verticillata whorled 

milkwort 

— PSC CAM 

Polygonum 

spergulariiforme 

fall 

knotweed 

— PSC JOH 

Potamogeton amplifolius large-leaved 

pondweed 

— PSC JOH 

Psilocarphus 

brevissimus 

dwarf 

woollyheads 

— PSC CAM 

Puccinellia cusickii Cusick’s 

alkali-grass 

— PSC JOH 

Pyrrocoma clementis 

var. villosa 

hairy tranquil 

goldenweed 

— HCP JOH 

Rubus acaulis northern 

blackberry 

— PSC JOH 

Schoenoplectus 

heterochaetus 

slender 

bulrush 

— PSC CAM 

Sesuvium verrucosum sea purslane — PSC CAM 

Spiranthes diluvialis ute ladies’-

tresses 

T – CAM; JOH 

Sporobolus compositus longleaf 

dropseed 

— PSC CAM 

Triodanis leptocarpa slim-pod 

Venus’ 

lookingglass 

— PSC CAM 

*C = Candidate; DL = delisted; E = endangered; T = threatened; – = not listed

†BLM-SS = BLM Wyoming-designated Sensitive Species; PSC = plant species of concern, as designated by the 

WYNDD; SGCN = species of greatest conservation need, as designated by the WGFD

‡CAM = Campbell County, Wyoming; JOH = Johnson County, Wyoming

Sources: USDA, 2009; FWS, 2008b; WYNDD, 2007; WGFD, 2005b; WYNDD, 2003; BLM, 2002 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-43 

Black-Footed Ferret 

The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) is federally listed as endangered. The species is 

endemic to North America and primarily inhabits the Great Plains region. It is the only species 

of ferret native to the Americas. The species was believed to be extinct by the late 1980s, but in 

1981, a small relic population was discovered near Meeteetse, Wyoming (WGFD, 2005c). From 

this population, 18 individuals were captured to start a captive breeding program, which WGFD 

initiated (WGFD, 2005c). Nonessential experimental populations have been reintroduced to 

18 locations in 8 states and Mexico (FWS, 2008a). Four of these reintroduced populations–

those in Aubrey Valley, Arizona; Cheyenne River and Conata Basin, South Dakota; and Shirley 

Basin, Wyoming–have successfully stabilized and no longer require supplemental individuals 

from captive breeding (FWS, 2008a). Six additional locations are considered marginal to 

improving (FWS, 2008a). 

The black-footed ferret is a small mammal in the weasel family with a natural to buff-colored 

body and black face, feet, and tail. Adults are 46 to 61 cm [18 to 24 in] long and weigh 0.7 to 

1.1 kg [1.5 to 2.5 lb], with males generally larger than females (FWS, 2009). Generally, 

black-footed ferret occurrences coincide with prairie dog habitat [black-tailed (Cynomys 

ludovicianus), Gunnison’s (C. gunnisoni), and white-tailed (C. leucurus)] because prairie dog is 

the main prey of the ferret and the ferret also uses prairie dog burrows for shelter (FWS, 2008a). 

Black-footed ferrets are more likely to occur in black-tailed prairie dog habitat than in other 

prairie dog species’ habitat; historically, it is estimated that 85 percent of all black-tailed ferrets 

occurred in black-tailed prairie dog habitat, 8 percent in Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat, and 

7 percent in white-tailed prairie dog habitat (FWS, 2008a). 

The applicant identified 11 black-tailed prairie dog colonies totaling 381.1 ha [941.8 ac] 

(discussed in more detail next) within and in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project site during wildlife inventories conducted in 2006 and 2007 (Uranerz, 2007). In a 2004 

letter (FWS, 2004a), FWS relieved the requirement for black-footed ferret surveys to be 

conducted in black-tailed prairie dog habitat within the State of Wyoming for the purpose of 

identifying previously unknown ferret populations. FWS considered incidental takes of individual 

ferrets in black-tailed prairie dog habitat, which is “block cleared,” to not be an issue and not to 

effect any wild population. However, this block clearance does not relieve Federal agencies of 

the need to assess a proposed action’s effect on the species’ survival and recovery. Further, 

FWS directs Federal agencies to assess whether a proposed action could have an adverse 

effect on the value of prairie dog habitat as a future reintroduction site for the black-footed ferret 

(FWS, 2004a). 

No black-footed ferrets have been identified on the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site 

(Uranerz, 2007). FWS has not designated any critical habitat for the species (FWS, 2009). 

However, due to the presence of black-tailed prairie dog habitat, the NRC initiated informal 

consultation with the FWS to ensure the provisions of the ESA are upheld regarding the 

black-footed ferret. This informal consultation is detailed in Section 4.6.1.1.3 in the SEIS. 

Black-Tailed Prairie Dog 

The black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) is a State of Wyoming species of concern. 

The species is a small, diurnal ground squirrel that is endemic to North America and occurs 

throughout the Great Plains region. In Wyoming, the black-tailed prairie dog inhabits dry, flat, 

open, short, and mixed-grass prairie within the eastern third of the state (WGFD, 2005d). Adults 

weigh 0.5 to 1.4 kg [1 to 3 lbs] and are 36 to 43 cm [14 to 17 in] long. Coloring can vary from a 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-44 

mixture of brown, black, grey, and white, though the black-tipped tail is characteristic of the 

species. Black-tailed prairie dogs live in family groups within large colonies (FWS, 2000). The 

black-tailed prairie dog is preyed upon by a number of species, including the black-footed ferret, 

swift fox, ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), all of which 

are federally or state listed species. The mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), a federal 

species proposed as threatened and Wyoming species of greatest conservation need, also 

relies on black-tailed prairie dog burrows for nesting areas. 

Black-tailed prairie dog colony mapping completed as part of the wildlife inventory the applicant 

conducted indicates that a total of 381.1 ha [941.8 ac] of prairie dog colonies occur on or within 

a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site, 144.3 ha [356.5 ac] of 

which are on the site itself (Uranerz, 2007). Eleven colonies were identified, the largest of which 

occurs within the Nichols Ranch Unit. One colony borders the western boundary of the 

Hank Unit and the rest of the colonies lie between the two units as well as to the west of 

the Nichols Ranch Unit. Within the State of Wyoming, the major threat to this species is habitat 

degradation, habitat loss, human conflict/disturbance, and unregulated take/mortality 

(WGFD, 2005d). 

Mountain Plover 

The mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) is federally proposed as threatened and a 

Wyoming species of greatest conservation need. This bird is a native of the short-grass prairie 

and is found in open, dry shrublands or agricultural fields with short vegetation and bare ground. 

Mountain plover breeding habitat includes the western Great Plains and Rocky Mountain states 

extending from the Canadian border to northern Mexico (75 FR 37353). The prime breeding 

and nesting period for the mountain plover is from April 10 through July 10 (BLM, 2007a). In 

Wyoming, the greatest concentration of mountain plovers is found in the south central part of 

the state, but, they can be found in every county (Andres, 2009; WYNDD, 2010). Prairie dogs 

and other burrowing animals provide highly suitable habitat for the mountain plover. The 

mountain plover is often found in areas with heavy grazing and landscapes with excessive 

surface disturbance (64 FR 7587). This species is a small bird about 17.5 cm [7 in] in height 

with light brown and white coloring. The FWS originally proposed this species as threatened on 

February 16, 1999 (64 FR 7587). The proposal was withdrawn on September 9, 2003, and was 

reinstated on June 29, 2010 (68 FR 53083; 75 FR 37353). This species was not observed 

during the 2006 applicant wildlife inventories (Uranerz, 2007). According to the WYNDD and 

BLM records, mountain plovers are known to reside in the area of the proposed site; however, 

no confirmed or unconfirmed observations have been recorded at the proposed site (WYNDD, 

2010; BLM, 2007a). 

Blowout Penstemon 

The blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) is federally listed as endangered. This perennial 

herb is endemic to the Nebraska Sandhills in north-central Nebraska and to the northeastern 

region of the Great Divide Basin in Carbon County, Wyoming (Fertig, 2008). The species is 

found exclusively in sparsely vegetated, early successional sand dunes or blowout areas at 

elevations of 1,790 to 2,270 m [5,860 to 7,440 ft] (Fertig, 2008). The proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project does not have sand dune habitat and is outside of the elevation range in which this 

species is typically found. This species was not identified during vegetation inventories the 

applicant conducted and is not known to occur on or in the vicinity of the proposed site 

(Uranerz, 2007). 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-45 

Brewer’s Sparrow 

The Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) is a State of Wyoming species of concern and a 

BLM-designated sensitive species. During the wildlife inventories the applicant conducted, 

Brewer’s sparrow was observed within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project site (Uranerz, 2007). The species inhabits open sagebrush shrubland across 

Wyoming and migrates to southern California and south to central Mexico in winter months 

(Nicholoff, 2003). This species is the smallest of the North American sparrows and is brown to 

grey in color with a white eye ring (CDNR, 2005). The Brewer’s sparrow builds its nest about 

1.2 m [4 ft] off the ground at the base of live sagebrush and is commonly parasitized by the 

common cowbird (Molothrus ater) (Nicholoff, 2003). The species is territorial, and individual 

territories range from 0.1 to 2.36 ha [0.25 to 5.8 ac] in size (CDNR, 2005). Habitat 

fragmentation and sagebrush spraying/removal are the primary threats to this species 

(Nicholoff, 2003). 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

The Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is a federal candidate species, a State 

of Wyoming species of concern, and a BLM-designated sensitive species. On March 5, 2010, 

FWS published a finding in the Federal Register that listing of the species was warranted but 

precluded by higher priority listing actions (75 FR 13909). In effect, the species has been put on 

the federal list of candidate species, which contains plants and animals that are proposed for 

listing under ESA Section 4. FWS reevaluates the potential listing of candidate species every 

12 months to determine whether the species’ status should change to threatened or 

endangered at that time. WGFD published revisions to its Recommendations for Development 

of Oil and Gas Resources Within Important Wildlife Habitats in November 2009 to be consistent 

with the Governor’s Executive Order (EO). This guidance was updated again in April 2010 

(WGFD, 2010b) in response to the FWS rule listing the sage-grouse as a candidate species. 

Also, in response to the species’ listing as a candidate species, Wyoming BLM issued an 

instructional memorandum on March 5, 2010, which supplements BLM’s previous National 

Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy published in 2004 (BLM, 2004, 2010). The BLM 

guidance closely follows the recommendations WGFD put forth in its Recommendations for 

Development of Oil and Gas Resources Within Important Wildlife Habitats (WGFD, 2010b). 

Finally, on August 18, 2010, the Governor signed EO 2010-4, updating the previous EO 

(2008-2) regarding the protection of sage-grouse (State of Wyoming, 2010). The most 

restrictive conservation measures and recommendations are for the sage-grouse core 

population areas (core areas), which are areas identified by the State of Wyoming as high 

quality habitat for sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing and necessary to maintain 

sage-grouse populations. 

The species inhabits open sagebrush plains in the western United States and is found at 

elevations of 1,200 to 2,700 m [4,000 to 9,000 ft], corresponding with the occurrence of 

sagebrush habitat (FWS, 2004b). 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] long 

(FWS, 2004b). Leks and stands of sagebrush surrounding leks are used in early spring and are 

particularly important habitat because birds often return to the same leks and nesting areas 

each year. Leks are generally in more sparsely vegetated areas such as ridgelines or disturbed 

areas adjacent to stands of sagebrush habitat. Threats to this species’ survival include loss of 

habitat, agricultural practices, livestock grazing, hunting, and land disturbances from 

energy/mineral development and the oil and gas industry (Sage-grouse Working Group, 2006). 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-46 

The Northeast Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group oversees the conservation plan that 

includes the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site and the Powder River Basin. The 

Northeast Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group estimates Campbell and Johnson Counties 

contain 175 and 128 leks, respectively (Sage-grouse Working Group, 2006). According to 

information gathered from the applicant and WGFD, nine sage-grouse leks are located within a 

3.2-km [2.0-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site (Uranerz, 2007; WGFD, 

2010). Four of the leks averaged fewer than 15 birds, four of the leks averaged in the range of 

15 to 25 birds, and one of the leks averaged more than 60 birds (Uranerz, 2007). None of these 

leks occur on the proposed project site. In July 2006, several females with young were 

observed in the Dry Willow Drainage north of the Hank Unit (Uranerz, 2007). No sage-grouse 

were observed during the winter survey in February 2007, which indicates that the population of 

sage-grouse in the vicinity of the proposed project site may be migratory and therefore only 

present near the site during the spring and summer months. 

Swift Fox 

The swift fox (Vulpes velox) is a State of Wyoming species of concern and a BLM-designated 

sensitive species. The species was removed from the ESA Candidate List in 2002 due to 

successful conservation measures and reintroduction efforts in western states. The species is 

native to the Great Plains region, and in Wyoming, the swift fox inhabits flat terrain east of the 

Continental Divide with shortgrass or mixed-grass prairie and is often associated with prairie 

dog colonies (WGFD, 2005f). Individuals are orange to tan in color with pale yellow to white on 

the throat, chest, and belly and black on the tail, muzzle, and ears. Adults are 2.3 to 3.2 kg 

[5 to 7 lb] in size with males generally larger than females. Its diet includes rabbit, prairie dog, 

and other small mammals, as well as some small reptiles, berries, and seeds (Defenders of 

Wildlife, 2009). Swift foxes are nocturnal and use underground dens year round. Threats to the 

species’ continued survival include loss of prairie habitat, trapping and hunting, and predator 

control campaigns (WGFD, 2005f). During the wildlife inventories the applicant conducted, one 

swift fox was observed approximately 8 km [5 mi] east of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project site (Uranerz, 2007). No swift foxes were observed on the proposed site; however, 

based on the observation of one individual near the proposed site and the presence of suitable 

short, mixed grassland habitat and prairie dog colonies on and in the vicinity of the proposed 

project site, the swift fox is likely to inhabit the proposed project site and surrounding area. 

Ute Ladies’-Tresses Orchid 

The Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) is federally listed as threatened. The 

species is a perennial, terrestrial orchid that occurs in Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, 

Idaho, Montana, and Washington. Within Wyoming, it inhabits moist meadows with moderately 

dense but short vegetative cover. The species is found at elevations of 1,280 to 2,130 m 

[4,200 to 7,000 ft], though no known populations occur in Wyoming above 1,680 m [5,500 ft] 

(FWS, 2008b). Generally, this orchid is found in low densities of four to eight flowering plants 

per square meter (Fertig, 2000). The species is likely to inhabit silt, sand, or gravely soils in 

areas with ample sunlight (FWS, 2008b). It is characterized by 12 to 50 cm [4.7 to 20 in] stems 

with linear basal leaves up to 28 cm [11 in] long and spikes of small white to ivory flowers that 

bloom between early August and early September (Fertig, 2000). Urbanization, livestock 

grazing, pesticide use, competition with noxious weeds, and loss of pollinators threaten this 

species, survival (Fertig, 2000). This species was not identified during vegetation inventories 

the applicant conducted and is not known to occur on or in the vicinity of the proposed site 

(Uranerz, 2007). 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-47 

Figure 3-8. Sage-Grouse Lek and Core Areas 

Source: WGFD (2010) 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-48 

Additional Species 

The following BLM-designated sensitive species and Wyoming species of concern have been 

recorded as occurring in the vicinity of the proposed site; however, none of these species were 

observed during the wildlife inventories the applicant conducted (Uranerz, 2007): 

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) 

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) 

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 

Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) 

Sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli) 

Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) 

Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens). 

3.7 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality 

The following sections discuss the meteorology, climatology, and air quality at the proposed 

project site. A discussion of climate change and greenhouse gases (GHGs) is also included in 

this section of the SEIS. 

3.7.1 Meteorology and Climatology 

The majority of Wyoming is dominated by mountain ranges and rangelands of the Rocky 

Mountains and high plains, which occupy the westernmost portion of the state and are generally 

oriented in a north-south direction. The Wyoming mountain ranges generally provide effective 

barriers to Pacific-generated weather systems because they are perpendicular to the prevailing 

westerly winds, as discussed in GEIS Section 3.3.6.1. Much of the moisture that moves in from 

the west is dropped along the western slopes, which creates semiarid conditions in the eastern 

portion of the state. The Wyoming mean elevation is 2,042 m [6,700 ft] AMSL with the highest 

point, Gannett Peak, at 4,201 m [13,785 ft] and the lowest point at 952 m [3,125 ft] in the 

northeastern corner of the state near the South Dakota state line. Generally, Wyoming 

elevation results in cool temperatures. The fall, winter, and spring months experience frequent 

variations with rapid change from cold to mild temperatures, and freezes in early fall and late 

spring create a short growing season (NRC, 2009a). 

The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is located at an elevation of 1,653 m [4,750 ft] AMSL 

and approximately 90 km [56 mi] southeast of the Big Horn Mountains within the Powder River 

Basin. This basin is characterized by semiarid plains with low hills and buttes, little vegetation, 

and few substantial topographical features. The Powder River Basin experiences diverse 

weather patterns that fluctuate throughout the year, due in large part to its proximity to the 

Rocky Mountain system and its relatively high elevation. Generally, weather patterns follow 

those described for the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region in GEIS Section 3.3.6.1. The 

majority of precipitation occurs in the spring and summer months with occasional heavy rains or 

thunderstorms, which can create flash flooding. Table 3-9 is taken from the GEIS (Table 3.3-6) 

and includes mean temperatures at National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Glenrock, about 

120 km [75 mi] south of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, and Midwest, about 40 km 

[25 mi] southwest of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

Because no onsite meteorological stations are within or adjacent to the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project area, data the applicant collected from seven meteorological stations surrounding 

the proposed project area were used to describe the expected meteorological conditions at the 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-49 

site (Uranerz, 2007). These stations are the Antelope Mine {78 km [48.5 mi] to the southwest}, 

Buffalo {93 km [58 mi] to the northwest}, Casper Natrona County Airport {97 km [60 mi] to the 

south-southwest}, Dull Center 1 SE {87 km [54 mi] to the east-southeast}, Gillette 9 ESE {75 km 

[46.5 mi] to the north-northwest}, Glenrock 5 ESE {100 km [62 mi] to the south}, and Midwest 

{40 km [25 mi] to the southwest}. The NRC staff’s safety review of potential air quality impacts 

included review and consideration of this local meteorological data provided by the applicant. 

During the review, the NRC staff concluded local topography at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

warrants onsite meteorological measurements as documented in SER Section 2.2.3.2. To 

address this concern, the NRC staff has added a license condition requiring the applicant to 

collect onsite meteorological data for a minimum of 1 year prior to operating as described in 

Section 2.2.4 of the SER. The condition requires the applicant to submit the data for NRC 

review. 

3.7.1.1 Temperature 

Temperatures fluctuate greatly throughout the year in the Powder River Basin. Located in a 

semiarid climate, summer temperatures at the proposed project site can be quite warm, while 

winters are commonly quite cold. The annual average temperature in the project area region is 

between 7 and 10 °C [45 and 50 °F]. The average maximum daily temperature is 32 °C [90 °F], 

with July yielding the warmest average temperatures. Monthly average temperatures range 

from a minimum of between -12.2 and -7.8 o

C [10 and 18 oF] in January to a maximum of 

between 29.4 and 32.2 oC [85 and 90 o

F] in July. Large, diurnal temperature variations occur in 

the region due to its high altitude and low humidity. Spring and summer daily variations are 

11 to 14 oC [20 to 25 oF]. Less daily variation is observed during the cooler portions of the year; 

fall and winter have fluctuations of approximately 8 oC [15 oF] (Uranerz, 2007). 

3.7.1.2 Wind 

Winter winds in Wyoming may reach 48 to 64 kph [30 to 40 mph] with gusts to 80 to 97 kph 

[50 to 60 mph] (Uranerz, 2007). Prevailing wind directions vary from the west-southwest, west, 

and northwest. In many localities, winds are so strong and constant that trees (when present) 

show a definite lean toward the east or southeast. 

Table 3-9. Climate Data for Stations in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region 

 Glenrock 5 ESE Midwest 

Temperature (°C)* Mean–Annual 8.8 7.5 

Low–Monthly Mean −3.1 −5.7 

High–Monthly Mean 22.4 21.5 

Precipitation (cm)† Mean–Annual 31.0 35.0 

Low–Monthly Mean 0.90 1.4 

High–Monthly Mean 6.1 6.5 

Snowfall (cm) Mean–Annual 58.4 135 

Low–Monthly Mean 0 0 

High–Monthly Mean 13.5 22.6 

*To convert Celsius (°C) to Fahrenheit (°F), multiply by 1.8 and add 32. 

†To convert centimeters (cm) to inches (in), multiply by 0.3937. 

Sources: NCDC, 2004; NRC, 2009a Table 3.3-6
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-50 

Many wind farms have been established over southern Wyoming in places such as Arlington, 

Medicine Bow, Rock River, and just south of Cheyenne to take advantage of this renewable 

energy source. 

The high plains area near the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site experiences moderate 

westerly winds throughout the year. These prevailing winds are generated by high-pressure 

systems that originate in the north Pacific and Canadian Rocky Mountains. These systems 

move east across the mountainous western United States and Canada, where most of the 

precipitation is released, leaving fairly dry, steady winds that empty into the eastern foothills and 

plain regions such as the Powder River Basin. 

The applicant did not collect onsite meteorological data at the Nichols Ranch ISR project. 

Instead, the applicant proposed to use the station operated by the Intermountain Laboratory 

(IML) at the Antelope Coal Company Mine (ACC) located 78 km [48.5 mi] east-southeast of the 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project area. The applicant provided Figure 2-10a in the application for the 

annual wind rose for the Antelope station (Figure 3-9 in this SEIS). The figure presents wind 

speed and wind direction data from 1987 through 2006. More detailed monthly wind rose data 

are provided in the applicant’s technical report as Figures 2-10, 2-10a, and 2-10b in the 

application, respectively, but are not reproduced here. Average wind speed at the ACC station 

was 18 kmh [11 mph] with maximum wind speed averaging 76 kph [47 mph], and the wind 

direction from the ACC station shows a generally westerly pattern with a stronger westsouthwestern component. Winds are the slowest in the predawn hours and strongest in the 

mid-afternoons, tapering off again at dusk. Seasonal variations indicated maximum and 

minimum wind speeds in the spring and fall, respectively (Uranerz, 2007). 

3.7.1.3 Precipitation 

The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area receives relatively little rainfall due in large part 

to the Rocky Mountain range system, which effectively blocks moisture from regional weather 

systems that approach from the west, northwest, and southwest (Uranerz, 2007). Its unique 

location has helped shape the desert climate in the area. Annual precipitation ranged between 

28 and 38 cm [11 and 15 in] with the greatest quantity occurring in late spring/early summer and 

the least amount occurring in the winter months (Curtis and Grimes, 2004). The most common 

severe storms consisted of thunderstorms and hailstorms. 

3.7.1.4 Evaporation 

As discussed in GEIS Section 3.3.6.1, the annual evaporation rates in the Wyoming 

East Uranium Milling Region range from about 102 to 127 cm [40 to 50 in] (NWS, 1982). The 

low humidity, sunshine, and high winds contribute to a high rate of evaporation. At the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, the annual evaporation rate is approximately 102 to 

114 cm [40 to 45 in] (Uranerz, 2007). 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-51 

Figure 3-9. Annual Wind Rose for the Antelope Coal Company (Uranerz, 2008) 

3.7.1.5 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases 

On a larger scale, climate change is a subject of national and international interest. The recent 

compilation of the state of knowledge in this area by the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

(GCRP), a Federal Advisory Committee (GCRP, 2009), has been considered in preparation of 

this SEIS. Average U.S. temperatures have risen more than 1.1 °C [2 °F] over the past 

50 years and are projected to rise more in the future. In the period from 1993 to 2008, the 

average temperature in the Great Plains increased by approximately 0.9 °C [1.5 °F] from the 

1961 to 1979 baseline (GCRP, 2009). The projected change in temperature (from the years 

2000 to 2020) ranges from a decrease of approximately 0.3 °C [0.5 °F] to an increase of 

approximately 1.1 EC [2 °F]. This time period encompasses the 10-year licensing period for the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. While GCRP has not incrementally forecasted the 

change in precipitation by decade, the projected change in spring precipitation from the 1961 to 

1979 baseline to the period from 2080 to 2099 was presented. For the region of Wyoming 

where the Nichols Ranch ISR Project is proposed to be located, the GCRP report forecasts a 

10 to 15 percent increase in spring precipitation (see Table 3-9)(GCRP, 2009). 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-52 

The EPA determined that potential changes in climate caused by greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions endanger public health and welfare based on a body of scientific evidence assessed 

by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change, and then National Research Council (74 FR 66496). The Administrator issued an 

endangerment finding based on the technical support document compiled by the previously 

referenced scientific organizations, which indicates that, while ambient concentrations of GHG 

emissions do not cause direct adverse health effects (such as respiratory or toxic effects), public 

health risks and impacts can result indirectly from changes in climate. Based on EPA’s 

determination, NRC recognizes that GHGs may have an effect on climate change. The 

Commission’s Memorandum and Order CLI-09-21 provided guidance to NRC staff to consider 

carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions in its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

reviews. GHG emissions were considered an element of the existing air quality assessment. 

Relevant GHG emissions discussions are presented in Chapters 4 and 5 of this SEIS. 

3.7.2 Air Quality 

The proposed Nichols Ranch Project is located in and adjacent to counties that are designated 

as attainment with EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all criteria 

pollutants (EPA, 2010a). The nearest and only designated nonattainment area in Wyoming is 

the city of Sheridan, in Sheridan County (EPA, 2010a). The city of Sheridan is approximately 

142 km [88 mi] northwest of the proposed Nichols Ranch Project. The terrain within the region 

where the proposed site is located, combined with windy conditions provides good conditions for 

dispersion of air pollutants (BLM, 2003). The nearest residence to the Nichols Ranch Unit is 

Dry Fork Ranch, approximately 1.5 km [0.9 mi] to the west. The nearest residence to the Hank 

Unit is Pfister Ranch, approximately 1.0 km [0.6 mi] to the north. The nearest residences along 

the path of the predominant wind direction (Figure 3-9) are approximately 3.0 km [1.9 mi] east of 

the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit (the T-Chair Ranch) and 1.8 km [1.1 mi] east of the proposed 

Hank Unit (the Pumpkin Buttes Ranch)(Uranerz, 2007). Air emissions for the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project are described in Section 2.2.1.6.1 of this SEIS. 

As discussed in GEIS Section 3.3.6.2, the EPA has established air quality standards to promote 

and sustain healthy living conditions. These standards, known as NAAQS, address six 

pollutants EPA refers to as criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), ozone (O3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). EPA 

revised the NAAQS standards after the preparation of the GEIS. This includes a new rolling 

3-month average standard for lead at 0.15 μg/m3

 and a new 1-hour nitrogen dioxide standard at 

100 parts per billion. EPA revisions to SO2 and O3 standards are under consideration but are 

not finalized (EPA, 2010b). WDEQ adopted the EPA NAAQS, as summarized in the GEIS 

(NRC, 2009a, Table 3.2-8). States may develop standards that are stricter than, or that 

supplement, the NAAQS. Wyoming has a more restrictive standard for sulfur dioxide (annual at 

60 μg/m3 and 24-hour at 260 μg/m3

) and supplemental standards for particulate matter (annual 

PM10 at 50 μg/m3

 and 24 hour PM2.5 at 65 μg/m3) (WDEQ, 2008). The principal nonradiological 

emissions from activities at the proposed Nichols Ranch Project include diesel combustion 

engine emissions and fugitive road dust (particulate matter) described in Section 2.2.1.6.1.1. 

Particulate matter (PM) refers to particles found in the air. Some particles are large enough to 

be seen as dust, soot, or smoke, while others are too small to be visible. As noted previously, 

NAAQS for PM10 and PM2.5 limit the allowable concentration of PM particles to smaller than 

10 and 2.5 :m. Emissions from highway and nonroad construction vehicles comprise 

approximately 28 percent of total PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. The largest source of PM includes 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-53 

fugitive dust from paved and unpaved roads, agricultural and forestry activities, wind erosion, 

wildfires, and managed burning. 

The WDEQ Air Quality Division analyzes measurements from 26 stations located throughout 

Wyoming to ensure ambient air quality is maintained, in accordance with NAAQS. The results 

are synthesized into the Wyoming Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan (WDEQ, 2009). 

The baseline air quality conditions of the proposed Nichols Ranch Project were determined by 

evaluating data from four monitoring stations in the region to provide a reasonable 

representation of the air pollutant levels that could be expected to occur at the site. Monitoring 

data were reviewed for the Gillette, Campbell County South, Wright, and Antelope monitoring 

locations. Furthermore, the GEIS reported that all areas within the Wyoming East Uranium 

Milling Region were classified as being in attainment for NAAQS (NRC, 2009a). 

WDEQ monitors air quality and annually reports the results to EPA. Table 3-10 presents the air 

quality monitoring data for all of the monitoring stations within an 80 km [50 mi] radius of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch project. These monitoring sites are located northeast, east, and 

southeast of the proposed project area in the general direction of the prevailing winds 

(Figure 3-9). The monitoring results for the 3 year period from 2006 through 2008 are 

consistent with the area’s attainment status (WDEQ, 2009; EPA, 2010a). WDEQ uses the 

entire monitoring network to meet various objectives; therefore, all criteria pollutants are not 

monitored at each site and the data for monitoring sites in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols 

Ranch Project are limited. 

As discussed in GEIS Section 3.3.6.2, of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

requirements identify maximum allowable increases in concentrations for particulate matter, 

SO2, and NO2 for areas designated as attainment. There are several different classes of PSD 

areas, with Class I areas having the most stringent requirements. GEIS Table 3.4-9 identifies 

the Class I areas in Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, and Nebraska. GEIS Figures 3.2-16 

and 3.4-20 map the locations of Class I areas. Wind Cave National Park, the closest Class I 

area to the proposed action, is located about 185 km [115 mi] to the east of the Nichols Ranch 

site. Cloud Peak Wilderness Area, the closest Class II area to the proposed action, is located 

about 109 km [68 mi] to the northwest of the Nichols Ranch site. 

3.8 Noise 

As stated in GEIS Section 3.3.7, the estimated ambient noise levels in undeveloped rural and 

more urban areas of the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region are 22 to 38 decibels (dBA) 

(NRC, 2009a). The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area is located in rural Campbell and 

Johnson Counties, Wyoming. The known land uses within and adjacent to the Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project are grazing, wildlife habitat, recreation, oil and gas, and CBM recovery operations, 

none of which generate a significant amount of noise. Traffic along the roads leading to the site 

would generate some noise; however, almost all of the land on and adjacent to the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project is private with limited access. Sound levels from CBM operations 

would be expected to be unnoticeable from distances of 490 m [1,600 ft] and beyond 

(BLM, 2003). The nearest recreation area, the Powder River, is located approximately 14 km 

[9 mi] west of the proposed project area. 

The applicant did not submit any ambient noise measurements as part of its license application. 

However, the applicant estimates the ambient noise levels at the proposed site are in the range 

reported for “farm in valley” sites by Wyle Laboratories (Wyle, 1971) where median noise levels 

are approximately 29 to 39 dBA. This range is similar to that stated in the GEIS. On occasion, 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-54 

Table 3-10. Existing Conditions—Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data (2006–2008)* 

Pollutant† 

Monitoring Station (Distance to Site) 

Averaging Time 

(Standard)‡

Gillette 

(46 mi) 

Campbell 

(34 mi) 

Wright 

(20 mi) 

Antelope 

(36 mi) 

Nitrogen Dioxide N/A 0.004 ppm N/A N/A Annual 

(0.053 ppm) 

Particulate Matter 

(PM10) 

20 17 17 N/A 3 year annual 

(50 μg/m3) 

(state limit) 

0 0 0 N/A Number of 

exceedances in 3 year 

period 

(any 24-hour average, 

less than 150 μg/m3

) 

Particulate Matter 

(PM2.5) 

N/A N/A N/A 4.1 3 year annual 

(15 μg/m3) 

N/A N/A N/A 10 3 year average of the 

98th percentile of 24 hr 

averages 

(35 μg/m3

) 

Ozone N/A 0.067 ppm N/A N/A 3 year average of the 

4th highest 8-hour 

average for each year 

(0.075 ppm) 

Source: WDEQ, 2009. 

To convert miles to kilometers, divide by 0.621. 

*Values reported are the 3 year average of annual averages unless otherwise specified 

†Only those pollutants that were measured by WDEQ at monitoring stations within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed 

site are listed. No measurements were taken for sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide at these monitoring stations. 

Values are in units of μg/m3 unless other units are specified. 

‡Standards are federal NAAQS unless reported as state limit. 

high winds and high truck traffic conditions may exist at the proposed project site, and the 

applicant estimates the noise levels in those situations to range from 50 to 60 dBA 

(Uranerz, 2007). 

Noise is a concern to the areas surrounding the proposed project site because it can interfere 

with surrounding residential neighborhoods and wildlife activities. The nearest residential 

receptor (Pfister Ranch) is located approximately 0.95 km [0.6 mi] north of the proposed Hank 

Unit license area. The Dry Fork Ranch is located approximately 1.4 km [0.9 mi] west of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch Unit license area. With regard to onsite wildlife receptors, field 

observations suggest that noise from oil and gas and CBM operations could affect Greater 

sage-grouse lek activity (Braun, et al., 2002). The construction and operation of ISR facilities 

would involve similar activities. As discussed in Section 3.6.3 of this SEIS, sage-grouse leks 

have been identified within a 3.2-km [2.0-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

site. None of these leks occur on the proposed project site. 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-55 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Wyoming Department of Transportation 

(WYDOT) have noise impact assessment procedures and criteria to help protect the public 

health and welfare from excessive vehicular traffic noise. FHWA-established Noise Abatement 

Criteria (1-hour, a-weighted sound levels) are described according to land use, recognizing 

that different areas are sensitive to noise in different ways. The criteria as described in 

23 CFR Part 772 are as follows: 

Category A–Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an 

important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to 

continue to serve its intended purposes (exterior 57 dBA) 

Category B–Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, 

residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals (exterior 67 dBA) 

Category C–Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above 

(exterior 72 dBA) 

Category D–Undeveloped lands 

Category E–Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, 

hospitals, and auditoriums (interior 52 dBA) 

A person is considered to be impacted by noise, according to WYDOT procedures, when 

existing or expected future sound levels approach [within 1 decibel (dBA)] or exceed the Noise 

Abatement Criteria or when expected future sound levels exceed existing sound levels by a 

substantial amount (15 dBA). These criteria were used to assess impacts at the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. T-Chair Livestock Company ranch roads, which cross the 

southwestern and northern portions of the Nichols Ranch Unit license area and are adjacent to 

the northwestern portion of the Hank Unit, are line sources of noise. Vehicular traffic sound 

15 m [50 ft] from the receptor has been estimated at 54 to 62 dBA for passenger cars and 58 to 

70 dBA for heavy trucks (NRC, 2009a). Because noise from line sources such as roads is 

reduced by approximately 3 dBA per doubling of distance (NRC, 2009a), the maximum truck 

sound level of 70 dBA on the shoulder of roads within the proposed project area would diminish 

to the level of a Category A Activity, approximately 480 m [1,575 ft] from the source, excluding 

the noise-dampening characteristics of topographic interference and vegetation. It was 

assumed that sound levels beyond a distance of 480 m [1,575 ft] from the T-Chair Livestock 

Company ranch roads would approximate 40 dBA, to conservatively overestimate a baseline 

that is consistent with the GEIS statement that existing ambient noise levels in this region would 

be 22 to 38 dBA (NRC, 2009a). GEIS Figure 3.2-17 provides examples of sound levels for 

common activities (NRC, 2009a). 

3.9 Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources 

GEIS Section 3.3.8 (NRC, 2009b) provides a general overview of historic and cultural resources 

for the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region. This section describes the site-specific historic 

and cultural resource investigations for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, including 

archaeological surveys, a paleontological survey, ethnographic review, and various government 

and tribal consultations. No standing structures were evaluated for the proposed project area; 

the only structures in the proposed project area are features associated with ranch operations 

including wells, stock ponds, reservoirs, existing two-track roads, and recently introduced 

energy development infrastructure. 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-56 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to consider the effects 

of their undertakings on historic properties. Historic properties are defined as resources that are 

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The criteria for eligibility 

are listed in 36 CFR Part 60.4 and include (i) association with significant events in history; 

(ii) association with the lives of persons significant in the past; (iii) embodiment of distinctive 

characteristics of type, period, or construction; and (iv) sites or places that have yielded or are 

likely to yield important information (ACHP, 2010). The historic preservation review process 

(NHPA Section 106) is outlined in regulations the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) issued in 36 CFR Part 800. 

The issuance of a source materials license is a federal action (undertaking) that could possibly 

affect either known or undiscovered historic properties located on or near the Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project. In accordance with the provisions of the NHPA, NRC is required to make a 

reasonable effort to identify historic properties in the area of potential effect (APE). The APE for 

this review is area that may be impacted by construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning activities associated with the proposed action. If no historic properties are 

present or affected, NRC is required to notify the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

(WY SHPO) before proceeding. If it is determined that historic properties are present, NRC is 

required to assess and resolve possible adverse effects of the undertaking. 

This cultural resources assessment also considers the Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

(ARPA) (16 United States Code 469-4689c-e) as amended, which covers permitting of 

archaeological investigations on public land such as that BLM manages. Finally, State of 

Wyoming laws dealing with protection of archaeological resources are also considered. These 

various laws and regulations were discussed in GEIS Appendix B. 

As discussed in Section 1.7.2 of this SEIS, NRC initiated consultation with the WY SHPO, via a 

letter dated July 1, 2008 (NRC, 2008). A response from the WY SHPO, dated July 25, 2008, 

noted that the Pumpkin Buttes Traditional Cultural Property (TCP), a site eligible for listing in the 

NRHP, is of interest to numerous Native American tribes and that consultation with these tribes 

would be appropriate (WY SHPO, 2008). By letters dated July 8, 2010, and July 19, 2010, the 

WY SHPO concurred with NRC’s determination of effect for most of the archaeological sites 

identified in the proposed project area (WY SHPO, 2010a, b). WY SHPO recommended that 

two of the sites remain unevaluated for the NRHP pending further testing, although neither site 

will be affected by the project as planned due to the use of protective fencing and avoidance 

measures. WY SHPO also recommended that five sites remain unevaluated for the NRHP 

pending Native American consultations, which have since been completed and are described in 

Section 3.9.3 of this SEIS. NRC is developing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in 

consultation with BLM, WY SHPO, interested Native American tribes, and Uranerz for mitigation 

of potential adverse effects to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP and for four additional TCPs that were 

identified through tribal consultation. 

3.9.1 Cultural History 

The archaeological cultural sequence for the proposed project is unevenly divided between 

the prehistoric periods (Paleoindian, Archaic, and Late Prehistoric) and the recent 

protohistoric/historic era. The prehistoric periods encompass about 11,000 years between 

12,000 B.P. (before present) and 250 B.P. (about A.D. 1700). The protohistoric/historic era 

extends from about A.D. 1700 to A.D. 1959. 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-57 

3.9.1.1 Prehistoric Era 

As mentioned previously, the prehistoric periods are divided into Paleoindian, Archaic, and Late 

Prehistoric. The hallmark artifact forms for the Paleoindian period (12,000 to 8,500 B.P.) in the 

region include, from oldest to youngest, Clovis, Folsom/Goshen, Agate Basin, Hell Gap, Eden, 

Scottsbluff, and Cody. Paleoindian sites in the region, yielding both Pleistocene megafauna and 

Paleoindian artifacts, include the James Allen site in southwestern Wyoming; Hell Gap and 

Agate Basin in eastern Wyoming, located east and southeast of the proposed project area; 

and Medicine Lodge Creek in central Wyoming. The Paleoindian period comes to a close in 

the terminal Pleistocene/early Holocene era. The Pleistocene megafauna (e.g., mammoth, 

muskox) are replaced by modern antelope, bison, deer, and elk. These smaller grazers 

were better adapted to the change from savannah to grassland communities that resulted 

from the onset of warmer and drier conditions in the Holocene era. The Archaic period 

(8,500 to 1,800 B.P.) in eastern and northeastern Wyoming is broken into three subperiods: 

Early (8,500 to 5,000 B.P.), Middle (5,000 to 3,000 B.P.), and Late (3,000 to 1,500 B.P). 

In general, the regional Early Archaic sites are marked by the presence of various side and 

corner notched projectile points and side-notched knives. The subperiod is known for 

semi-subterranean houses that are usually marked by the presence of one or more hearths, fire 

pits, storage pits, and milling basins. The latter are of particular interest, as such features 

clearly indicate floral species played an important role in subsistence strategies. Middle Archaic 

site assemblages reflect a relatively broad spectrum of gathering and hunting responses, with 

an emphasis on bison procurement. By Late Archaic times, communal bison kills occur and 

recorded examples contain diagnostic Yonkee points (large corner-notched projectile points), 

which are the preferred method of felling the bison through the subperiod. Late Archaic faunal 

assemblages demonstrate the presence of smaller game animals and midsize ungulates 

(deer and antelope). 

The Late Prehistoric period (1,500 to 300 B.P.) heralds the acceptance of new technologies 

such as smaller projectile points adapted to use with arrows. Prior to the Late Prehistoric 

period, the points were hafted on spears. Also introduced at this time is earthenware 

technology, which improves food preparation techniques. Stewing, braising, and boiling were 

now possible, which significantly broadened the number of floral and faunal species that could 

be used. Sometime between 1,000 and 600 B.P., there is considerable movement of people 

into Wyoming from several directions. The Kiowa-Apache and Shoshone-Comanche move into 

the region first, probably in response to several factors including population pressures from 

eastern sedentary groups who have partially adapted to horticultural regimes. Between about 

600 B.P. (A.D. 1300) and A.D. 1700, the Crow, Cheyenne, and Arapaho all move into Wyoming 

to pursue their bison-oriented lifestyles. 

3.9.1.2 Protohistoric/Historic Era 

The Protohistoric period dates between about A.D. 1700 and 1840. This period includes the 

time when European goods and the domesticated horse are introduced into the region. There is 

no appreciable European presence in the region, with the exception of French fur traders 

moving up and down the Missouri River. Across the northern High Plains, there was active 

trading in European material goods, including metal knives, pots, and glass beads. Native 

American goods in similar styles also continued to be produced. The Native American tribes 

continued to pursue Native traditions into the 1900s in the region, though the majority of the 

tribal members were relocated to the Wind River Reservation. 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-58 

The Historic era is subdivided into seven periods: Early Historic (A.D. 1801 to 1842), 

Preterritorial (A.D. 1843 to 1867), Territorial (A.D. 1868 to 1889), Expansion (A.D. 1890 

to 1919), Depression (A.D. 1920 to 1939), World War II (A.D. 1940 to 1946), and Post-World 

War II (A.D. 1947 to 1959). European settlement in the Powder River Basin occurred after the 

close of the historic Bozeman Trail in the late 1800s (Uranerz, 2007). The Bozeman Trail is 

located approximately 3.2 km [2 mi] west of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area. It 

was a route used first by Native Americans and then later by traders and homesteaders moving 

west during the 19th century (Uranerz, 2007). Historically, the proposed project area was used 

for cattle ranching with limited oil and gas exploration in the nearby vicinity. There is no 

indication from the sites identified in the project area that there were earlier historic 

occupations of the area. Thus, at best, historic occupations are limited to the Expansion and 

post-Expansion periods. 

3.9.2 Historic and Cultural Resources Identified and Places of 

 Cultural Significance 

NRC staff reviewed documentation related to past archaeological surveys conducted on behalf 

of the applicant for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project and those conducted for CBM 

companies whose project areas overlap with the proposed project boundaries. These 

documents included survey reports with determinations of the potential for effects or adverse 

effects to properties listed on or eligible for listing in the NRHP. The following sections discuss 

the occurrence of cultural resources at each unit as well as consultation with Native American 

tribes that have a heritage interest on or in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project site. 

3.9.2.1 Nichols Ranch Unit 

Within the Nichols Ranch Unit, Western Land Services conducted one Class III archaeological 

survey for the Tex Draw CBM Plan of Development (POD) project, which identified 

13 archaeological sites. These included six prehistoric, two historic, and five prehistoric /historic 

sites. Based on the available data, the sites are mostly artifact scatters, though historic building 

remains are present at Site 48JO2953, which is not eligible for listing on the NRHP. Only 1 of 

the 13 sites is eligible for listing on the NRHP and is identified in Table 3-11. 

3.9.2.2 Hank Unit 

Within the Hank Unit, five archaeological Class III surveys have been completed, which 

identified 25 archaeological sites (Table 3-12). Of the 25 sites, 7 are eligible for listing on the 

NRHP, 16 are not eligible for listing, and 2 remain unevaluated for NRHP eligibility and are 

identified in Table 3-11. The past Class III surveys include two conducted by Frontier 

Archaeology and one by TRC Environmental Corporation for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project on behalf of the applicant, one by SWCA Environmental Consultants for the Dry Willow I 

POD project, and one by ARCADIS, for the Dry Willow 4 POD project. Except for Sites 

48CA268 and 48CA6147, all of the cultural resources identified in the Hank Unit are prehistoric 

or protohistoric. The single historic component at Site 48CA6147 is a very small debris scatter 

consisting of a fragmented clear glass bottle, two cans, and a handful of nails. The debris may 

have resulted from fence mending or other ranch activities. 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-59 

Table 3-11. Nichols Ranch Unit Archaeological Sites 

Site ID Site Type 

NRHP Finding and 

Comments/Stipulations 

48JO2944 Prehistoric: lithic scatter 

Historic: debris scatter 

Not eligible 

48JO2946 Prehistoric: open camp Not eligible 

48JO2948 Prehistoric: lithic scatter Not eligible 

48JO2949 Historic: debris scatter Not eligible 

48JO2950 Historic: debris scatter Not eligible 

48JO2953 Prehistoric: lithic scatter 

Historic: building remains (razed Nichols Ranch) 

Not eligible 

48JO2957 Prehistoric: lithic scatter Not eligible 

48CA5386 Prehistoric: lithic scatter 

Historic: hunting blinds and wind breaks 

Not eligible 

48CA5390 Prehistoric: lithic scatter 

Historic: debris scatter 

Not eligible 

48CA5391 Prehistoric: lithic scatter with feature 

Historic: debris scatter 

Eligible—site will not be 

affected by project as 

planned (fencing and 

avoidance) 

48CA5392 Prehistoric: lithic scatter Not eligible 

48CA5393 Prehistoric: lithic scatter Not eligible 

48CA5406 Prehistoric: lithic scatter Not eligible 

Sources: WY SHPO, 2010a,b; Brunette, 2007 

The prehistoric sites are marked by the presence of fire-cracked rock (FCR), chipped stone 

tested cobbles, debris, and occasional tools; groundstone; and, at one site, minor amounts of 

bone. None of the prehistoric sites indicated the presence of temporally diagnostic items such 

as ceramics or projectile points. The reason for this absence of such sites is unclear, but the 

artifact assemblages from the sites are suggestive of seasonal processing locations. The 

presence of stone circles does not preclude seasonal use, and the stone circles, possible tepee 

loci, hint at Late Prehistoric or Protohistoric occupations. The absence of Euro-American goods 

at any of the sites argues against early Historic occupations by Native American peoples, 

though it is documented that the Pumpkin Buttes have been utilized by Native Americans into 

the Historic period. 

3.9.2.3 Places of Cultural Significance 

The Pumpkin Buttes (Site 48CA268), an NRHP-eligible TCP, is a place of cultural significance 

near or within the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area, as shown in Figures 1-1 and 2-3. 

The Pumpkin Buttes comprise five individual buttes (North, North Middle, South Middle, Indian, 

and South) and have served as a landmark for peoples throughout the centuries. Native 

Americans first utilized the buttes for shelter, safety, and as a viewing point to watch for buffalo 

and other game (Uranerz, 2007). The western boundary of the North Middle Butte is located 

within the proposed Hank Unit permit boundary. The TCP boundary for the North Middle Butte 

is the area between 1,676 m [5,500 ft] AMSL and the top of the butte. The proposed Hank Unit 

permit area would be adjacent to the Pumpkin Buttes (Site 48CA268). Sites 48CA6748, 

48CA6753, 48CA6751, and 48CA6148 are all within the proposed Hank Unit permit area. All of 

these sites have been determined through Native American tribal consultation to possess 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-60 

Table 3-12. Hank Unit Archaeological Sites 

Site ID Site Type 

NRHP Finding and 

Comments/Stipulations 

48CA268 Prehistoric/Historic: TCP Eligible—mitigation through MOA 

48CA379 Prehistoric: lithic scatter Not eligible 

48CA6146/ 

48CA6147 

Prehistoric: lithic, groundstone, and 

Fire-cracked rock (FCR) scatter with 

stone circles Historic: debris scatter 

Not eligible 

48CA6148 Prehistoric: lithic scatter with stone 

circles: TCP 

Eligible—mitigation through MOA (fencing 

and avoidance) 

48CA6149 Prehistoric: lithic scatter Not eligible 

48CA6151 Prehistoric: lithic scatter Not eligible 

48CA6342 Prehistoric: lithic scatter with hearth Not eligible 

48CA6343 Prehistoric: lithic scatter with 

features 

Not eligible 

48CA6344 Prehistoric: lithic scatter with FCR Not eligible 

48CA6345 Prehistoric: lithic scatter with FCR Not eligible 

48CA6475 Prehistoric: open camp Unevaluated for NRHP eligibility pending 

evaluative testing—site will not be affected 

by project as planned (fencing and 

avoidance) 

48CA6490 Prehistoric: open camp Eligible—site will not be affected by project 

as planned (fencing and avoidance) 

48CA6491 Prehistoric: lithic scatter Not eligible 

48CA6498 Prehistoric: lithic scatter Not eligible 

48CA6499 Prehistoric: lithic scatter Not eligible 

48CA6748* Prehistoric: lithic scatter with FCR 

and activity areas: TCP 

Eligible—mitigation through MOA (fencing 

and avoidance) 

48CA6749 Prehistoric: lithic scatter Not eligible 

48CA6750 Prehistoric: lithic scatter with 

groundstone 

Not eligible 

48CA6751* Prehistoric: lithic scatter with activity 

areas and possible stone circle 

feature: TCP 

Eligible—mitigation through MOA (fencing 

and avoidance) 

48CA6752 Prehistoric: lithic and FCR scatter Not eligible 

48CA6753* Prehistoric: lithic and FCR scatter: 

TCP 

Eligible—mitigation through MOA (fencing 

and avoidance) 

48CA6754 Prehistoric: lithic and FCR scatter 

with FCR concentration 

Unevaluated for NRHP eligibility pending 

justification—site will not be affected by 

project (fencing and avoidance) 

48CA6926 Prehistoric: lithic scatter Not eligible 

48CA6927 Prehistoric: lithic scatter with 

features 

Eligible–—site will not be affected by project 

as planned (fencing and avoidance) 

Sources: WY SHPO, 2010a,b; Uranerz, 2010; TRC Solutions, 2010; Russell, 2009; Brunette, 2007, 2006; 

Hutchinson, 2006 

*Not evaluated under all NRHP criteria (see 36 CFR 60.4). 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-61 

traditional cultural and religious significance, are considered to be TCPs, and are eligible for 

listing on the NRHP for their religious and cultural significance. 

During investigations unrelated to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, the Pumpkin Buttes 

were determined as eligible for the NRHP (Uranerz, 2007) under Criteria A, B, and D on the 

basis that their condition of integrity were considered intact (BLM, 2009b). Subsequent to the 

determination of eligibility, BLM entered into an MOA with the proponents of the Savageton 

3/Savageton 4 Project (Lance Oil and Gas/Anadarko Petroleum Corporation) and Dry Willow 

Phase I and II projects (Anadarko Petroleum Corporation). Because of anticipated development 

within the viewshed of the Pumpkin Buttes, BLM entered into a Programmatic Agreement (PA) 

with the WY SHPO focused on mitigation of adverse effects for the Pumpkin Buttes TCP from 

anticipated federal minerals development (BLM, 2009b). Prior to entering into the PA, the BLM 

invited the Blackfeet, Cheyenne River Sioux, Crow, Eastern Shoshone, Fort Peck, Three 

Affiliated Tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation), Northern Arapaho, Northern Cheyenne, 

and Oglala to participate in consultation and to be consulting parties to resolve adverse effects 

to the Pumpkin Buttes. Although the Northern Cheyenne participated in the consultation 

process for the Savageton 3/Savageton 4 MOA, it and the other tribes chose not to formally 

comment on the PA. In the PA, the signatory parties noted that “BLM has determined the 

development of oil, gas, and in-situ uranium well, infrastructure corridors, access roads, and 

other facilities are assumed to have an adverse effect to the contributing integrity of the setting, 

feeling, and association for the Pumpkin Buttes Traditional Cultural Property...” (BLM, 2009b). 

The PA outlines various measures that a project proponent (federal oil, gas, and uranium 

leaseholders) within a 3.2 km [2 mi] radius of the Pumpkin Buttes must take to mitigate the 

adverse effect of its proposed actions on the TCP. These measures are discussed in 

Chapter 4. 

As discussed in Section 3.9.3, NRC is developing an MOA to address adverse impacts from the 

proposed Hank Unit to the viewshed of five TCPs eligible for listing on the NRHP 

[Sites 48CA268 (Pumpkin Buttes TCP), 48CA6148, 48CA6748, 48CA6751, and 48CA6753]. 

NRC sent its final determination of an adverse impact to the viewshed of the Pumpkin Buttes 

TCP in letters to the WY SHPO and ACHP dated August 9, 2010 (NRC, 2010c). NRC 

subsequently forwarded an additional letter to the WY SHPO on October 15, 2010, forwarding 

the determination of adverse viewshed impacts to the four additional TCPs identified through 

Tribal consultation (NRC, 2010d). 

3.9.3 Tribal Consultation 

The NRC has made a reasonable and good faith effort to identify Native American tribes that 

shall be consulted during the Section 106 consultation process and to provide the identified 

Native American tribes a reasonable opportunity to participate in the Section 106 consultation 

process, as is required by 36 CFR 800.2(c)(B)(ii)(A). As mentioned in Section 1.7.3.3 in the 

SEIS, NRC sent Section 106 consultation letters to the following tribes on December 24, 2008: 

Blackfeet, Cheyenne River Sioux, Crow, Eastern Shoshone, Fort Peck Assiniboine/Sioux, 

Northern Arapaho, Northern Cheyenne, Oglala Sioux, and Three Affiliated Tribes (the Mandan, 

Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation). By email dated February 12, 2009, the Northern Cheyenne Tribal 

Historic Preservation Office responded to the December 24, 2008 letter, and stated that the 

Pumpkin Buttes are considered spiritual and ceremonial areas and that contaminants related to 

uranium extraction, traffic, noise, and dust pollution may affect the overall condition of the area 

(NCTHPO, 2009). No other responses were received. 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-62 

NRC contacted the nine tribes on April 23, 2010 (NRC, 2010a), to request information regarding 

cultural resources potentially affected by the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project and to invite 

the tribes to become signatories to an MOA among the NRC, BLM, WY SHPO, and Uranerz for 

mitigation of an adverse effect to the viewshed of the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. NRC followed up 

the letter with telephone calls to each tribe during May 2010. During these telephone calls, 

eight of the nine tribes (all but the Three Affiliated Tribes) expressed interest or potential interest 

in being a signatory to the MOA. Two tribes, the Fort Peck Assiniboine/Sioux Tribes and the 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe, requested a site visit. Uranerz hosted site visits with representatives 

from both tribes on July 7, 2010, and July 30, 2010. As a result of this consultation, the tribes 

agreed that Sites 48CA6148, 48CA6748, 48CA6751, and 48CA6753 are considered to possess 

traditional cultural and religious significance and are considered to be eligible for listing on the 

NRHP (TRC Solutions, 2010). The applicant has committed to fence and avoid these sites. 

Mitigation of the adverse impacts to the viewshed of these eligible sites, including the viewshed 

of the Pumpkin Buttes TCP, will be addressed in the MOA. 

NRC forwarded a draft MOA for comment to the eight interested tribes on July 22, 2010 

(NRC, 2010b). NRC will continue to consult with interested tribes throughout the 

Section 106 process. 

3.9.4 Paleontological Resources 

A paleontological survey was conducted for the proposed project area for the applicant 

(Connely, 2007). The survey identified Quaternary sediments and exposed Eocene deposits of 

the Wasatch Formation. The deposits identified in the Nichols Ranch Unit and Hank Unit areas 

are fossil bearing yielding vertebrate, invertebrate, and petrified wood specimens. The survey 

results summarized the identification of unidentified mammal, gar, turtle, and petrified wood in 

the Nichols Ranch Unit. In the Hank Unit, fossil materials were recovered from the slope of the 

North Middle Butte and included unidentified bone, turtle, and petrified wood. 

3.10 Visual and Scenic Resources 

In general, this region of the Powder River Basin where the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project is located is characterized as basin and range country with prominent buttes and ridges 

interspersed by rolling grasslands. Semipermanent streams are fed by intermittent and 

ephemeral drainages, which seasonally drain the adjacent uplands. Past changes to land 

surfaces include those associated with human habitation; the development of stock ponds 

and reservoirs; access roads; and the introduction of gas, oil, and other energy 

development infrastructure. 

BLM evaluates the scenic quality of the land it administers through a Visual Resource Inventory 

to ensure that the scenic (visual) value is preserved. As part of this inventory, the BLM 

completes a scenic quality evaluation, a sensitivity-level analysis, and a delineation of distance 

zones to group areas into one of four visual resource management (VRM) classes. Class I is 

the most protected of visual and scenic resources, and Class IV is the least restrictive. This 

type of inventory would apply to the 118 ha [280 ac] of BLM-owned land on the Hank Unit. 

BLM has established VRM classifications and has resource management plans for all of the 

Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, which includes the entire Nichols Ranch and Hank Units 

(NRC, 2009a). The VRM classifications for the region are shown in GEIS Figure 3.3-17 

(NRC, 2009a). In the past, the landscape has been extensively modified in urban areas and in 

several rural areas by oil, natural gas, and coal production. The bulk of the Wyoming East 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-63 

Uranium Milling Region is categorized as VRM Class III (along highways) and Class IV 

(open grassland, oil and natural gas, urban areas). The BLM resource management plans for 

this region do not identify any VRM Class I resources. 

BLM recognizes the Pumpkin Buttes, which flank the northern and southeastern boundaries of 

the Hank Unit, as a TCP, which is discussed in more detail in Section 3.10.2 in the SEIS. In 

addition to the Pumpkin Buttes, four additional TCPs (Sites 48CA6748, 48CA6753, 48CA6751, 

and 48CA6148) were identified through Native American consultation. A portion of the Pumpkin 

Buttes TCP and the four additional TCPs are within the proposed Hank Unit permit area. The 

Pumpkin Buttes are discussed in more detail in SEIS Section 3.10.2. The area considered for 

visual resources associated with the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project includes the project 

site, access roads, and a 3.2-km [2-mi] buffer area outside the proposed project site. Beyond 

this distance, any changes to the landscape would be in the background distance zone and 

would be either unobtrusive or imperceptible to viewers. Areas and associated viewer types 

considered to be potentially sensitive to visual changes include park, recreation, and wilderness 

areas; major travel routes; and residential areas. 

3.10.1 Nichols Ranch Unit 

The Nichols Ranch Unit is located approximately 9.6 km [6 mi] southwest of the Hank Unit on 

the border between Johnson and Campbell Counties. Topography in this area is relatively flat 

with gently rolling hills and low ridges that drain south toward Cottonwood Creek (an intermittent 

stream) located in the southern portion of the unit. Elevations in the Nichols Ranch Unit range 

from 1,425 to 1,495 m [4,670 to 4,900 ft] AMSL (Uranerz, 2007). 

The Nichols Ranch Unit is about 9.6 km [6 mi] west of the Pumpkin Buttes TCP and Sites 

48CA6748, 48CA6753, 48CA6751, and 48CA6148. The proposed Nichols Ranch project area 

is separated from the five TCPs by hills and pronounced drainages. The mid to upper slopes 

and the tops of North Middle and South Middle Buttes can be seen from the Nichols Ranch Unit, 

but the butte bases are not visible. 

As described in Section 3.2 of this SEIS, livestock grazing, oil and gas extraction, CBM 

extraction, and uranium recovery activities are all currently taking place on or near the proposed 

project area. The immediate future land use for the proposed project area and adjacent areas 

would be continued livestock grazing, ISR, CBM extraction, and oil and gas extraction. There 

are no parks, recreation areas, wilderness areas, or residential areas within the proposed 

project area. The historic Bozeman Trail, located approximately 3.2 km [2 mi] west of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area, was a route used first by Native Americans and then 

later by traders and homesteaders moving west during the 19th century (Uranerz, 2007). This 

trail is at the margin of the area considered for visual resources. 

3.10.2 Hank Unit 

The Hank Unit is located on the western flank of the North Middle Butte within the Pumpkin 

Buttes. Topography of the Hank Unit includes gently rolling hills and low ridges, as well as 

steep terrain near North Middle Butte. There are steeply eroded areas in the southern part of 

the Unit that have resulted from Dry Willow Creek (an ephemeral stream). Elevations in the 

Hank Unit range from 1,540 to 1,588 m [5,055 to 5,209 ft] AMSL, and the area is dissected by a 

series of unnamed and ephemeral drainages that generally drain west and southwest toward 

Dry Willow Creek (Uranerz, 2007). 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-64 

The five buttes (collectively called the Pumpkin Buttes) are located north, east, and southeast of 

the Hank Unit. North Butte is located about 2.4 km [1.5 mi] northwest of the Hank Unit and 

3.0 km [1.9 mi] from the existing T-Chair Livestock Company ranch road, which would serve as 

primary access to both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units. Each of the buttes is a free-standing 

residual feature that clearly dominates its location. The buttes rise to elevations exceeding 

1,830 m [6,000 ft] AMSL, and their bases lie at about 1,525 m [5,000 ft] AMSL. The flanks of 

the buttes are cut by intermittent drainages, which are effectively headwaters for local 

intermittent drainages. At present, water tanks are located within the Hank Unit on the base of 

North Middle Butte. South Middle Butte, outside the Hank Unit but within view of it, hosts four 

signal transmission towers on the butte top. These towers are visible from the Hank Unit and 

from North Middle Butte. The northeastern quadrant of the Hank Unit subsumes part of the 

western slope of North Middle Butte, which is an element of the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. 

BLM recognizes the Pumpkin Buttes as a TCP. Visual concerns from CBM development in 

general were addressed in past EAs for Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Dry Willow Phase I 

and Dry Willow Phase II (BLM, 2007b). The Dry Willow Phase II EA (BLM, 2007b) noted that oil 

and gas facilities and related visual distractions, including oil and gas wells, well pads, pump 

jacks, pipeline scars, storage buildings, and vehicular traffic, were visible from the base of 

Pumpkin Buttes to approximately 24 km [15 mi] westward. A Pumpkin Buttes visual 

assessment completed in 2006 noted roads and trails, CBM-associated structures, reservoirs, 

and power lines were readily visible from the base of the buttes (Uranerz, 2007). Because of 

the anticipated development within the viewshed of Pumpkin Buttes, BLM entered into a PA with 

the WY SHPO focused on mitigation of adverse effects for the Pumpkin Buttes TCP from 

anticipated federal minerals development (BLM, 2009b). 

During the NRC’s environmental review, four additional TCPs were identified through Native 

American consultation and are within the proposed Hank Unit permit boundary. NRC is 

developing a MOA in consultation with BLM, WY SHPO, interested Native American Tribes, and 

Uranerz. The MOA would address mitigation of the adverse impacts to the viewshed of the five 

TCPs eligible for listing on the NRHP [Sites 48CA268 (Pumpkin Buttes TCP), 48CA6748, 

48CA6753, 48CA6751, and 48CA6148]. 

3.11 Socioeconomics 

This section of the SEIS describes current socioeconomic factors that have the potential to be 

directly or indirectly affected by the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The proposed project 

is located in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, which is described in GEIS Section 

3.3.10 (NRC, 2009a). The proposed ISR facility and the people and communities that would 

support it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The communities provide the 

people, goods, and services required to construct and operate the facility. The proposed ISR 

facility would, in turn, create the demand for people, goods, and services and pay for them in 

the form of wages, salaries, benefits, and payments for goods and services. Income from 

wages and salaries and payments for goods and services is then spent on other goods and 

services within the community, thus creating additional opportunities for employment 

and income. 

The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is located in a rural, resource-rich area of 

northeastern Wyoming that bisects Campbell and Johnson Counties in the Powder River Basin. 

Gillette, the largest town in the area with a population of approximately 25,000, is the center for 

mining and energy activity in this portion of Wyoming. Gillette is located 74 km [46 mi] from the 

proposed project site. The closest town to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is Wright, 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-65 

located approximately 32 km [20 mi] to the east with 1,604 residents. The towns of Edgerton 

and Midwest are located approximately 40 km [25 mi] southwest of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project and have populations of 176 and 435 people (USCB, 2008). 

The socioeconomics region of influence (ROI) is defined by the area where employees and their 

families would reside, spend their income, and use their benefits, thereby affecting the 

economic conditions of the region. Given that most employees would reside near the ISR 

facility, the most significant impacts of plant construction and operations are likely to occur in 

Campbell and Johnson Counties. The SEIS analysis therefore focuses on the impacts of the 

proposed ISR facility in these counties. The following subsections describe the demographics, 

income, housing, employment structure, local finance, education, and public services in the ROI 

surrounding the proposed ISR facility. 

The socioeconomic information presented in this SEIS for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project ROI is based on a combination of 2000 U.S. Census Bureau data, U.S. Census Bureau 

2005–2007 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, and U.S. Census Bureau 2009 

State and County QuickFacts. Though specific numbers may differ, the characterization of 

socioeconomics presented in GEIS Section 3.3.10 remains valid for the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project. 

3.11.1 Demographics 

Campbell County has an estimated population of 43,967, and Johnson County has an estimated 

population of 8,531 (USCB, 2010). According to the 2000 Census, the population of Campbell 

and Johnson Counties is mostly White; Hispanic or Latino, American Indian, and other races 

comprise less than 6 percent of the population (USCB, 2000a,b,c). 

Table 3-13 shows population projections and growth rates from 1980 to 2050 in Campbell 

County. The population in Campbell County has grown and is projected to continue to grow at a 

declining rate through 2050. The population in Johnson County had a slight decline in 

population from 1980 to 1990. From 2000 to 2030, the growth trend is at a declining rate. 

Table 3-13. Population and Percent Growth in Campbell and Johnson Counties, 

Wyoming, From 1980 to 2050 

Year Campbell County Johnson County 

Population Percent Growth* Population Percent Growth*

1980 24,367 — 6,700 — 

1990 29,370 20.5 6,145 -8.3 

2000 33,698 14.7 7,075 15.1 

2009 43,967 30.5 8,531 20.6 

2010 43,440 28.9 8,640 22.1 

2020 52,130 20.0 9,990 15.6 

2030 59,990 15.1 11,220 12.3 

2040† 68,403 14.0 12,530 11.7 

2050† 76,678 12.1 13,820 10.3 

— = No data available

*Percent growth rate is calculated over the previous decade.

†2040 and 2050 population projections are calculated based on trends of demographic and economic variables. 

Sources: USCB, 2010, 1995; WDAI-DEA, 2008, 2001 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-66 

The 2000 demographic profiles for Campbell and Johnson Counties are presented in 

Table 3-14. Persons self-designated as minority individuals comprised about 6.0 and 

4.2 percent of the total population in 2000 for Campbell and Johnson Counties. The 

minority population in both counties is composed largely of Hispanic or Latino residents. 

According to American Community Survey 3-Year Census data estimates (2006–2008), minority 

populations in Campbell County were estimated to have increased by approximately 1,300 

persons from 2000 and comprised 8.3 percent of the county population (see Table 3-15) 

(USCB, 2009a,b). Most of this increase was due to an estimated influx of Hispanic or Latin 

persons (approximately 800), which accounted for more than a 66 percent increase from the 

2000 population. The next largest increase in minority population was for Black or African 

American, with an increase of approximately 140 persons from the 2000 population. 

3.11.2 Income 

Estimated income information for the ROI is presented in Table 3-16. According to American 

Community Survey 3-Year Census data estimates (2006–2008), median household and per 

capita income in Campbell County was above the Wyoming average, and an estimated 5.1 

percent of the population and 4.2 percent of families in Campbell County were living below the 

official poverty level (USCB, 2009c). The median household income in Johnson County was 

below the Wyoming average; an estimated 8.3 percent of the population in Johnson County was 

living below the official poverty level (USCB, 2009d). 

The annual unemployment average for Campbell County was 3.1 percent (USCB, 2009c). The 

unemployment rate in Johnson County was 3.2 (USCB, 2009d). Campbell and Johnson 

Counties were slightly lower than the annual unemployment average of 3.5 percent for 

Wyoming (USCB, 2009d). 

3.11.3 Housing 

Table 3-17 lists the total number of occupied housing units, vacancy rates, and house median 

value in Campbell County. According to American Community Survey 3-Year Census data 

estimates (2006 – 2008), there were more than 13,000 housing units in the ROI, of which 

approximately 12,000 were occupied. The median value of owner-occupied units was $102,900 

(USCB, 2009d,e). 

By 2008, the total number of housing units in Campbell County grew by almost 1,700 units to 

14,959, while the total number of occupied units also grew by 1,700 units to 13,907. As a result, 

the number of available vacant housing units decreased slightly by almost 30 units to 1,052, or 

7.0 percent of all housing units (USCB, 2009e). The total number of housing units in 

Johnson County grew by almost 280 units to 3,780 (USCB, 2009f). 

3.11.4 Employment Structure 

In 2007, the civilian labor force in Campbell County was 25,835 (FedStats, 2010a). The largest 

source of employment in Campbell County is the mining industry, which accounts for 27 percent 

of all jobs and 40 percent of all earnings in the county. Government-related jobs are the second 

largest source of employment in Campbell County, providing 13 percent of the total workforce, 

and retail trade accounts for 10 percent of the employment. 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-67 

Table 3-14. Demographic Profile of the Population in Campbell and Johnson Counties 

in 2000 

Campbell 

County Percent 

Johnson 

County Percent 

Total Population 33,698 — 7,075 — 

Race (Non-Hispanic or Latino) 

White 31,701 94.1 6,771 95.8 

Black or African American 47 0.1 5 0.0 

American Indian and 

Alaska Native 

280 0.8 42 0.0 

Asian 100 0.3 4 0.0 

Native Hawaiian and Other 

Pacific Islander 

28 0.1 0 0.0 

Some other race 11 0.0 7 0.0 

Two or more races 340 1.0 98 1.3 

Ethnicity 

Hispanic or Latino 1,191 3.5 148 2.1 

Minority Population (Including Hispanic or Latino ethnicity) 

Total minority population 1,997 5.9 304 4.2 

Sources: USCB, 2000a; USCB, 2000b; USCB, 2000c 

Table 3-15. Demographic Profile of the Population in Campbell County 

(2006–2008 3-Year Estimate) and Johnson County (2008 Estimate)

Campbell 

County Percent 

Johnson 

County Percent 

Total Population 40,121 — 8,464 — 

Race (Non-Hispanic or Latino) 

White 36,805 91.7 8,043 95.0 

Black or African American 189 0.5 7 0.1 

American Indian and 

Alaska Native 

380 0.9 52 0.6 

Asian 204 0.5 5 0.1 

Native Hawaiian and Other 

Pacific Islander 

0 0.0 0 0.0 

Some other race 82 0.2 0 0.0 

Two or more races 481 1.2 94 1.1 

Ethnicity 

Hispanic or Latino 1,980 4.9 263 3.1 

Minority Population (Including Hispanic or Latino ethnicity) 

Total minority population 3,316 8.3 421 5.0 

Sources: USCB, 2009a,b 

 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-68 

Table 3-16. Estimated Income for Campbell County (2006–2008) and 

Johnson County (2008) 

Campbell 

County 

Johnson 

County Wyoming 

Median household income (dollars) 76,666* 51,162 53,096 

Per capita income (dollars) 31,122* 36,074† 27,873 

Percent of families below the poverty level 4.2 NA 5.5 

Percent of persons below the poverty level 5.1 8.3 8.9 

*In 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars

†In 2006

NA = Not available 

Sources: USCB, 2009c,d

Table 3-17. Housing in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming In 2000 (Actual) 

and 2008 (Estimate) 

Campbell County Johnson County 

2000 

Total 13,288 3,503 

Occupied housing units 12,207 2959 

Vacant units 1,081 544 

Vacancy rate (percent) 8.1 15.5 

Median value (dollars) 102,900 115,500 

2006–2008 (Estimated) 

Total 14,959 3,780 

Occupied housing units 13,907 NA 

Vacant units 1,052 NA 

Vacancy rate (percent) 7.0 NA 

Median value (dollars) 200,200 NA 

NA = Not available 

Sources: USCB, 2009e,f; USCB, 2000d,e 

In 2007, the civilian labor force in Johnson County was 3,880 (FedStats, 2010b). The 

largest source of employment in Johnson County is the Federal government, which accounts 

for 17 percent of the county workforce. The health care and social assistance sector follows 

with 11 percent of the workforce (WBC, 2009). 

3.11.5 Local Finance 

Campbell County taxes commercial personal property. The county determines assessed 

valuation of commercial property at 11.5 percent of the market value and applies a mill levy 

of around 60 mills (WDOR, 2001). Johnson County imposes a 2 percent lodging tax 

(WDOR, 2007). 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-69 

Wyoming has a 5 percent sales tax and allows counties to increase sales tax up to 4 percent 

above the state rate. Campbell County has an additional 0.25 percent sales and use tax for a 

total of 5.25 percent (Liu, 2008). The additional tax the county added comes back to the county. 

The average property tax rate in Campbell County is 6.25 percent. The average property tax 

rate in Johnson County is 7.13 percent (WDOR, 2007). 

Finally, the state imposes an ad valorem tax on mineral extraction. In 2007, for uranium alone, 

the state collected $1.2 million from this tax (NRC, 2009a). Severance taxes associated with 

uranium extraction in Campbell County are levied by the Mineral Tax Division of the State of 

Wyoming Department of Revenue. This is a 4 percent uranium severance tax of taxable value 

coming from resource extraction operations (WDOR, 2009). Typical severance taxes collected 

in Wyoming from mineral development come from coal, trona, uranium, oil, and natural gas. 

Uranium had the lowest severance tax collected from all mineral types at well below 1 percent 

(WDOR, 2007). 

3.11.6 Education 

The Campbell County School District, which is the third largest school district in Wyoming, is 

composed of a total of 24 school facilities and currently enrolls approximately 7,500 students. 

Campbell County School District #1, which includes the Gillette area, had a student-to-teacher 

ratio of 12.98 in 2007 (WDE, 2007). By 2009, the student-to-teacher ratio had increased to 

19.2 to 1, which is higher than the statewide ratio of 12.4 to 1 (CCESC, 2009; WDE, 2007). 

Johnson County has one school district that is composed of 5 school facilities and currently 

enrolls 1,261 students (JCSD, 2009). 

3.11.7 Health and Social Services 

The primary health care facility in Campbell County is the Campbell County Memorial Hospital 

located in Gillette, which provides emergency care, a cancer care center, and clinical outpatient 

operations. The hospital also has two branch clinics located in Gillette and the town of Wright. 

The closest medical center offering full service emergency services is the Wyoming Medical 

Center in Casper, located approximately 87 km [54 mi] southwest of the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project. 

The primary health care facility in Johnson County is the Johnson County Health Center, 

located in Buffalo, which is a fully equipped hospital with an outpatient medical clinic. 

Emergency response services would also likely come from Buffalo (NRC, 2009b). 

3.12 Public and Occupational Health and Safety 

This section summarizes the natural background radiation levels in and around the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project area. Descriptions of these levels are known as “preoperational” or 

“baseline” radiological conditions, and they would be used for evaluating potential radiological 

impacts associated with the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project operations. This section also 

describes applicable safety criteria and radiation dose limits that have been established for 

protection of public and occupational health and safety. 

Radiation dose is a measure of the amount of ionizing energy that is deposited in the body. 

Ionizing radiation is a natural component of the environment and ecosystem, and members of 

the public are exposed to natural radiation continuously. Radiation doses to the general public 

occur from radioactive materials found in the earth’s soils, rocks, and minerals. Radon-222 is a 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-70 

radioactive gas that escapes into ambient air from the decay of uranium (and its progeny, 

radium-226) 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 outer space is 

another natural source of exposure and ionizing radiation dose. In addition to natural sources of 

radiation, there are artificial or manmade sources that contribute to the dose the general public 

receives. Medical diagnostic procedures using radioisotopes and x-rays are a primary 

manmade radiation source. In NCRP (2009), estimates the annual average dose to the public 

from all natural background radiation sources (terrestrial and cosmic) as 3.1 millisieverts 

{mSv; 310 millirem [mrem]}. Due to the increase in medical imaging and nuclear medicine 

procedures, the annual average dose to the public from all sources (natural and human made) 

is 6.2 mSv [620 mrem] (NCRP, 2009). 

3.12.1 Background Radiological Conditions 

In accordance with NRC regulations contained in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 7, the 

applicant developed and implemented a preoperational monitoring program to establish site 

baseline conditions at the proposed site. Results of the baseline radiological environmental 

monitoring provided data on background levels that can be used for evaluating future impacts 

from routine facility operations or from accidental or unplanned releases. Regulatory Guide 

4.14 (NRC, 1980) provides guidance on baseline radiological environmental monitoring. As a 

result of the NRC safety review, the applicant will be required by a license condition to collect 

additional baseline data related to groundwater sampling. 

The applicant included the following sampling methods in its baseline radiological environmental 

monitoring program (Uranerz, 2007): 

 Integrated gamma scan survey to map the ambient gamma radiation levels across 

the site 

 Surface soil samples {to a depth of 15 cm [6 in]} in wellfields analyzed for radium-226 

and a large percentage analyzed for uranium, thorium-230, and lead-210 

 Eighteen subsurface samples {to a depth of 0.9 m [3 ft]} analyzed for radium-226, 

uranium, thorium-230, and lead-210 

 Twenty-six sediment samples analyzed for radium-226, uranium, thorium-230, and 

lead-210 

 Quarterly radon-222 sampling and ambient gamma measurements consistent with 

NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14 

 Groundwater and surface water samples analyzed for radium-226, uranium, 

thorium-230, and lead-210 

 Vegetation samples analyzed for radium-226, uranium, thorium-230, lead-210, arsenic, 

and selenium 

Direct gamma surveys were conducted throughout the proposed production and processing 

areas as well as in drainages, at the nearest residence, and near the proposed license 

boundary. The intent of overland gamma surveys is to characterize and quantify natural 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-71 

background or preoperational radiation levels and radionuclide concentrations in soils 

throughout the proposed site. Gamma measurements ranged between 11 and 18 

microroentgen (μR) per hour. The Nichols Ranch Unit measurements ranged between 11 and 

15 μR per hour and averaged 13 μR per hour. Measurements at the Hank Unit ranged from 

11 to 18 μR per hour and also averaged 13 μR per hour. The results show that background 

within the survey areas is either within or somewhat higher than the average background of 

15 μR per hour typical for Wyoming (Uranerz, 2007). The elevated gamma levels correlate in 

some locations with the elevated radium concentrations in soil. 

Surface and subsurface soil samples were analyzed for radium-226 and, in most cases, 

uranium, thorium-230, and lead-210. The preoperational sampling program was designed to 

characterize radiological background conditions in areas that are most likely to experience 

potential impacts from the ISR process. Results for the majority of the Nichols Ranch Unit and 

Hank Unit surface soil samples were consistent with the average background radium range for 

Wyoming, which is approximately 0.018 to 0.074 Bq/g [0.5 to 2 pCi/g] (Uranerz, 2007). 

However, one surface soil sample (LAS-5) from the Nichols Ranch Unit had an elevated 

radium-226 concentration of 0.98 Bq/g [26.4 pCi/g], which would be well above the acceptable 

surface activity level of 0.18 Bq/g [5 pCi/g]. The applicant excluded this sample result from 

statistical analyses and indicated the elevated concentration may be due to previous exploration 

activities, which may have resulted in ore zone cuttings being left on the soil surface. At the 

Hank Unit, radionuclide concentrations measured at the LAS-2 surface sample site {8.4 mg/kg 

[1.3 × 10−4

 oz/lb] uranium, 0.044 Bq/g [1.2 pCi/g] lead-210, 0.14 Bq/g [3.8 pCi/g] radium-226, 

and 0.093 Bq/g [2.5 pCi/g] thorium-230} were higher than concentrations for the other samples, 

though not abnormal for this region. All subsurface soil samples for both the Nichols Ranch and 

Hank Units exhibited typical background radiological characteristics (Uranerz, 2007). 

Sediment samples were analyzed for radium-226, uranium, thorium-230, and lead-210. 

Approximately 40 percent of the Nichols Ranch Unit sediment samples were greater than 

background values for radium-226 {i.e., greater than approximately 0.037 Bq/g [1 pCi/g]}. The 

average concentration for radium was 0.35 Bq/g [9.6 pCi/g]. Sample SD-8 had the maximum 

radium concentration measured of 1.2 Bq/g [32.2 pCi/g]. At the Nichols Ranch Unit, of the 

uranium, thorium-230, and lead-210 samples collected, two lead-210 samples {0.074 Bq/g 

[2.0 pCi/g] and 0.067 Bq/g [1.8 pCi/g]} were higher than the typical background range. The 

applicant indicated these elevated concentrations may be due to previous exploration activities. 

At the Hank Unit, of the uranium, thorium-230, and lead-210 samples collected, two lead-210 

samples {0.093 Bq/g [2.5 pCi/g] and 0.067 Bq/g [1.8 pCi/g]} were higher than the typical 

background range and the average and maximum radium concentrations measured were 0.044 

and 0.081 Bq/g [1.2 and 2.2 pCi/g]. 

Following the monitoring procedure outlined in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14, four radon 

detectors were placed at the location of the nearest residences, locations at or near the 

proposed license boundary, and at control points upwind of the site. The applicant documented 

four quarters of sampling results from October 2006 to October 2007. Reported quarterly site 

average radon-222 results for all sampling locations range between 22 and 70 Bq/m3

[0.6 and 1.9 pCi/L] in air and are somewhat consistent with typical background levels 

{approximately 30 Bq/m3

 [0.8 pCi/L]} in this region of Wyoming (based on historic data from the 

PRI North Butte ISR Project), though higher than the U.S. average of 15 Bq/m3

 [0.4 pCi/L] 

(EPA, 2009). Gamma measurements for the same sampling locations range between 0.34 and 

0.55 mSv [34 and 55 mrem] per quarter, which is consistent with typical background levels for 

the region (Uranerz, 2007). 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-72 

Groundwater samples were taken from various wells located within the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project area. As expected, the concentrations of radionuclides in groundwater are strongly 

correlated with the location of the uranium mineralization. Excluding outliers, the concentration 

of uranium ranged from below detection levels to 5.25 mg/L [7.03 × 10−4

 oz/gal], while the EPA 

drinking water MCL is 0.03 mg/L [4 × 10−6

 oz/gal]. Radium concentrations ranged from below 

detection levels to 20,794 Bq/m3 [562 pCi/L]. The MCL for radium-226 is 185 Bq/m3 [5 pCi/L]. 

The applicant collected baseline surface water samples in June 2008 and analyzed them for 

numerous chemical and radiological constituents, including natural uranium and radium-226. 

The highest uranium concentration measured was 0.137 mg/L [1.83 × 10−5

 oz/gal]. The 2008 

data show radium-226 concentrations are less than 18.5 Bq/m3

 [0.5 pCi/L]. These values are 

consistent with typical background levels. 

The applicant stated that no permanent surface water or fish were present at or immediately 

adjacent to the proposed project area. Agricultural activities are limited to cattle grazing, with no 

crop-growing areas identified at or near the Nichols Ranch ISR Project; thus no fish or crop 

samples were collected as part of the background radiological investigation. Vegetation and 

grazing samples were analyzed for radium-226, uranium, thorium-230, lead-210, arsenic, and 

selenium. All results are consistent with typical background levels for vegetation. Because 

baseline vegetation results are within background, the applicant chose not to sacrifice livestock 

(grazing cattle) to obtain samples (Uranerz, 2007). 

3.12.2 Public Health and Safety 

NRC has the statutory authority, under the Atomic Energy Act, to protect public health and 

safety and the environment. NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 specify annual dose limits to 

members of the public of 1 mSv [100 mrem] total effective dose equivalent and 0.02 mSv 

[2 mrem] per hour from any external radiation sources. This public dose limit from 

NRC-licensed activities is a fraction of the background radiation dose as discussed in 

Section 3.12.1 of this SEIS. 

A review of the surrounding area indicated there are several nuclear facilities within 80 km 

[50 mi] of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area (NRC, 2009a): 

Smith Ranch-Highland — This operational ISR facility is located approximately 72 km [45 mi] 

southeast of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

Irigaray/Christensen Ranch — This ISR facility is located 6.4 km [4 mi] northwest of the 

Hank Unit. NRC recently granted a license amendment authorizing a restart of 

operations at the Irigaray/Christensen Ranch ISR facility. 

Moore Ranch —This proposed ISR facility would be located approximately 32 km [20 mi] 

southeast of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. NRC has completed its review of 

the license application for the Moore Ranch ISR Project. 

Several inactive and decommissioned conventional uranium mills are in the 80-km 

[50-mi] radius. 

However, because of their relative distances, none of these projects are considered to represent 

an appreciable source of radiation exposure in and around the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-73 

Project area. Therefore, the natural background represents the only radiation exposure to 

individuals in the area surrounding the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area. 

Other than CBM activities, there are no major sources of nonradioactive, chemical releases to 

the atmosphere or water-receiving bodies in the immediate area surrounding the proposed 

project area. 

3.12.3 Occupational Health and Safety 

NRC regulates occupational health and safety risks to workers as a result of exposure to 

radiation mainly through the Radiation Protection Standards contained in 10 CFR Part 20. In 

addition to annual radiation dose limits, these regulations incorporate the principal of 

maintaining doses “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA), taking into consideration the 

purpose of the licensed activity and its benefits, technology for reducing doses, and the 

associated health and safety benefits. To comply with these standards, radiation safety 

measures are implemented for protecting workers at ISR facilities, ensuring radiation exposures 

and resulting doses are less than the occupational limits as well as ALARA. 

Also of concern with respect to occupational health and safety are industrial hazards and 

exposure to nonradioactive pollutants, which for an ISR operation can include normal industrial 

airborne pollutants associated with service equipment (e.g., vehicles), fugitive dust from access 

roads and wellfield activities, and various chemicals used in the ISR process. Industrial safety 

aspects associated with the use of hazardous chemicals at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project would be regulated under the State of Wyoming regulations and the Wyoming 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The type of chemicals and impacts are 

discussed in Section 4.13 in this SEIS. 

3.13 Waste Management 

Chapter 2 of this SEIS described the types and volumes of liquid and solid wastes that the 

operation of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would generate. The disposal options 

being considered include the use of a sanitary landfill for disposal of nonradioactive solid 

wastes, a licensed waste disposal site or mill tailings facility for byproduct material, deep 

disposal wells for liquid effluents, and onsite septic systems for sanitary waste. No mixed waste 

would be generated from implementing the alternatives. It is likely that operation of the Nichols 

Ranch ISR project would generate hazardous waste, such as used batteries, and could be 

considered as a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Section 2.2.1.6. of this SEIS discusses the expected 

annual waste volumes that would be generated. This section describes the disposition of 

wastes the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would generate. 

3.13.1 Liquid Waste Disposal 

Liquid wastes generated from operation of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would 

include sanitary wastewater, wastewater generated from well development and testing, and 

liquid effluent ISR process (liquid byproduct material) generated. Domestic wastewater from 

restrooms and lunchrooms would be disposed of in WDEQ-approved septic systems. Except 

for well development and well test waters (which would be uncontaminated and could be 

discharged to the surface), all remaining liquid effluent generated from production bleed and 

plant washdown water would be byproduct material to be disposed of via deep well injection, as 

described under the proposed action in Section 2.2.1.6.2 of this SEIS. 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-74 

3.13.2 Solid Waste Disposal 

Solid byproduct material (including radioactively contaminated soils or other media) that does 

not meet NRC unrestricted release criteria must be disposed of at a facility permitted to receive 

byproduct material. As discussed in Section 2.2.1.6.3 in this SEIS, the proposed action would 

generate approximately 46 to 69 m3

 [60 to 90 yd3] of solid byproduct material (that does not 

meet NRC criteria for unrestricted release) from facility operations. Because the applicant is 

proposing to construct more than one wellfield, the cumulative estimate for byproduct material 

from decommissioning the plant facilities and all wellfields is 8,731 m3

 [11,410 yd3] plus an 

additional 245 t [270 T] of concrete. As mentioned earlier, the applicant does not presently have 

an agreement in place with a licensed site to accept its solid byproduct material for disposal. 

Options the applicant considered include disposal at Pathfinder-Shirley Basin in Mills, Wyoming; 

Energy Solutions in Clive, Utah; or White Mesa in Blanding, Utah. By license condition, the 

applicant would need to enter into a written agreement with such a site prior to operations, 

which would ensure there was available capacity for byproduct material disposal. 

As discussed in Section 2.2.1.6.3 of this SEIS, nonhazardous solid waste is material that is not 

hazardous and is either nonradioactive or complies with NRC unrestricted release limits. 

Nonhazardous solid waste the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would generate includes 

general facility trash, septic system solids, construction/demolition debris, and any solid 

byproduct material (such as piping, valves, instrumentation, or equipment) that has been 

decontaminated to meet NRC criteria for unrestricted release. The proposed operations would 

annually generate approximately 540 to 770 m3

 [700 to 1,000 yd3] (Uranerz, 2007), and 

decommissioning activities would cumulatively generate approximately 941 m3

 [1,230 yd3] plus 

2,074 t [2,288 T] of nonhazardous solid waste [i.e., nonradioactive solid waste (general trash), 

construction and demolition debris, or byproduct material that complies with NRC unrestricted 

release limits]. The applicant has proposed disposing of nonhazardous solid wastes (including 

construction/demolition debris) in a sanitary landfill located near Gillette, which is approximately 

74 km [46 mi] north-northeast of the proposed project site. The Campbell County Landfill 

located in Gillette is well below capacity and can continue to receive waste at its current rate 

(more than 100 tons per day) for about 30 years (CCPW, 2009, 2010). 

As discussed in Section 2.1.1.1.6.3 of this SEIS, it is likely that the applicant would generate 

small quantities of hazardous wastes as a result of its proposed activities. If small quantities of 

hazardous waste (e.g., used oil, spent batteries, waste solvents, waste chemicals) are 

generated, the Campbell County Landfill and the landfill’s Recycling Center can accept these 

items for disposal or recycling. 

3.14 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

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

 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-75 

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

Licensing of Source Material.” “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: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 142. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 142 

“National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 143. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 143 

“National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 146. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 146 

“Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

64 FR 7587. Federal Register. Vol. 74, No. 30. pp. 7,587–7,601. “Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status For The Mountain Plover.” 

February 16, 1999. 

68 FR 53083. Federal Register. Vol. 68, No. 174. pp. 53,083–53,101. “Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule to List the Mountain Plover as 

Threatened.” September 9, 2003. 

72 FR 37346. Federal Register, Volume 72, No. 130. pp. 37,346–37,372. “Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.” July 9, 2007. 

74 FR 66496. “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases.” 

Federal Register. Vol. 74, No. 239. pp. 66,496–66,546. December 15, 2009. 

75 FR 13909. Federal Register. Vol. 75, No. 55. pp. 13,909–13,959. “Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings for Petitions To List the Greater SageGrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered.” March 23, 2010. 

75 FR 37353. Federal Register. Vol. 75, No. 124. pp. 37,353–37,358. “Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Mountain Plover as Threatened.” June 29, 2010. 

16 USC 469-4689c-e, United States Code, Chapter 1A, Subchapter I, Section 469.

“Preservation of Historical and Archeological Data Threatened by Dam Construction or 

Alterations of Terrain.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

ACHP (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). “National Register Evaluation Criteria.” 

July 2010. <http://www.achp.gov/nrcriteria.html> (12 July 2010). 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-76 

Andres, B.A., and K.L. Stone. Conservation Plan for the Mountain Plover (Charadrius 

montanus), Version 1.0. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, 

Manomet, Massachusetts. 2009. 

BLM. “Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-071. Subject: Gunnison and Greater Sage-Grouse 

Management Considerations for Energy Development (Supplement to National Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Conservation Strategy).” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land 

Management. March 5, 2010. 

BLM. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications.” 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management. June 2009a. 

<http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/HighPlains/Wright-Coal.html> (17 August 2010). 

BLM. “Programmatic Agreement Between Bureau of Land Management and Wyoming State 

Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Mitigation of Adverse Effects on the Pumpkin Buttes 

TCP from Anticipated Federal Minerals Development.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Interior Bureau of Land Management. 2009b. 

BLM. “Environmental Assessment for Yates Petroleum Corporation All Day Plan of 

Development.” Buffalo, Wyoming: U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, 

Buffalo Field Office. 2009c. <http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/ 

information/NEPA/bfodocs/pods/yates.Par.84132.File.dat/All%20Day_EA.pdf> (28 April 2010). 

BLM. “Final Report, Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) Biological Evaluation.” Cheyenne, 

Wyoming: U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management. March 2007a. 

<http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/wildlife/mtnplover.Par.18192.File.dat/finalMtnPl

overBE.pdf>. (December 8, 2010). 

BLM. “Environmental Assessments for Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Dry Willow Phase I 

and Dry Willow Phase II.” Buffalo, Wyoming: U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land 

Management, Buffalo Field Office. 2007b. <http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/ 

information/NEPA/bfodocs/pods/anadarko.Par.97022.File.dat/Dry%20Willow%20Phase%20I%2

0EA.pdf> and <http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/information /NEPA/bfodocs/ 

pods/anadarko.Par.78198.File.dat/Dry%20Willow%20Phase%20II%20EA.pdf> 

(15 September 2009). 

BLM. “Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Past and Present and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Interior Bureau of Land Management. July 2005. <http://www.blm.gov/wy/ 

st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB_Coalprbdocs/coalreview/Task2.html> 

(17 September 2009). 

BLM. “National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management. November 2004. 

<http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_ 

Resources/fish_wildlife_and.Par.9151.File.dat/Sage-Grouse_Strategy.pdf> 

BLM. “Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the Powder 

River Basin Oil and Gas Project.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land 

Management. January 2003. <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/bfodocs/prb_eis.html> 

(5 October 2009). 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-77 

BLM. “BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species Policy and List.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Interior Bureau of Land Management. 2002. <http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/ 

etc/medialib/blm/wy/wildlife.Par.9226.File.dat/02species.pdf> (28 September 2009). 

Braun, C.E., O.O. Oedekoven, and C.L. Aldridge. “Oil and Gas Development in Western North 

America: Effects on Sagebrush Steppe Avifauna with Particular Emphasis on Sage Grouse.” 

Transactions North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Vol. 67. 

pp. 337–349. 2002. 

Brunette, J.A.. “Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of the Uranerz Energy Corporation, Hank 

In-Situ Uranium Project.” [Nonpublic document. Withhold per 36 CFR 800.11(c)]. 2007. 

Brunette, J.A. “Sites 48CA6342 through sites 48CA6345-Wyoming Cultural Properties Forms.” 

Submitted to the BLM-Buffalo Field Office by Frontier Archaeology and on file at the Cultural 

Records Office of the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office in Laramie, Wyoming. 

[Nonpublic document. Withhold per 36 CFR 800.11(c)]. 2006. 

CCESC. “Facts About Campbell County School District.” ML092940021. Gillette, Wyoming: 

Campbell County Educational Services Center. 2009. <http://esc.ccsd.k12.wy.us/hr/ 

distinfo.html> (15 September 2009). 

CCPW. Memo to file from C. Pineda, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Summary of 

Teleconference with Mark Swan, Environmental Services Manager, Campbell County Public 

Works, Concerning Landfill Capacity for the Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project." 

ML102600569. Gillette, Wyoming: Campbell County Department of Public Works. 

September 17, 2010. 

CCPW. E-mail from M. Swan, Environmental Services Manager, Campbell County Public 

Works to I. Yu, Project Manager, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs. “Campbell County Landfill Information.” ML092710186. Gillette, 

Wyoming: Campbell County Department of Public Works. September 18, 2009. 

CDNR (Colorado Department of Natural Resources). “Brewer’s Sparrow—Spizella breweri.” 

Denver, Colorado: Colorado Division of Wildlife. September 2005. <http://wildlife.state.co.us/ 

NR/rdonlyres/083ED5DF-ED3F-4953-87AF-A50B7389BF5A/0/BrewersSparrow.pdf> 

(6 October 2009). 

Chapman, S.S., S.A. Bryce, J.M. Omernik, D.G. Despain, J. ZumBerge, and M. Conrad. 

“Ecoregions of Wyoming.” U.S. Geological Survey Map. Scale 1:1,400,000. 2004. 

City of Gillette. “Developing Gillette: The Development Summary for January–December 

2008.” Gillette, Wyoming: City of Gillette. 2009. <http://www.ci.gillette.wy.us/about/ 

DevelopingGillette.pdf> (16 September 2009). 

Connely, M. “Paleontological Survey, Hank and Nichols Ranch Unit, Pumpkin Buttes, 

Wyoming” [Nonpublic document. Withhold per 36 CFR 800.11(c)]. 2007. 

Curtis, J. and K. Grimes. “Wyoming Climate Atlas.” Wyoming State Climate Office. Laramie, 

Wyoming: University of Wyoming. 2004. <http://www.wrds.uwyo.edu/sco/climateatlas/toc.html> 

(1 September 2009). 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-78 

Defenders of Wildlife. “Swift Fox, Vulpes velox.” Washington, DC: Defenders of Wildlife. 

2009. <http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/swift_fox.php> 

(29 September 2009). 

E.O. 2010-4. State of Wyoming. Office of the Governor, Executive Order 2010-4. “Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Dave Freudenthal, Governor. 

August 18, 2010. 

EPA. “Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All Criteria Pollutants As of September 

16, 2010.” Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010a. 

<http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ancl3.html> (8 December 2010). 

EPA. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010b. <http://epa.gov/air/criteria.html> (6 May 2010). 

EPA. “A Citizen’s Guide to Radon.” ML092940025. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 2009. <http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html> (2 October 2009). 

FedStats. “Campbell County, Wyoming, MapStats.” 2010a. <http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/states/ 

56/56005.html> (26 May 2010). 

FedStats. “MapStats, Wyoming, Johnson County.” 2010b <http://www.fedstats.gov/> 

(20 May 2010). 

Fertig, W. “State Species Abstract: Penstemon Haydenii, Blowout Penstemon.” Wyoming 

Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming. 2008. <http://www.uwyo.edu/ 

wynddsupport/docs/Reports/SpeciesAbstracts/Penstemon_haydenii.pdf> (28 September 2009). 

Fertig, W. “Status Review of the Ute Ladies Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) in Wyoming.” 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming. Prepared for the Wyoming 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department. 2000. <http://www.uwyo.edu/wynddsupport/docs/Reports/ 

WYNDDReports/U00FER01WYUS.pdf> (28 September 2009). 

FWS. “Species Profile: Black-Footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes).” ML092940034. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. 

<http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/ speciesProfile.action?spcode=A004> 

(30 September 2009). 

FWS. “Black-Footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes)—Five-Year Review: Summary and Status 

Evaluation.” South Dakota Field Office. Pierre, South Dakota. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. November 2008a. <http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2364.pdf> 

(30 September 2009). 

FWS. Letter from B.T. Kelly, Field Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, to Gregory F. Suber, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ML082840332. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August 15, 2008b. 

FWS. “National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.” May 2007. <http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ 

eagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf> (28 April 2010). 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-79 

FWS. Letter to Interested Party from B.T. Kelly, Field Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Block Clearance for Black-Footed Ferret Surveys.” 

ML092780370. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. February 2, 2004a. 

FWS. “Sage-Grouse Fact Sheet.” Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004b. 

<http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/sagegrouse/sagegrousefactsheet.pdf> 

(29 September 2009). 

FWS. “Twelve Month Finding for the Black-tailed Prairie Dog.” ML092940030. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. 

<http://www.fws.gov/mountain%2Dprairie/species/mammals/btprairiedog/> 

(29 September 2009). 

GCRP. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Washington, DC: 

Cambridge University Press. 2009. 

HKM. “Powder/Tongue River Basin Water Plan Technical Memorandum.” Prepared for 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. ML092940036. 2002. <http://waterplan. 

state.wy.us/plan/powder/techmemos/wqissues.html> (08 September 2009). 

Hutchinson, A. “Sites 48CA6146 through sites 48CA6149-Wyoming Cultural Properties Forms.” 

Submitted to the BLM-Buffalo Field Office by SWCA Environmental Consultants and on file at 

the Cultural Records Office of the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office in Laramie, 

Wyoming. [Nonpublic document. Withhold per 36 CFR 800.11(c)]. 2006. 

JCSD. “Report to the Community: 2008–2009.” Buffalo, Wyoming: Johnson County School 

District #1. 2009. <http://www.jcsd1.k12.wy.us/files/ 600550/Report%20to%20Community.pdf> 

(15 September 2009). 

Lowham, H.W. “Techniques for Estimating Flow Characteristics of Wyoming Streams.” 

U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation 76-112. 1976. 

Liu, W. “Wyoming Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax Revenue Report.” Prepared for Department of 

Administration and Information, Wyoming Economic Analysis Division. 2008. 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us/s&utax/Report_FY08.pdf> (15 September 2009). 

NCDC. “Climates of the States, Climatology of the United States No. 20: Monthly Station 

Climate Summaries, 1971–2000.” Asheville, North Carolina: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 2004. 

NCRP. “Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States.” Report No. 160. 

Bethesda, Maryland: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. 

March 3, 2009. 

NCTHPO. E-mail from C. Fisher, Northern Cheyenne Tribal Historic Preservation Office, to 

I. Yu, Project Manager, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management 

Programs. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project.” ML090440030. Lame Deer, Montana: 

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. February 12, 2009. 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-80 

Nicholoff, S.H., compiler. “Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan. Version 2.0. Wyoming Partners 

in Flight.” Lander, Wyoming: Wyoming Fish and Game Department. ML092940037. May 1, 

2003. <http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/WY/Wyoming%20Bird%20Conservation%20Plan.htm> 

(6 October 2009). 

NOAA. “Monthly Station Normals of Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling 

Degree Days: 1971–2000. Climatology of the United States No. 81: Wyoming.” 2004. 

<http://www.wrds.uwyo.edu/sco/data/normals/monthly_normals.pdf> (2 September 2009). 

NRC. Letter from K. Hsueh, Branch Chief, to I. Posey, Chairman, Shoshone Business Council. 

“Subject: Request for Information Regarding Historic, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources 

Potentially Affected by the Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project in Campbell and Johnson 

Counties, Wyoming, and Invitation To Become a Signatory to Associated Memorandum of 

Agreement.” ML100880084. Washington, DC: NRC. April 23, 2010a. 

NRC. Letter from D. Skeen, Branch Chief, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

to M. Hopkins, Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office. “Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) Regarding Mitigation of Adverse Effects to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP from the Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project in Campbell and Johnson Counties Wyoming.” ML101600535. 

Washington, DC: NRC. 2010b. 

NRC. Letter from K. Hsueh, Branch Chief, to R.L. Currit, Senior Archaeologist, Wyoming State 

Historic Preservation Office. “Subject: Uranerz Energy Corporation, Nichols Ranch In-Situ

Uranium Recovery Project–Section 106 Consultation–State Historic Preservation Office File 

#0708RLC009.” ML102090620. Washington, DC: NRC. 2010c. 

NRC. Letter from K. Hsueh, Branch Chief, to R.L. Currit, Senior Archaeologist, Wyoming State 

Historic Preservation Office. “Subject: Uranerz Energy Corporation, Nichols Ranch In-Situ

Uranium Recovery Project–Section 106 Consultation–State Historic Preservation Office File 

#0708RLC009.” ML102700045. Washington, DC: NRC. October 15, 2010d. 

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

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

NRC. Memorandum to A. Kock, Branch Chief, from I. Yu, B. Shroff, and A. Bjornsen, Project 

Managers, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. 

“Informal Meetings with Local, State, and Federal Agencies in Wyoming Regarding the 

Environmental Reviews Being Conducted on the Moore Ranch, Nichols Ranch, and Lost Creek 

In-Situ Leach Applications for Source Material Licenses (Docket Nos. 040-09073, 040-09067, 

040-09068).” ML090500544. Washington, DC: NRC. March 2, 2009b. 

NRC. Regulatory Guide 3.11, “Design, Construction, and Inspection of Embankment Retention 

Systems at Uranium Recovery Facilities.” Revision 3. Washington, DC: NRC. 

November 2008. 

NRC. NUREG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications–Final Report.” Washington, DC: NRC. June 2003. 

NRC. Regulatory Guide 4.14, “Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring at Uranium 

Mills, Revision 1.” Washington, DC: NRC. April 1980. 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-81 

NWS. “NOAA Technical Report NWS 33: Evaporation Atlas for the Contiguous 48 

United States.” Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1982. 

Russell, R. “A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for Uranerz Energy Corporation’s 80-Acre 

Parcel in the Hank Unit, Campbell County, Wyoming.” [Nonpublic document. Withhold per 36 

CFR 800.11(c)]. 2009. 

Sage-grouse Working Group (Northeast Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group). “Northeast 

Wyoming Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan.” August 15, 2006. <http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/ 

wildlife_management/sagegrouse/Northeast/NEConsvPlan.pdf> (29 September 2009). 

Sharp, W.N. and A.B. Gibbons. “Geology and Uranium Deposits of the Pumpkin Buttes Area of 

the Powder River Basin, Wyoming.” U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1107H, pp. 541–638. 

1964. 

TRC Solutions. Letter from J.A. Lowe, Program Manager/Cultural Resources, TRC Solutions, 

to M. Thomas, Environmental, Safety, and Health Manager, Uranerz Energy Corporation. 

“Native American Consultation for Section 106 Compliance for Uranerz Energy Corporation’s 

Nichols Ranch In Situ Uranium Recovery Project.” Laramie, Wyoming: TRC Environmental 

Corporation. ML102310186. August 17, 2010. 

University of Wyoming. “Big Game Crucial Ranges in Wyoming at 1:100,000.” GIS Data. 

Laramie, Wyoming: Wyoming Geolibrary. July 29, 2008. 

University of Wyoming. Letter from M. Arnett, Database Specialist, Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database, to R. Schoumacher, TRC Mariah Associates, Inc. “Results of Request for 

Documented Rare Species Occurrences in T43-44N R74-77W, Johnson and Campbell 

Counties, Wyoming.” ML080180155. Laramie, Wyoming: University of Wyoming. 

March 30, 2006. 

Uranerz. Letter from M. Thomas, Environmental, Safety, and Health Manager, Uranerz Energy 

Corporation, to R. Linton, Project Manager, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Responses 

to the Open Issues to the Safety Evaluation Report for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project License 

Application.” ML100740143. Casper, Wyoming: Uranerz Energy Corporation. 

February 24, 2010. 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. 

Casper, Wyoming: 2007. 

USCB. “Annual Population Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties: April 1, 2000, to 

July 1, 2009, for Wyoming.” Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2010. 

<http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2009-01.html> (20 May 2010). 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-82 

USCB. “2006–2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Demographic and 

Housing Estimates for Campbell County, Wyoming.” Washington, DC: USCB. 2009a. 

<http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US56005&-

qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-

redoLog=false&-_sse=on> (24 May 2010). 

USCB. “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin 

for Counties: April 1, 2000, to July 1, 2008 for Wyoming.” Washington, DC: USCB. 2009b. 

<http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/asrh/CC-EST2008-alldata.html> (20 May 2010). 

USCB. “2006–2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Selected Economic 

Characteristics for Campbell County, Wyoming.” Washington, DC: USCB. 2009c. 

<http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US56005&-

qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR3&-ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-

redoLog=false&-_sse=on> (24 May 2010). 

USCB. “State and County Estimates for 2008: Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates for 

Wyoming.” Washington, DC: USCB. 2009d. <http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/ 

downloads/estmod08/est08_WY.txt> (24 May 2010). 

USCB. “2006–2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates for Campbell County, 

Wyoming. Selected Housing Characteristics.” Washington, DC: USCB. 2009e. 

<http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US56005&-

qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR4&-ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-

_sse=on> (24 May 2010). 

USCB. “Annual Estimates of Housing Units for Counties: April 1, 2000, to July 1, 2008 for 

Wyoming.” Washington, DC: USCB. 2009f. <http://www.census.gov/popest/housing/HUEST2008-4.html> (24 May 2010). 

USCB. “2008 Population Estimates for Wright, Edgerton, Midwest, Gillette, and Casper in 

Wyoming.” ADAMS No. ML092940144. Washington, DC: USCB. 2008. 

<http://factfinder.census.gov> (16 October 2009). 

USCB. “Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. Table P4, Hispanic or Latino, 

and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race for Campbell County, Wyoming.” Washington, DC: USCB. 

2000a. <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-

ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_P004&-CONTEXT=dt&-

tree_id=4001&-all_geo_types=N&-geo_id=05000US56005&-search_results=01000US&-

format=&-_lang=en> (20 May 2010). 

USCB. “Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. Table P4, Hispanic or Latino, 

and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race for Johnson County, Wyoming.” Washington, DC: USCB. 

2000b. <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-

ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-CONTEXT=dt&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_P004&-

tree_id=4001&-redoLog=true&-all_geo_types=N&-geo_id=05000US56019&-

search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en> (20 May 2010). 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-83 

USCB. “Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. QT-P4. Race, Combinations of 

Two Races, and Not Hispanic or Latino: 2000 for Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming.” 

Washington, DC: USCB. 2000c. <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-

context=qt&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_QTP4&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-

CONTEXT=qt&-tree_id=4001&-all_geo_types=N&-geo_id=05000US56005&-

geo_id=05000US56019&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en> (20 May 2010). 

USCB. “Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3)—Sample Data. DP-4. Profile of Selected 

Housing Characteristics for Campbell County, Wyoming.” Washington, DC: USCB. 2000d. 

<http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US56005&-

qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP4&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-

redoLog=false&-_sse=on>. (24 May 2010). 

USCB. “Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3)—Sample Data. DP-4. Profile of Selected 

Housing Characteristics for Johnson County, Wyoming.” Washington, DC: USCB. 2000e. 

<http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US56019&-

qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP4&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-_sse=on>. 

(24 May 2010). 

USCB. “Wyoming Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990.” Compiled by 

R.L. Forstall. Washington, DC: USCB. March 2, 1995. <http://www.census.gov/population/ 

cencounts/wy190090.txt> (24 May 2010). 

USDA. “Distribution of State Listed Plants in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming.” 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2009. <http://plants.usda.gov/index.html> 

(28 September 2009). 

WBC. “June 2009 Employment Data.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Business Council. 

2009. <http://www.whywyoming.org/pdf/June2009Emp_Data.pdf> (09 September 2009). 

WDAI-DEA. “Population for Wyoming, Counties, Cities, and Towns: 2000 to 2030.” Cheyenne, 

Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, Department of Economic 

Analysis. July 2008. <http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop/wyc&sc30.htm> (24 May 2010). 

WDAI-DEA. “Historical Decennial Census Population for Wyoming Counties, Cities, and 

Towns.” Compiled from U.S. Census Bureau data. April 5, 2001. <http://eadiv.state.wy.us/ 

demog_data/cntycity_hist.htm> (24 May 2010). 

WDE. “2007 Teacher, Pupil and School Counts.” 2007. <http://www.k12.wy.us/statistics/stat2/ 

2007_ teacher_pupil_school_counts.pdf> (15 September 2009). 

WDEQ (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality), “Wyoming Ambient Air Monitoring 

Annual Network Plan 2009.” <http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/downloads/AirMonitor/ 

Network%20Plan_2009.pdf> (14 September 2009). 2009. 

WDEQ. “Chapter 2, Ambient Standards.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality. 2008. <http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/standards.asp> (6 May 2010). 

WDEQ. “Water Quality Rules and Regulations, Chapter 8, Quality Standards for Wyoming 

Groundwaters.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water 

Quality Division. April 27, 2005. 
Description of the Affected Environment 

3-84 

WDOR. “State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2009 Annual Report.” Cheyenne, 

Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Revenue. 2009. <http://revenue.state.wy.us/PortalVBVS/ 

uploads/Department%20of%20Revenue%20%2010.29.2009.pdf> (15 April 2009). 

WDOR. “State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2007 Annual Report.” Cheyenne, 

Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Revenue. 2007. <http://revenue.state.wy.us/PortalVBVS/ 

uploads/2007%20DOR%20Annual%20Report.pdf> (15 September 2009). 

WDOR. “State of Wyoming Property Tax System.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department 

of Revenue. 2001. <http://revenue.state.wy.us/PortalVBVS/uploads/propertytaxsystem.pdf> 

(15 September 2009). 

WGFD. “Wyoming Game and Fish Sage Grouse Management.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2010a. 

<http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife_management/sagegrouse/index.asp> ( December 2010). 

WGFD. “Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources Within Important 

Wildlife Habitats.” Version 6.0. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

(WGFD). April 2010b. <http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/doc/O&G%20Recommendations 

%20April%202010%20with%20changes%20identified.doc> (2 June 2010). 

WGFD. “2007 Big Game Job Completion Reports.” Buffalo, Wyoming: WGFD. 2007. 

<http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/biggamejcr2007/index.asp#> (15 September 2009). 

WGFD. “A Plan for Bird and Mammal Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Eastern 

Wyoming Grasslands. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WGFD. September 2006a. 

<http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/FinalGrasslandPlanseptember2006.pdf> 

(30 September 2009). 

WGFD. “Tularemia Diagnosed in Cottontail Rabbit Near Newcastle.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

WGFD. September 2006b. <http://gf.state. wy.us/services/news/pressreleases/ 

06/07/18/060718_1.asp> (6 October 2009). 

WGFD. “Annual Big Game Herd Unit Reports.” Sheridan Region. Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

WGFD. July 2005a. 

WGFD. “Final Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: WGFD. 

ML092940039. July 2005b. <http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/CompConvStrategy/> 

(28 September 2009). 

WGFD. “Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) in Final Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: WGFD. July 12, 2005c. <http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/ 

CompConvStrategy/Species/Mammals/PDFS/Black-footed%20Ferrett.pdf> 

(30 September 2009). 

WGFD. “Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) in Final Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: WGFD. July 12, 2005d. 

<http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/CompConvStrategy/Species/Mammals/PDFS/Blacktailed%20Prairie%20Dog.pdf> (29 September 2009). 
Description of the Affected Environment

3-85 

WGFD. “Great Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis) in Final Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: WGFD. July 12, 2005e. <http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/ 

CompConvStrategy/Species/Birds/PDFS/Greater%20Sandhill%20Crane.pdf> (6 October 2009). 

WGFD. “Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) in Final Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.” 

Cheyenne, Wyoming: WGFD. July, 12, 2005f. <http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/ 

CompConvStrategy/Species/Mammals/PDFS/Swift%20Fox.pdf> (29 September 2009). 

Whitehead, R.L. Groundwater Atlas of the United States, Montana, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey Report HA 730–I. Denver, Colorado: 

U.S. Geological Survey. 1996. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_i/> (29 January 2009). 

Wyle. “Community Noise.” Under Contract 68-04-0046 for EPA Office of Noise Abatement and 

Control. El Segundo, California: Wyle Laboratories. December 31, 1971. 

WYNDD. “Mountain Plover in Wyoming.“ Laramie, Wyoming: University of Wyoming. 2010. 

<http://www.uwyo.edu/wynddsupport/docs/MTNPLVR/OCCURRENCE_DATA_MAP_v2.PDF> 

(29 November 2010). 

WYNDD. “Plant Species of Concern.” Laramie, Wyoming: University of Wyoming. 2007. 

<http://www.uwyo.edu/wynddsupport/docs/ SOC_PLANTS/2007_Plant_SOC.pdf> 

(28 September 2009). 

WYNDD. “Animal Species of Concern.” Laramie, Wyoming: University of Wyoming. 2003. 

<http://www.uwyo.edu/wynddsupport/docs/SOC_Animals/2003_Animals_SOC.pdf> 

(28 September 2009). 

WY SHPO. Letter from R.L. Currit, Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office. 

“Uranerz Energy Corporation, Nichols Ranch In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project 

(SHPO File #0708RLC009).” ML102000147. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office. July 8, 2010a. 

WY SHPO. Letter from R.L. Currit, Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office. 

“Subject: Uranerz Energy Corporation, Nichols Ranch In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project 

(SHPO File #0708RLC009).” ML102020089. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WY SHPO. 

July 15, 2010b. 

WY SHPO. Letter from R.L. Currit, Senior Archaeologist, Wyoming State Historic Preservation 

Office, to G. Suber, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ”Uranerz Energy Corporation, 

Nichols Ranch Uranium Recovery Project License Request (Docket 040-09067) 

(SHPO File # 0708RLC009).” ML082270716. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WY SHPO. 

July 25, 2008. 

 

4-1 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, 

AQUIFER RESTORATION, AND DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES AND 

MITIGATIVE ACTIONS 

4.1 Introduction 

The Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities (NUREG–1910, NRC, 2009a) evaluated the potential environmental impact of 

implementing in-situ recovery (ISR) operations in four distinct geographic regions, including the 

Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region where the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is 

located. This chapter evaluates the potential environmental impacts from Alternative 1 

(implementing the proposed action, and alternative wastewater disposal options); Alternative 2 

(the No-Action alternative); and Alternative 3 (Modified Action–No Hank Unit). Other reasonable 

alternatives considered at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project included a modification to the 

proposed action, alternative lixiviants, conventional mining and milling, and conventional mining 

and heap leach processing, all of which were eliminated from detailed analysis as described in 

Section 2.2. 

This chapter analyzes the four lifecycle phases of ISR uranium extraction (construction, 

operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning) at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project consistent with the analytical approach used in the GEIS (NRC, 2009a). The results of 

the GEIS impact analyses for the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, as summarized in 

Table 1-1 of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), were used to focus the 

site-specific environmental review at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. If the GEIS 

concluded there could be a range of impacts on a particular resource area (e.g., the impacts 

could range from SMALL to LARGE), then that resource area was evaluated in greater detail 

within this site-specific SEIS. The site-specific analyses in this chapter also note where (i) the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff obtained new information during its 

independent site-specific review and (ii) whether the potential impacts fit in the range of the 

GEIS analyses or whether the new information would be significant enough that it would change 

the expected impact beyond that discussed in the GEIS. 

Sections 4.2 through 4.14 of the SEIS evaluate the impact from both the proposed action 

(which includes construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning using a 

Class I injection well for management of process-related liquid waste streams) and the 

No-Action alternative (which means no ISR facilities would be built and operated at the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project). The No-Action alternative is assessed to provide a 

baseline to compare the potential impacts from the proposed action. 

NRC established a standard of significance for assessing environmental impacts in the conduct 

of environmental reviews based on the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, as 

described in the NRC guidance in NUREG–1748, Environmental Review Guidance for 

Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs (NRC, 2003a), and summarized as follows: 

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

would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the 

resource considered. 

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

destabilize important attributes of the resource considered. 
Environmental Impacts 

4-2 

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

destabilize important attributes of the resource considered. 

4.2 Land Use Impacts 

Potential environmental impacts to land use at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site 

may occur during all phases of the facility lifecycle. Impacts could include land disturbance from 

construction and decommissioning, grazing and access restrictions, and competing access for 

mineral rights. Potential impacts to land use may be greater in areas with higher percentages of 

private land ownership and lands held in trust for Native Americans or in areas with a complex 

patchwork of land ownership. Detailed discussion of the potential environmental impacts on 

land use from construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning are provided in 

the following sections. 

4.2.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

4.2.1.1 Construction Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.1.1 (NRC, 2009a) states that land use impacts during construction may occur 

from land disturbances and access restrictions that could limit other mineral extraction activities, 

grazing activities, or recreational activities. The GEIS concluded that land disturbances during 

construction would be temporary and limited to small areas within permitted boundaries, and 

that well sites, staging areas, and trenches would be reseeded and restored. The GEIS further 

noted that changes to land use access, including grazing restrictions and impacts on 

recreational activities, would be limited because of the small size of the restricted area. In 

addition, the nature of restrictions would be temporary and other land is available for these 

activities. As summarized in SEIS Table 1-1, the GEIS concluded that potential construction 

impacts on land use in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region could range from SMALL to 

LARGE, depending on the factors described previously (NRC, 2009a). The impact conclusions 

that contributed to a greater than SMALL impact in the GEIS finding addressed potential 

alterations to ecological, historic, and cultural resources that ranged from SMALL to LARGE. 

For this SEIS, the potential ecological impacts are evaluated in Section 4.6 and the potential 

historic and cultural resource impacts are evaluated in Section 4.9. Additionally, impacts to soil 

from surface disturbances are addressed in Section 4.4. Therefore, the following discussion 

assesses land use impacts at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project considering the 

proposed land disturbances and associated access restrictions that could limit other mineral 

extraction, grazing, or recreational activities. 

Disturbance from construction-related activities related to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project (drilling, trenching, excavating, grading, construction of the central processing plant 

satellite facility, and auxiliary structures) would affect approximately 120 ha [300 ac] of the 

proposed project area. As stated in Section 2.2.1.2.1, approximately 24 to 32 ha [60 to 80 ac] 

would be fenced off to grazing activities at any given time during the proposed project life. The 

applicant estimated that construction of the wellfields and buildings would take approximately 

9 months to a year. Construction of the processing facilities at both units would be limited to 

0.81 to 1.6 ha [2 to 4 ac]. During construction of the proposed facilities, all topsoil will be 

removed and stockpiled in a designated area until reclamation activities commence. Open 

spaces for hunting and off-road vehicle access would be minimally impacted by the fencing 

associated with the proposed ISR facilities. Coal bed methane (CBM) wells located in and 

adjacent to the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units would not impact construction of the Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project, because neither the existing nor proposed CBM wells are located within the 
 Environmental Impacts

4-3 

applicant’s proposed wellfield areas. The applicant indicated that close communication would 

be maintained with the CBM operators to avoid conflicts. (Uranerz, 2007) 

The NRC staff concludes that the land use impacts for the proposed action would be SMALL. 

This conclusion is based on the following factors: the types of land use activities the applicant 

proposes are similar to those evaluated in the GEIS; the proposed action will disturb 120 ha 

[300 ac] of land, which is at the small end of the 50 to 750 ha [120 to 1,860 ac] range analyzed 

in the GEIS; and 24 to 32 ha [60 to 80 ac] of land would have restricted access during the 

construction phase, which would be small compared to the 150 ha [370 ac] analyzed in the 

GEIS. 

4.2.1.2 Operations Impacts 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.1.2, the types of land use impacts from operational activities 

would be similar to the construction phase regarding access restrictions because the 

infrastructure would be in place. Additional land disturbances would not occur from conducting 

operational activities described in GEIS Section 2.4. The primary changes to land use during 

this phase would be associated with development (sequencing) of wellfields from one area of 

the site to another. Because access restriction and land-disturbance-related impacts would be 

similar to, or less than, those for construction, the GEIS concluded that overall potential impacts 

on land use from operational activities would be SMALL. 

Operations at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would take an estimated 1.25 to 

2.5 years to extract the uranium from the production areas in each wellfield, as shown in 

Figure 2-1. As stated in SEIS section 2.2.1.2.4, the wellfields and associated disturbed area 

would cover approximately 46 ha [113 ac] at the Nichols Ranch Unit and approximately 63 ha 

[155 ac] at the Hank Unit. The wellfields at each unit would be developed in sequence, moving 

from one area of the site to another. Livestock grazing would continue to be restricted from the 

wellfields and the central processing plant during the operations phase. As discussed in SEIS 

Section 4.2.1.1, approximately 24 to 32 ha [60 to 80 ac] would be fenced to grazing activities. 

Since the land area to be restricted from grazing is small (24 to 32 ha [60 to 80 ac]) compared to 

that considered in the GEIS (150 ha [370 ac]) and because no additional land disturbance would 

occur from conducting operational activities, the NRC staff conclude that land use impacts 

would be SMALL. 

4.2.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.1.3 discusses aquifer restoration impacts on land use. Because the same 

infrastructure would be used, land use impacts from aquifer restoration would either be similar 

to, or less than, those from operations. Activities during aquifer restoration would use the same 

infrastructure as the operations phase. As aquifer restoration proceeds and wellfields are 

closed, fewer wells and pump houses would be used. Onsite activities would diminish. The 

GEIS concluded that the overall potential impacts on land use during the aquifer restoration 

phase are comparable to those of the operations phase and would be SMALL. 

Land use impacts from aquifer restoration at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be 

similar to operation impacts. No additional land disturbances or withdrawals would occur during 

the restoration phase. Because the types of land use activities for the Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project are similar to those evaluated in the GEIS, the land surface area to be disturbed during 

the proposed action is small and at the low end of the range considered in the GEIS (see SEIS 
Environmental Impacts 

4-4 

Section 4.2.1.1), and the access restrictions would remain in place, the NRC staff conclude land 

use impacts from aquifer restoration would be SMALL. 

4.2.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

Decommissioning impacts to land use are discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.1.4. The GEIS 

concluded that land use impacts from decommissioning would be similar to those described for 

construction, with a temporary increase in land-disturbing activities for dismantling, removing, 

and disposing of facilities, equipment, piping and excavated contaminated soils. Access 

restrictions may remain until decommissioning and reclamation are completed, although it is 

possible that a licensee could decommission and reclaim the site in stages. Reclamation of 

land to preexisting conditions and uses would help to mitigate long-term impacts. For lands the 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or other surface management agencies administer, 

other reclamation standards may also be applicable. The GEIS concluded impacts on land use 

during decommissioning would range from SMALL to MODERATE, and SMALL when 

decommissioning and reclamation are completed. (NRC, 2009a) 

The dismantling of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project facilities and roads, and reseeding 

and placement of soil as described in Section 2.2.1.5 in the SEIS would have impacts similar in 

scale to the construction phase. As stated in the license application, upon completion of well 

abandonment, the applicant would reseed soil and place it in stripped areas. This soil 

placement would occur primarily where the header houses and roads are removed, as well as in 

the Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant and Hank Unit satellite facility areas 

(Uranerz, 2007). As decommissioning and reclamation progressed, the disturbed land area 

would decrease and the structures that would affect the viewshed of the Pumpkin Buttes 

Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) and associated TCPs (discussed in Section 4.9 of the SEIS) 

would be removed. NRC concludes that the land use impacts from decommissioning activities 

would be MODERATE until the reestablishment of vegetation in seeded areas. Once 

vegetation is reestablished in reclaimed areas, NRC staff concludes that the land use impacts 

would be SMALL because the reclaimed land could be released to support a variety of other 

uses such as wildlife habitat or livestock grazing. 

4.2.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would not be licensed 

and the land would remain available for uses such as grazing, CBM, and oil and gas production. 

No construction, operation, aquifer restoration, or decommissioning activities would occur, and 

there would be no disruption to the land surface. No access restrictions would be in place to 

restrict wildlife usage. No wells would be drilled, no pipeline would be laid, and no access roads 

would be constructed. 

4.2.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) 

4.2.3.1 Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under this alternative would be less than those resulting from the 

proposed action because ground-disturbing activities such as drilling, trenching, excavating, 

grading, and surface facility construction would be limited to an approximate 60 ha [150 ac] area 

for the Nichols Ranch Unit, compared to twice the land area if the Hank Unit were also 

developed. Approximately 12 to 16 ha [30 to 40 ac] would be fenced to grazing activities at any 

given time for the duration of this alternative. Because fewer wellfields would be developed and 
 Environmental Impacts

4-5 

no satellite facility would be constructed, the construction phase would take less time than for 

the proposed action (estimated 9 months to a year). Open spaces for hunting and off-road 

vehicle access and livestock grazing would be minimally impacted by the smaller fenced area 

under this alternative. CBM production in and adjacent to the Nichols Ranch Unit would not be 

impacted by construction, because no CBM wells exist or are planned within the proposed area. 

Based on the above factors, NRC staff concludes that the construction impacts discussed 

previously for this alternative would have a SMALL impact on land use. 

4.2.3.2 Operations Impacts 

Because the infrastructure would be in place, the land use access restrictions during operational 

activities would be similar to the construction phase and less than those associated with the 

proposed action. Operations would take an estimated 1.25 to 2.5 years to extract the uranium 

from each wellfield production area in the Nichols Ranch Unit (Figure 2-1). As stated earlier, at 

any given time approximately 12 to 16 ha [30 to 40 ac] of land would be fenced to grazing 

activities for the duration of the project. The NRC staff concludes that the potential impacts to 

land use from operational activities would be SMALL. 

4.2.3.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

During aquifer restoration, land use impacts would be comparable to operations phase impacts. 

Activities during aquifer restoration would use the same infrastructure as activities during the 

operations phase. Impacts from Alternative 3 would be less than those for the proposed action 

less land would be disturbed because the Hank Unit would not be developed. The NRC staff 

concludes that impacts to land use from aquifer restoration for this alternative would be SMALL. 

4.2.3.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

Dismantling of project facilities and roads, as well as the reseeding and placement of soil, would 

have impacts similar in scale to the construction phase. As with the proposed action, upon 

completion of well abandonment, seeded soil would be placed in areas where it had been 

stripped. This would occur primarily where the header houses and roads had been removed 

and at the Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant area. Impacts on land use from 

implementing this alternative would be less than those of the proposed action because the Hank 

Unit would not be developed. Therefore, no structures would affect the viewshed of the 

Pumpkin Buttes TCP and associated TCPs as in the proposed action. At the completion of 

decommissioning, the reclaimed land would be released for other uses and no longer restricted. 

The NRC concludes that land use impacts would be MODERATE until the reestablishment of 

vegetation. Once vegetation is established in reclaimed areas, the NRC staff conclude that the 

land would be returned to a condition that could support a variety of land uses and, therefore, 

land use impacts would be SMALL. 

4.3 Transportation Impacts 

Potential environmental impacts from transportation at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

site may occur during all phases of the facility lifecycle. Impacts would be from workers 

commuting to and from the site and from the shipment of materials and chemicals on and off the 

site. Impacts could occur from fugitive dust, noise, incidental wildlife or livestock kills, increased 

traffic on local roads, and accidents. Fugitive dust emissions are evaluated as air quality 

impacts in Section 4.7, noise impacts are evaluated in Section 4.8, and the impact from wildlife 

kills is considered in ecological impacts in Section 4.6.1.1.1.2 in the SEIS. The potential 
Environmental Impacts 

4-6 

environmental impacts on transportation from construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning are detailed in the following sections. 

4.3.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

4.3.1.1 Construction Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.2.1 concluded that low levels of traffic generated by ISR construction activities 

(relative to local traffic counts) would not significantly increase traffic or accidents on many of 

the roads in the region. Roads that currently experience low traffic counts could be moderately 

impacted by the additional worker commuting traffic during periods of peak employment. 

Additionally, the NRC staff concluded that, depending on site-specific conditions, moderate 

dust, noise, and incidental wildlife or livestock kill impacts would be possible on or near site 

access roads. For these reasons, the GEIS concluded that construction impacts to 

transportation could range from SMALL to MODERATE. 

As discussed in Section 2.2.1.2.3, the existing T-Chair Livestock Company ranch roads at the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area are gravel crowned and ditched and have been 

constructed to accommodate tractor-trailer traffic used for CBM activities during the wet and dry 

seasons. The development of new access roads is addressed in Section 4.2.1.1 of the SEIS. 

The applicant has indicated all roads, except those the landowner has requested to remain, 

would be reclaimed. 

The applicant has indicated the trip frequency to the proposed project area would be 

approximately eight passenger vehicles per day (standard, light-duty, and 3⁄4-ton trucks; 

passenger vans; or personal cars) and six tractor trailers per week (Uranerz, 2007). Traffic 

volumes would be highest Monday through Friday during the beginning and end of regular 

working hours (8:00 am and 4:00 pm). The proposed commuter traffic was bound by the 

number of workers assumed in the GEIS. The aforementioned number of tractor-trailer 

shipments the applicant expected during the construction period for the proposed action is 

greater than the number of shipments evaluated in the GEIS but is still a low volume of trucking 

activity. Based on the annual average daily traffic (AADT) counts presented in Section 3.3 of 

the SEIS for State Route (SR) 50, the proposed project-related traffic would increase AADT 

counts on SR50 by roughly 3 percent. For SR387, AADT counts would increase an estimated 

0.6 percent to 2 percent, depending on the road segment location between Interstate 25 and 

SR59. If the maximum estimated number of workers during the construction period (55 

employees and 20 contractors)(Uranerz, 2007) were to commute to the site individually on the 

same road, the aforementioned estimated increases in traffic counts would be up to 28 percent 

above the current AADT for SR50 and between 4.5 and 16 percent above the AADT for SR387. 

The NRC staff considers this scenario unlikely but bounding relative to the applicant’s proposal. 

The NRC staff expects commuting workers would come from a variety of locations and would 

not all commute on the same road; therefore, actual values would be lower than the 

bounding values. 

To further evaluate the potential significance of the estimated project contributions to traffic, 

NRC considered another impact analysis of nearby coal mining activities conducted by BLM 

(BLM, 2010a). In that study, the BLM evaluated the impact of an estimated 48 percent increase 

in traffic for Campbell County roads by year 2020 based on high coal production population 

projections and concluded highways along major routes would not be affected but urban areas 

such as Gillette could experience additional traffic delays (BLM, 2010a). Because traffic counts 

on main roads in Gillette (a more urban area) are much higher (ranging from a few thousand to 
 Environmental Impacts

4-7 

more than 20,000 vehicles per day)(Gillette Department of Traffic Safety, 2010) than the traffic 

counts for the rural highways evaluated previously, the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR project 

contribution to Gillette traffic under the bounding assumptions (e.g., 152 one-way vehicle trips 

per day) would be a lower proportion of daily traffic than is indicated by the aforementioned 

project-specific estimates or the BLM study. The small increases in estimated traffic on the 

main arteries from the proposed project support the NRC staff conclusion (with ample margin 

should actual construction traffic exceed the applicant’s planned volume) that usage of the 

regional road network or the gravel roads near the project area would not overtax existing road 

infrastructure and would therefore be a SMALL impact, although no traffic count data are 

available for Van Buggenum Road or the T-Chair Livestock Company ranch roads. 

By permit condition (WDEQ, 2009), the applicant is required to treat the main plant access road 

and the haul road between the Nichols and Hank Units with water or chemical dust 

suppressants to control fugitive dust emissions from transportation activities. Because of the 

state-required dust mitigation measures and the low traffic volume during the construction 

phase, the NRC staff conclude that the impacts from transportation at the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project site would be SMALL. The NRC staff considered the GEIS factors which 

contributed to the MODERATE impact finding in the GEIS (e.g., road dust, livestock and wildlife 

kills) and concluded that these factors would occur less frequently at the Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project site because of the low traffic volumes and dust mitigation measures associated with the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. SEIS Section 4.7 analyzes the impacts from potential 

fugitive dust emissions. Impacts to wildlife are addressed in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.1.2. 

4.3.1.2 Operations Impacts 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.2.2, during the operations phase, the facility-related traffic 

volume would remain at a low level and would not noticeably increase traffic or accidents, 

except that local, less traveled roads could be moderately impacted during periods of peak 

employment. Dust, noise, and possible incidental wildlife or livestock kill impacts on or near site 

access roads could continue to occur. 

The GEIS also assessed the potential for and consequence from accidents involving the 

transportation of hazardous chemicals and radioactive materials. The GEIS recognized the 

potential for high consequences from a severe accident involving transportation of hazardous 

chemicals in a populated area. The probability of such accidents occurring was determined to 

be low because of the small number of shipments, comprehensive regulatory controls, and the 

applicant’s use of best management practices (BMPs). For radioactive material shipments 

(yellowcake product, ion-exchange resins, waste materials), compliance with transportation 

regulations was expected to limit radiological risk for normal operations. The use of emergency 

response protocols would also help to mitigate the consequences of severe accidents involving 

release of uranium. The GEIS concluded that the potential impacts from transportation during 

operations could range from SMALL to MODERATE (NRC, 2009a). 

For the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR facility, the operational transportation activities discussed 

in Sections 2.2.1.3.1.6, 2.2.1.3.1.7, and 2.2.1.7 of this SEIS would occur over a planned 5-year 

period (Figure 2-1) and include the same activities evaluated in the GEIS, including truck 

shipments of yellowcake product, chemicals, and other supplies; satellite ion-exchange resins; 

and waste materials, which could result in potential environmental impacts from more traffic and 

the potential for an accident as discussed next. 
Environmental Impacts 

4-8 

The potential impacts from the proposed operational activities on local and regional traffic 

volumes would be low and are bound by the facility operational traffic evaluated in the GEIS. 

The GEIS assumed a workforce of 20 to 200 employees and operational trucking activity of 

approximately 2 trucks per day (NRC, 2009a). During the operations phase at the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project, the applicant’s trip frequency to the proposed project area has been 

estimated at approximately eight passenger vehicles per day (standard, light-duty, and 3⁄4-ton 

trucks; passenger vans; or personal cars) and six tractor trailers per week (Uranerz, 2007) or 

about one truck per day. The applicant has stated that the proposed operations would involve a 

workforce of 45 to 55 employees (Uranerz, 2007). Because the applicant’s trip frequency is the 

same during operations and construction, the amount of traffic from the proposed action that 

would be added to existing AADT counts on local highways would also be the same as that 

described for the construction phase in Section 4.3.1.1 of the SEIS. The staff also evaluated 

the potential traffic impacts of each employee commuting in their own vehicle during operations. 

This would involve the aforementioned 55 employees making 2 trips per day or 110 one-way 

trips per day. When this traffic is compared to the AADT counts provided in Section 3.3, the 

additional contribution from these commuting employees would be approximately 11 percent or 

less of existing traffic on local roads and therefore would be a small addition to current traffic 

conditions. NRC staff considers this magnitude of change in existing traffic to be a small 

addition to existing traffic, and therefore impacts to traffic would be SMALL and bounded by 

traffic-related impacts evaluated in the GEIS based on adding a smaller commuting workforce 

under the proposed action to the same roads and existing traffic evaluated in the GEIS. Based 

on the aforementioned state-required dust mitigation measures and the low levels of traffic 

during operation phase activities, the NRC staff determined that the circumstances which 

contribute to a MODERATE impact conclusion in the GEIS (e.g., road dust, livestock and wildlife 

kills) would occur less frequently at the Nichols Ranch site because of the low traffic volume and 

dust mitigation measures associated with the proposed action. Therefore, the NRC staff 

concludes that transportation impacts during operations phase of the proposed action would be 

SMALL. SEIS Section 4.7 provides analysis of impacts from fugitive dust emissions, and 

impacts to wildlife impacts are addressed in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.1.2. 

The potential radiological accident risk associated with yellowcake product shipments was 

evaluated in GEIS Section 4.2.2.2. The yellowcake transportation analysis assumed shipment 

volumes that ranged from 34 to 145 yellowcake shipments per year, which could result in a risk 

of 0.04 and 0.003 latent cancer fatalities, respectively, considering accident probabilities and 

consequences (NRC, 2009a). The annual maximum production rate of yellowcake at the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is estimated as 909,090 kg [2 million lb]. Given that each 

yellowcake shipment is 18,181 kg [40,000 lb] (Uranerz, 2007), approximately 50 shipments per 

year would be needed for the proposed action or an average of 1 shipment every week. 

Therefore, the radiological accident risk associated with shipment of yellowcake at the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be bounded by the GEIS analyses. The shipment 

volume would not significantly affect the project-related traffic relative to the expected 

commuting workforce. 

The GEIS reported that accidents involving yellowcake releases result in up to 30 percent of 

shipment contents being released (NRC, 2009a). To minimize the risk of an accident involving 

resin or yellowcake transport, the GEIS reported that all such materials would be transported in 

accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and NRC regulations, handled as 

low-specific-activity materials, and shipped using exclusive-use-only vehicles. The NRC staff 

concludes the consequences of such accidents would be limited because the applicant has 

proposed to develop an emergency response plan (Uranerz, 2007) for yellowcake and other 

transportation accidents that could occur during shipment to or from the proposed Nichols 
 Environmental Impacts

4-9 

Ranch ISR Project. The applicant would also ensure its personnel and the carrier receive 

training on these emergency response procedures (Uranerz, 2007). Therefore, the NRC staff 

concluded the impact from a potential accident involving yellowcake transportation during the 

operations phase of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be SMALL. 

The potential impacts from transportation of process chemical supplies were also evaluated in 

GEIS Section 4.2.2.2. The potential safety hazards associated with process chemicals the 

applicant intends to use for the proposed action (see Section 4.13.1.2.3 of the SEIS) were also 

evaluated in GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.4 (NRC, 2009a). These process chemicals are sodium 

chloride (NaCl), sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3), sodium hydroxide (NaOH), hydrochloric acid 

(HCl), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), carbon dioxide (CO2), oxygen (O2), anhydrous ammonia (NH3) 

diesel fuel, gasoline, and bottled gases (Uranerz, 2007). 

Transportation risks associated with incoming, onsite, and outgoing shipments involve potential 

in-transit accidents. The process chemicals described in the applicant’s proposal are commonly 

used in industrial applications, and their transport would be made in accordance with the 

applicable USDOT hazardous materials shipping provisions. If an accident occurred, spill 

response would be handled via emergency response procedures, although a spill of 

nonradiological materials would be reportable to the appropriate State agency, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the USDOT (NRC, 2009a). Spill material would be 

recovered or removed and the affected areas reclaimed. The release of anhydrous ammonia, a 

compound that the applicant may use in the precipitation circuit (Uranerz, 2007), could be 

hazardous to the public if released near a populated area. However, the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project is not situated in a populated area and the likelihood of such an accident 

occurring is small, calculated as 3.0 × 10−7

 accidents per km [4.8 × 10−7 accidents per mi] based 

on NUREG–0706 accident data (NRC, 1980) cited in the GEIS (NRC, 2009a). 

The onsite transportation of ion-exchange resin between the Hank Unit satellite facility and the 

Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant would traverse approximately 13.4 km [8.3 mi] of 

private road. The GEIS evaluated the potential impacts from similar ion-exchange shipments 

and concluded that the potential radiological impacts of these shipments would be bound by the 

risks from yellowcake shipments based on the less concentrated nature of the resins; the 

uranium being chemically bound to the resins, which would limit dispersion in the event of a 

spill; and the small shipment distance relative to yellowcake shipments (i.e., the likelihood of an 

accident increases with the distance traveled). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes the 

aforementioned SMALL potential radiological accident impacts from the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR facility yellowcake shipments bound the potential radiological accident impacts of the 

proposed ion-exchange resin shipments. The NRC basis for the conclusion that the resulting 

environmental impact from ion-exchange resin shipments would be SMALL is that the risk of 

ion-exchange resin accidents is low, a resulting spill would be properly removed and disposed 

of, and the affected area would be reclaimed in accordance with applicable NRC and state 

regulations. 

The potential radiological accident risk associated with byproduct material shipments would be 

small based on the low number of annual shipments and the relative risk compared to the 

transportation of concentrated yellowcake product shipments discussed previously and in the 

GEIS. The applicant has estimated an annual production rate of up to 69 m3

 [90 yd3] of 

byproduct material. Based on the use of roll-off containers with a nominal capacity of 15 m3

[20 yd3

], there would be five shipments annually to a licensed disposal facility. According to its 

license application, the applicant would implement additional BMPs to reduce the risk of 

accidents, including (i) enforcing safe driving and emergency response training for personnel 
Environmental Impacts 

4-10 

and truck drivers, (ii) installing communication systems to connect trucks to 

shipper/receiver/emergency responders, and (iii) posting speed limits on the proposed project 

site to increase driver safety and to reduce conflicts with big game and other vehicles 

(Uranerz, 2007). The applicant would also maintain existing gravel ranch roads from the limits 

of county maintenance to the proposed project area during the life of the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project (Uranerz, 2007). 

Based on the low volume of operational traffic, the required road dust mitigation, the low 

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

additional safety practices as previously discussed, NRC staff concludes that the overall 

impacts from transportation during the operations phase would be SMALL. 

4.3.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.2.3 concluded that the magnitude of transportation activities during aquifer 

restoration would be lower than for the construction and operation phases. Aquifer 

restoration-related transportation activities would be primarily limited to supply shipments, waste 

shipments, onsite transportation, and employee commuting. The GEIS concluded 

transportation impacts from aquifer restoration would range from SMALL to MODERATE for the 

same reasons discussed previously for the operations phase. 

The proposed aquifer restoration activities at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be 

the same as those described and evaluated in the GEIS. The rate of uranium extraction would 

gradually decrease throughout the aquifer restoration phase, and incoming supply shipments of 

process chemicals would be reduced. The applicant has indicated that the trip frequency to the 

proposed project area would be less during aquifer restoration compared to the operations 

phase because the number of process chemicals and resin transfers from the Hank Unit to the 

Nichols Ranch Unit would be less than when project area was in production (Uranerz, 2007). 

This reduction in resin transfers between the Hank Unit satellite facility and the Nichols Ranch 

Unit central processing plant would further reduce the risk of an accident. Fewer people 

(approximately 20) would be employed during this phase relative to the construction and 

operation phases (approximately 45 to 55 for each phase). Therefore, based on the above 

factors, NRC staff concludes that the impacts from transportation during aquifer restoration 

would be less than during the construction and operations phases which are SMALL. 

4.3.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.2.4, transportation activities during decommissioning, and 

therefore potential impacts, would be similar to those discussed for construction and operation, 

except the magnitude of transportation activities (e.g., number and types of waste and supply 

shipments, no yellowcake shipments) from decommissioning would be lower than for the 

operations phase. The potential accident radiological risks from transportation during 

decommissioning would be bounded by the estimates of yellowcake transportation risk during 

operations based on the concentrated nature of the shipped yellowcake, the farther distance 

yellowcake is shipped compared to the waste destined for a licensed disposal facility, and the 

number of shipments for yellowcake relative to byproduct material. The GEIS concluded the 

potential transportation impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL because of the 

reduced levels of transportation activities. 

Transportation activities during decommissioning (Section 2.2.1.5 of the SEIS) of the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR facility would be the same as those evaluated in the GEIS. These activities 
 Environmental Impacts

4-11 

would include transporting construction equipment, workers, and waste material shipments to 

offsite disposal facilities. The volume of onsite traffic at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project would be related to the need for radiological surveys, infrastructure inspection and 

decontamination, extraction of buried pipelines, well abandonment, reclamation of disturbed 

areas, removal of contaminated materials, and monitoring of the restored site. The staterequired road dust mitigation procedures to spray the main plant access road and the haul road 

between the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units to control fugitive dust emissions would remain in 

place; therefore, impact from fugitive dust emissions during transportation would be SMALL. 

Waste materials generated during decommissioning would be segregated by type and 

transported offsite to approved disposal facilities. Nonhazardous solid waste would be shipped 

to the local landfill, and solid byproduct material would be shipped to those facilities authorized 

to accept byproduct material for disposal. Based on the applicant’s decommissioning waste 

volume estimates provided in its surety calculation (Uranerz, 2007), roughly 50 percent of the 

decommissioning solid waste materials would be suitable for disposal as nonhazardous solid 

waste in a local, unrestricted landfill. The remaining 50 percent would be considered byproduct 

material that would be transported and disposed of at a licensed facility, such as the PathfinderShirley Basin uranium mill site in Mills, Wyoming; EnergySolutions low-level radioactive waste 

disposal site in Clive, Utah; or White Mesa uranium mill site in Blanding, Utah (Uranerz, 2007). 

Because the trip distances to these facilities from the proposed site {161 km [100 mi], 934 km 

[580 mi], and 1,079 km [670 mi], respectively} are less than those for transporting yellowcake to 

the conversion facility in Metropolis, Illinois {approximately 2,250 km [1,400 mi]} and the 

transported yellowcake is concentrated, the inherent risks of an accident involving the release of 

uranium are lower than those discussed in Section 4.3.1.2 of the SEIS. 

The landowner would determine the disposition of the access roads connecting T-Chair 

Livestock Company ranch roads with both the Hank Unit satellite facility and the Nichols Ranch 

Unit central processing plant and those going to the wellfields. The applicant stated these roads 

would likely remain in use for some period after decommissioning to facilitate site monitoring. At 

the landowner’s request, these access roads would be reclaimed at the applicant’s expense. 

Such reclamation activities would include removing road bed materials, scarifying, or ripping the 

surface, and redressing with stockpiled topsoil and reseeding native vegetation or cover crops 

(Uranerz, 2007). 

As described in Section 2.2.1.7 of this SEIS, the applicant has estimated that, during 

decommissioning, the trip frequency at the proposed project area would be the same as that 

during the construction and operations phases [eight passenger vehicles per day and six tractor 

trailers per week (Uranerz, 2007), or about one truck a day]. The applicant also plans to have 

fewer employees (approximately 20 people) commuting during the decommissioning phase, 

although the license application does not describe whether the reduced workforce was 

considered in its traffic projections. 

To further evaluate the applicant’s proposed truck traffic estimates, the NRC staff calculated 

waste volumes and the associated annual and daily truck shipments based on information 

provided in the applicant’s surety estimate (Section 2.2.1.7 of the SEIS). Assuming the 

applicant decommissions a wellfield and plant facilities in a single year and waste shipments 

occur 5 days per week, the resulting frequency of round-trip waste shipments would be similar 

to the applicant’s estimate of one truck per day or six trucks per week. 

Using the aforementioned trip frequency information and assuming no carpooling, the NRC staff 

estimated that the project would generate approximately 42 one-way vehicle trips per day (i.e., 
Environmental Impacts 

4-12 

20 workers and one truck traveling to and from the site). By comparison, the GEIS assumed a 

decommissioning trucking activity equivalent to approximately one truck every 2.5 days and a 

general range of commuting employees for all phases from 20 to 200 (NRC, 2009a). Therefore, 

the proposed truck traffic is approximately double the decommissioning truck traffic evaluated in 

the GEIS; however, the proposed number of commuting employees is at the low end of the 

range evaluated in the GEIS. Because the commuting employees contribute a greater 

proportion of the total potential traffic, both the NRC staff and the applicant’s total 

decommissioning traffic estimates are less than the total traffic evaluated in the GEIS. 

Considering the applicant’s and the NRC staff’s estimated total decommissioning traffic for the 

proposed project, the traffic impacts would be less than or equal to the impacts evaluated in 

Section 4.3.1.1 for construction and therefore would be SMALL. 

Another potential transportation impact from proposed decommissioning activities is the 

radiological risk from the transportation of byproduct material for offsite disposal. The NRC staff 

considers the potential radiological accident risk associated with byproduct material shipments 

would be low based on the calculated risks from concentrated yellowcake product shipments 

discussed previously in Section 4.3.1.2 and in the GEIS (Section 4.2.2.2). Analysis of the staff’s 

annual waste volume estimate calculated from the applicant’s surety (Section 2.2.1.6.3) 

indicates the majority (approximately 76 percent) of this material would be chipped wellfield 

piping. Relative to powdered yellowcake, this material is in a form that would be less dispersible 

(i.e., less likely to cause public exposure if released) and easier to clean up if an accident 

involving release were to occur. The applicant proposes to implement additional BMPs to 

reduce the risk of accidents including (i) enforcing safe driving and emergency response training 

for personnel and truck drivers, (ii) installing communication systems to connect trucks to 

shipper/receiver/emergency responders, (iii) and posting speed limits on the proposed project 

site to increase driver safety and to reduce conflicts with big game and other vehicles (Uranerz, 

2007). The applicant would also maintain existing gravel ranch roads (at locations beyond the 

boundary of county maintenance) to the proposed project area during the life of the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project (Uranerz, 2007). All shipments would be required to comply with 

applicable U.S. Department of Transportation regulations governing the transportation of 

radioactive material (including quantity limits, packaging requirements, and conveyance dose 

rate limits). Based on the preceding analysis, the NRC staff concludes the potential radiological 

risks from the proposed transportation of decommissioning byproduct material would be low and 

therefore the potential environmental impacts from the proposed radioactive material 

transportation would be SMALL. 

In conclusion, because of the low estimated traffic for the proposed Nichols Ranch Project 

relative to existing road traffic in the region surrounding the site, the NRC staff concludes the 

potential traffic related transportation impacts would be SMALL. The low radiological risk from 

potential transportation accidents in comparison to the accident risks evaluated for the operation 

phase (i.e., no interstate transport of yellowcake product) supports the staff’s conclusion that the 

radiological risks from transportation of decommissioning byproduct material for offsite disposal 

would also be SMALL. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes the overall transportation impacts 

related to the decommissioning phase would be SMALL. 

4.3.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no change in existing traffic flows, routings, 

service levels, or the integrity of the road surfaces and profiles associated with this proposed 

project. There would be no transportation of materials to and from the site to support licensed 

activities. There would be no transportation of either radioactive or solid waste attributable to 
 Environmental Impacts

4-13 

the proposed action because the facility would neither be licensed nor constructed and 

operated. Traffic volumes associated with current land use activities such as CBM extraction, 

oil and gas extraction, and cattle ranching would continue into the future. This alternative would 

have no additional impacts to transportation. 

4.3.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) 

4.3.3.1 Construction Impacts 

Construction activities under this alternative would be similar to construction activities for the 

proposed action, though construction would be restricted to only the Nichols Ranch Unit 

location. As with the proposed action, potential transportation impacts from the construction 

phase pertain to increased traffic from commuting workers and delivery of equipment and 

supplies. Other potential impacts include road dust from this additional traffic on or near site 

access roads. Because no Hank Unit would be constructed under this alternative, the total 

number of wellfields developed over the duration of the project would be halved and therefore 

the total amount of construction required for the project would be substantially reduced. 

Because many of the transportation impacts such as increased traffic and dust are dependent 

on the intensity of activities occurring at the same time, the NRC staff evaluated the schedule of 

planned activities for the proposed action (Figure 2-1). Considering the applicant’s phased and 

partially overlapping approach to wellfield construction at the two units occurring within a 4-year 

period, if no Hank Unit were constructed, the NRC staff expects the projectwide intensity of 

construction during individual years under the alternative action would be different for each year 

that construction is planned. For example, during the 2 years where proposed construction 

overlaps among units, the alternative would reduce this planned construction by approximately 

60 percent in 1 year and by 25 percent in the other year. For the 2 years where no overlap in 

construction is planned, under the alternative, 1 year would have the same duration of planned 

construction as the proposed action and in the other the construction would be reduced by 

100 percent (i.e., no construction during that year). Therefore, transportation impacts at any 

given time may be similar to or much less than what was previously identified for the proposed 

action (Section 4.3.1.1). However, the overall projectwide duration of construction activities 

would be reduced by 60 percent under Alternative 3 (to 1.5 years of activities allocated over 

3 calendar years). 

The aforementioned reductions in construction activities under Alternative 3 would reduce the 

volume of construction-related traffic and associated road dust compared to the proposed action 

because fewer workers would be needed to construct the reduced number of wellfields. Based 

on the reduced traffic volume, the aforementioned state-required mitigation measures for 

access road dust control (Section 4.3.1.1), and the shorter construction period, the 

transportation impacts from the construction phase under Alternative 3 would be SMALL. 

4.3.3.2 Operations Impacts 

Operation impacts under this alternative would be less than during the proposed action because 

shipments of ion-exchange resin and other operational traffic between the Hank Unit satellite 

facility and the Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant would not occur. Furthermore, 

because only one ore body would be developed instead of the two for the proposed action, and 

the proposed operation schedule includes the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units operating during 

the same years (Figure 2-1), NRC staff assumes there would be approximately half of the 

uranium processing occurring under the alternative and therefore approximately half the 

incoming shipments of process chemicals and supplies and outgoing shipments of yellowcake, 
Environmental Impacts 

4-14 

byproduct material, and waste compared to the proposed action. Therefore, the potential 

transportation impacts for these activities would be approximately half of the magnitude 

associated with the proposed action activities that resulted in a SMALL impacts conclusion in 

Section 4.3.1.2. The number of workers would also be less than for the proposed action based 

on no operations at the Hank Unit, and this would reduce the amount of commuter traffic and 

associated road dust compared to the proposed action. Based on the lower traffic volume, the 

state-required mitigation measures for dust mitigation on access roads as described previously, 

and the lower radiological risk of vehicular-related accidents because of reduced traffic, the 

NRC staff concludes that the transportation impacts during the operational phase under 

Alternative 3 would be SMALL. 

4.3.3.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

Impacts on transportation during the aquifer restoration phase of Alternative 3 would be less 

than those of the proposed action. Because only one ore body would be developed instead of 

the two for the proposed action, and the proposed aquifer restoration schedule includes the 

Nichols Ranch and Hank Units being restored during the same years for about half of the 

restoration period (Figure 2-1), NRC staff assumes there would be a reduction in the uranium 

processing occurring under the alternative and therefore a reduction in the incoming shipments 

of process chemicals, supplies and outgoing shipments of yellowcake, byproduct material, and 

waste compared to the proposed action. Fewer workers would be required than for the 

proposed action because no aquifer restoration at the Hank Unit would occur; therefore, there 

would be less commuter traffic. For these reasons, the NRC concludes that the transportation 

impacts during aquifer restoration would be less than during the construction and operation ISR 

phases and therefore would be SMALL. 

4.3.3.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

Impacts on transportation during the decommissioning phase under this alternative would be 

less compared to the proposed action because only one ore body would be developed and 

therefore half of the wellfields associated with the proposed action would be decommissioned. 

Because the applicant classified the majority of its estimated wellfield decommissioning waste 

as byproduct material (Uranerz, 2007), the staff estimates that reducing the number of wellfields 

at the facility by half under this alternative would also proportionately reduce the total number of 

outgoing shipments of byproduct material by half for the duration of the decommissioning 

phase. Therefore, the transportation impacts that would apply to the total duration of the 

decommissioning phase (accident risks, road wear) are assumed to decrease proportionately. 

Because the applicant has proposed a phased approach to decommissioning (Figure 2-1) over 

a 5-year period with little overlap among Nichols Ranch and Hank Unit decommissioning 

activities, the effect of eliminating the Hank Unit wellfields on annual transportation activities 

would be primarily to shorten the overall duration of the decommissioning phase to 

approximately 3 years. Because of the low overlap in activities, the NRC staff estimates the 

annual transportation traffic generated for each year under the alternative would be the same as 

the staff estimated for the proposed action (Section 2.2.1.7). The applicant’s estimate is 

approximately nine vehicles per day (eight passenger vehicles and one truck or 18 one-way 

vehicle trips per day). Assuming no carpooling, the staff’s estimate increases the daily vehicle 

one-way trips to 42 as described in Section 4.3.1.4). Therefore, the traffic- and dust-related 

impacts for the alternative are estimated to be the same as those described in Section 4.3.1.4 

for the proposed action. Based on (i) the reduced number of wellfields that would need to be 

decommissioned under this alternative, (ii) the lower volumes of decommissioning wastes 

generated, and (iii) the shorter duration of the decommissioning phase but comparable annual 
 Environmental Impacts

4-15 

traffic generation to the proposed action, the NRC concludes that the transportation impacts 

during the decommissioning phase under this alternative would be SMALL. 

4.4 Geology and Soils Impacts 

Potential environmental impacts on geology and soils could occur during all phases of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project lifecycle. However, these impacts would largely be 

concentrated during the construction phase of the proposed project. 

4.4.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

4.4.1.1 Construction Impacts 

As described in GEIS Section 4.3.3.1, during construction of ISR facilities, the principal impacts 

on geology and soils would result from earthmoving activities associated with constructing 

surface facilities, access roads, wellfields, and pipelines. Earthmoving activities that could 

impact soils include the clearing of ground or topsoil and preparing surfaces for the central 

processing plant, satellite facility, header houses, access roads, drilling sites, and associated 

structures. Similarly, excavating and backfilling trenches for pipelines and cables may impact 

soils in the proposed project area. (NRC, 2009a) 

The GEIS concluded that the impact of construction activities on geology and soils would 

depend on local topography, surface bedrock geology, and soil characteristics. The 

earthmoving activities are normally limited to only a small portion of the project. Consequently, 

earthmoving activities would result in SMALL and temporary (months) disturbance of soils, 

impacts that are commonly mitigated using accepted BMPs. Construction activities would also 

increase the potential for erosion from both wind and water due to the removal of vegetation and 

the physical disturbance from vehicle and heavy equipment traffic. However, these activities 

would result in SMALL impacts if equipment operators adopt construction BMPs that prevent or 

substantially reduce erosion. 

Soil impacts would be limited to a total disturbed area of approximately 40 ha [100 ac] during 

the life of the project for the construction of plant facilities, wellfields, access roads, and 

pipelines based on information provided by the applicant (Uranerz, 2007). This disturbed area 

is at the low end of the range 50 to 70 ha [120 to 1,860 ac] evaluated in the GEIS 

(NRC, 2009a). The applicant’s identification of the following BMPs would mitigate potential 

impacts to soils temporarily disturbed by construction and facility installation activities. The 

topsoil in the central processing plant area, satellite facility, and wellfield header houses would 

be stripped before facility construction. The applicant would store salvaged topsoil in 

designated topsoil stockpiles in accordance with WDEQ requirements (see Section 2.2.1.2 in 

the SEIS). The applicant would also remove topsoil to construct wellfield access roads and 

would adhere to landowner-preferred road construction practices. The stockpiles would be 

located onsite to minimize topsoil losses from wind erosion. Topsoil stockpiles would neither be 

located in drainage channels or at other locations that could result in material loss. The 

applicant would also construct berms around the base of the stockpiles and seed them with 

wheatgrass to reduce sediment runoff and wind erosion. As also identified in the application, 

temporarily disturbed areas would be reseeded as soon as possible following completion of the 

construction activity, and other soil protection measures would be used where appropriate, 

including proper grading and contouring, placement of hay bales, culvert installation, 

sedimentation breaks (e.g., sediment fencing), or placement of water contour bars (e.g., soil 

berms) (see SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.1). (Uranerz, 2007) 
Environmental Impacts 

4-16 

Construction of the wellfields, drilling activities, and the installation of piping could also impact 

soils. WDEQ issues Class III UIC permits for the installation of production and injection wells for 

uranium extraction. The construction of mud pits during drilling would also affect soils. During 

the excavation of mud pits, the applicant would first remove the topsoil and place it in a separate 

location. The applicant would then remove and deposit the subsoil next to the mud pit. When 

the mud pit use was complete (usually within 30 days of initial excavation), the subsoil would be 

redeposited in the mud pit followed by topsoil replacement. The applicant would follow a similar 

approach for pipeline ditch construction (Uranerz, 2007). WDEQ-LQD has established 

guidelines for topsoil and subsoil management at uranium ISR facilities (WDEQ, 2000). 

Process-related liquid effluents would be disposed of in deep disposal wells. A UIC permit from 

WDEQ would be required for the applicant to use this method of waste disposal. WDEQ will 

evaluate the suitability of the formations proposed for deep well disposal and would only grant 

such a permit if the applicant can demonstrate that liquid effluent could be safely isolated in a 

deep aquifer. (Uranerz, 2007) 

In summary, based on the information provided regarding the limited areal extent of the 

construction area, soil stockpiling procedures, BMPs (berms, seeding method) identified in the 

license application, the assumption that WDEQ would only permit proposed deep disposal wells 

based on the suitability of the proposed deep well injection zone, and the short duration for use 

of the mud pits and pipeline trenching activities, the NRC staff concludes that the potential 

environmental impact on geology and soils from the construction at the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project would be SMALL. 

While the NRC staff concludes impacts to soils from construction would be SMALL, the staff 

recognizes that alternative methods to manage drilling fluids are available that the applicant 

could choose to implement to further limit the potential impacts from the use of mud pits during 

well drilling activities. Alternatives or mitigating measures to the use of mud pits during well 

drilling operations include, for example, lining the mud pits with an impermeable membrane, 

offsite disposal of potentially contaminated drilling mud and other fluids, and the use of portable 

tanks or tubs to contain drilling mud and other fluids. 

4.4.1.2 Operations Impacts 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.3.2, during ISR operations, a non-uranium-bearing (barren) 

solution or lixiviant is injected through wells into the ore zone. The lixiviant moves through the 

pores in the host rock, dissolving uranium and other metals. Production wells withdraw the 

resulting “pregnant” lixiviant, which now contains uranium and other dissolved metals, and 

pump it to a central processing plant or to a satellite facility for further uranium recovery 

and purification (NRC, 2009a), 

The removal of uranium from the target sandstones during ISR operations would result in a 

permanent change to the composition of uranium-bearing rock formations. However, the 

uranium mobilization and recovery process in the target sandstones does not result in the 

removal of rock matrix or structure, and therefore no significant matrix compression or ground 

subsidence would be expected. Therefore, the GEIS concluded the impacts on geology from 

ground subsidence at ISR projects would be SMALL (NRC, 2009a). 

GEIS Section 4.3.3.2 discusses that potential soil impacts from ISR operations result from the 

need to transfer barren and pregnant uranium-bearing lixiviant to and from the central 

processing plant in above- and belowground pipelines. If a pipe ruptures or fails, lixiviant could 
 Environmental Impacts

4-17 

be released and (i) pond on the surface, (ii) run off into surface water bodies, (iii) infiltrate and 

adsorb in overlying soil and rock, or (iv) infiltrate and percolate to groundwater. In the case of 

spills from pipeline leaks and ruptures, licensees are expected to establish immediate spill 

responses through onsite standard operating procedures (Section 5.7) (NRC, 2003b). As part 

of the monitoring requirements at ISR facilities, licensees must report certain spills to NRC 

within 24 hours. Licensees in the State of Wyoming must also comply with applicable WDEQ 

requirements for spill response and reporting (NRC, 2009a). 

If soil were contaminated by a spill, the applicant would remove the contaminated soil and 

dispose of it at a licensed disposal facility. After decontamination was complete, the applicant 

would conduct radiation surveys to confirm that soils had been cleaned up in accordance with 

applicable NRC standards for unrestricted use. The applicant has proposed a program to 

monitor wellfield and pipeline flow and pressure during the operations phase as discussed in 

SEIS Section 6.3.2. This monitoring would ensure timely detection of potential releases from 

pipeline breaks or ruptures and minimize the volume of such releases (Uranerz, 2007). 

As noted in GEIS Section 4.3.3.2, short-term impacts to soils from spills during operation could 

range from SMALL to LARGE, depending on the volume of soil affected by the spill. However, 

because of the immediate response requirement to report spills at ISR facilities as described 

previously, coupled with the spill recovery actions, and the required routine monitoring 

programs, the impacts from spills would be temporary, and the overall long-term impacts to soils 

would be SMALL (NRC, 2009a). 

As described in SEIS Section 2.2.1.3, the applicant proposed operations at the Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project that are similar to the operations analyzed in the GEIS. Operations would not 

remove rock matrix or structure as noted previously and analyzed in the GEIS. No significant 

matrix compression or ground subsidence would be expected because the net fluid withdrawal 

(bleed) would typically be 1 percent or less. At the depths at which the source uranium 

formations exist {91 to 213 m [300 to 700 ft] bgs for the Nichols Ranch Unit, 61 to 183 m [200 to 

600 ft] bgs for the Hank Unit} and because rock matrix is not removed during the uranium 

mobilization and recovery process that would cause any void space in underground structures, 

the NRC staff concludes that no subsidence would be expected to occur from the collapse of 

overlying rock strata into the ore zone. 

In summary, the projected small area of surface disturbance anticipated during operations, the 

applicant’s proposed erosion control measures, and the operational measures that would be 

implemented to detect and respond to spills, NRC concludes that the potential environmental 

impact on geology and soil resources would be SMALL. 

4.4.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.3.3 describes that aquifer restoration programs typically use a combination of 

(i) groundwater transfer; (ii) groundwater sweep; (iii) reverse osmosis, permeate injection, and 

recirculation; (iv) stabilization; and (v) water treatment and surface conveyance. The 

groundwater sweep and recirculation process does not remove rock matrix or structure; 

therefore, no significant matrix compression or ground subsidence would be expected. The 

aquifer water pressure is decreased during restoration by the maintenance of a negative water 

balance in the wellfield being restored; this ensures the direction of water flow is into the 

wellfield, thereby reducing the potential spread of contamination. However, the pressure 

change is limited by the recirculation of treated groundwater, and therefore the GEIS concluded 

that it would be unlikely that ISR operations could reactivate local faults and extremely unlikely 
Environmental Impacts 

4-18 

that ISR operations could cause earthquakes. Therefore, the GEIS concluded that in the 

Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, the potential environmental impacts on geology from 

aquifer restoration would be SMALL (NRC, 2009a). 

GEIS Section 4.3.3.3 also concluded impacts to soils from potential spills of contaminated 

groundwater resulting from pipeline leaks and ruptures could occur during aquifer restoration. 

NRC determined the impact from spills are temporary and therefore the long-term impact on 

soils would be SMALL because of the requirement for immediate response at ISR facilities, for 

spill recovery actions, and for routine monitoring programs. 

The applicant would conduct the same spill and leak detection program described for the 

operations phase in SEIS Section 4.4.1.2. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes the potential 

impact on soils from spills and pipeline leaks during aquifer restoration would be similar to that 

described for the operations phase and would be SMALL because of the requirement for 

immediate response, for spill recovery actions, and for routine monitoring programs. 

ISR activities during aquifer restoration at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site would 

neither remove rock matrix nor structure. At the depths at which the source uranium formations 

exist {91 to 213 m [300 to 700 ft] bgs for the Nichols Ranch Unit, 61 to 183 m [200 to 600 ft] bgs 

for the Hank Unit} and because no rock matrix would be removed during the uranium 

mobilization and recovery process, no significant matrix compression or ground subsidence 

would be expected; therefore, subsidence and collapse of overlying rock strata into the ore zone 

during the restoration phase would not be expected. Therefore, the impact on geology from 

subsidence during the aquifer restoration phase would be SMALL. Based on the above 

discussion, the NRC staff concludes the potential environmental impact on geology and soils 

during aquifer restoration would be SMALL. 

The applicant would conduct the same spill and leak detection program described for the 

operations phase in SEIS Section 4.4.1.2. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes the potential 

impact on soils from spills and pipeline leaks during restoration would be similar to that 

described for the operations phase and would be SMALL because of the requirement for 

immediate response, for spill recovery actions, and for routine monitoring programs. 

4.4.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.3.4 describes the decommissioning of ISR facilities, which includes the 

following activities: (i) dismantling process facilities and associated structures, (ii) removing 

buried piping, and (iii) plugging and abandoning wells in accordance with accepted practices. 

The main impacts on geology and soils during decommissioning would be from land reclamation 

activities and the cleanup of contaminated soils (NRC, 2009a). 

As further discussed in the GEIS, before decommissioning and reclamation activities begin, the 

licensee is required to submit a decommissioning plan to NRC for review and approval. Any 

potentially impacted areas would be surveyed to ensure areas with elevated soil concentrations 

are identified and properly cleaned up in accordance with NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A, Criterion 6(6). An additional reclamation goal is to return the site to preproduction 

conditions and to reestablish native vegetative communities (NRC, 2009a). 

The GEIS concluded most impacts to geology and soils from decommissioning would be 

detectable but SMALL. Disruption and/or displacement of existing soils would be relatively 

small. Changes in the area and location of impervious surfaces would be measurable, but 
 Environmental Impacts

4-19 

would not be at a scale large enough to noticeably alter existing natural conditions 

(NRC, 2009a). 

The applicant would submit a final decommissioning plan to NRC for review and approval at 

least 12 months prior to the planned decommissioning of either a wellfield or portion of the 

project area (NRC, 2003b). During the reclamation process, the applicant would follow WDEQ 

guidelines; WDEQ would determine the success of final revegetation by comparing the 

revegetated area to a reference area (Uranerz, 2007). 

As part of decommissioning, the applicant has proposed a reclamation plan that would reclaim 

(restore) lands disturbed by the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project to their prior land use of 

livestock grazing and wildlife habitat (see SEIS Section 2.2.1.5). Buildings or structures would 

be decontaminated to regulatory standards and either demolished and trucked to a disposal 

facility or turned over to the landowner, if desired. Background soils, vegetation, and 

radiological data will be used as criteria to evaluate the final reclamation (Uranerz, 2007). 

Short-term impacts on geology and soils would occur as reclamation progressed; however, the 

outcome of these activities would be to return the project area to its prior use. Soil impacts 

during decommissioning would be limited to the area that had been disturbed (approximately 

120 ha [300 ac]) over the life of the project based on information provided by the applicant 

(Uranerz, 2007). This disturbed area is at the low end of the range 50 to 70 ha [120 to 1,860 ac] 

evaluated in the GEIS (NRC, 2009a). Based on the temporary nature of the impacts, the 

applicant’s goal to decommission and reclaim the site to preproduction conditions, and the 

magnitude of soil disturbance being within the range evaluated in GEIS, the NRC staff 

concludes the potential environmental impact on geology and soils from the decommissioning 

phase at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be SMALL. 

4.4.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action Alternative, no soils would be disturbed by earthmoving activities and no 

facility construction would occur associated with the proposed action, including buildings, roads, 

well installations, and pipelines. Site geology would be unaffected by the proposed action 

because no fluids would be injected into the subsurface and no license would be issued to 

authorize construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

The current land uses on and near the proposed project area, which include grazing, natural 

resource extraction, and recreational activities, would continue, but there would be no impact 

from the proposed action. 

4.4.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) 

Under Alternative 3, the Hank Unit would not be developed; therefore, the area potentially 

affected would be smaller compared to the proposed action in which both the Nichols Ranch 

and Hank Units would be developed. Under Alternative 3, approximately 20 ha [50 ac] of soil 

would be disturbed to construct a central processing plant, auxiliary facilities, wellfields on the 

Nichols Ranch Unit, and an access road; however, because no soil disturbance or well 

development would occur at the Hank Unit, the potential impact would be less than described 

for the proposed action. These impacts would be short term because disturbed areas from the 

proposed project would be restored and reclaimed after the project concluded. The applicant 

would take similar actions as described for the proposed action: topsoil would be stripped from 
Environmental Impacts 

4-20 

the area where the central processing plant and wellfield header houses would be constructed. 

The topsoil would be salvaged and stored in designated topsoil stockpiles in accordance with 

WDEQ requirements. During construction of the Nichols Ranch Unit wellfields, soils could be 

impacted by the drilling of wells, by other drilling activities, and by the installation of pipeline. 

Like the proposed action, the drilling activities would involve excavating mud pits following the 

same procedure described for the proposed action in Section 4.4.1. During both the operation 

and aquifer restoration phases, the applicant would implement the same monitoring program 

and spill procedures described for the proposed action. The applicant would also submit a 

decommissioning plan for NRC review prior to the decommissioning of either a wellfield or 

portion of the Nichols Ranch Unit project area. Because a smaller area would be affected under 

this alternative compared to the proposed action {20 ha [50 ac] vs. 120 ha [300 ac]} and the 

same monitoring and spill procedures described under the proposed action would be 

implemented, the NRC staff concludes the potential environmental impact on geology and soils 

for all ISR phases under Alternative 3 would be SMALL. 

4.5 Water Resources Impacts 

4.5.1 Surface Waters and Wetlands Impacts 

Potential environmental impacts to surface water at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

site could occur during all phases of the ISR facility lifecycle. Impacts can result from road 

construction and crossings, erosion runoff, spills or leaks of fuel and lubricants, discharges of 

storm water and potentially process-related fluids, CBM discharges, and discharges of wellfield 

fluids from pipeline or wellhead leaks. 

The potential environmental impacts on surface water from construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning are detailed in the following sections. No potential 

jurisdictional wetlands have been identified at the Hank Unit, but four potential jurisdictional 

wetlands occur on the Nichols Ranch Unit (Uranerz, 2007). The survey completed for these 

wetlands is described in SEIS Section 3.5.1.5. Nationwide Permit 44 under Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act (CWA), issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), is required for 

discharges of dredged or fill material into a wetland or waters of the United States (WUS) 

exceeding 0.2 ha [0.5 ac] in area. However, none of the wetlands delineated at the Nichols 

Ranch Unit exceed 0.2 ha [0.5 ac] in size; therefore, no Nationwide Permit 44 would be 

required. Furthermore, because the wetlands were delineated on Cottonwood Creek south of 

the proposed ISR extraction activities and because the streambed does not flow through the 

area that would be impacted by activities in the extraction area, the NRC staff concludes 

impacts to wetlands would be SMALL. The following discussions focus on the occurrence of 

ephemeral channels and washes on and in the vicinity of the proposed site. 

4.5.1.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

4.5.1.1.1 Construction Impacts 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.4.1.1, impacts to surface waters and related habitats from 

construction could result from building road crossings, filling channels, surface erosion, surface 

water runoff, and spills or leaks of fuels and lubricants from construction equipment. These 

occurrences would be mitigated through proper planning and design, the use of proper 

construction methods, and the implementation of BMPs. Spills of petroleum products or 

hazardous chemicals into surface waters or related habitats must be reported to WDEQ. 

USACE permits could be required when filling and crossing wetlands. The GEIS concluded that 
 Environmental Impacts

4-21 

temporary changes to stream flow from grading and changes in topography and natural 

drainage patterns could either be mitigated or restored after the construction phase. The GEIS 

also noted that even though impacts could result from incidental spills of drilling fluids into local 

streams, these occurrences would be temporary because mitigation measures would be 

implemented. The GEIS also concluded that the impacts from surface water runoff from roads, 

parking areas, and buildings recharging shallow aquifers would be SMALL, because the 

potential license area would contain limited, impervious surface area. The GEIS concluded that 

construction impacts on surface water would be SMALL (NRC, 2009a). 

During the construction phase of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, two new access 

roads, 0.32 km [0.2 mi] in length, would be constructed entirely in upland areas (Uranerz, 2007). 

The applicant would be required to develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in 

accordance with WDEQ requirements to control storm water runoff during construction and to 

ensure that surface water runoff from disturbed areas met Wyoming Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (WYPDES) permit limits. The sedimentation- and erosion-control measures 

required in the WDEQ permit would minimize the potential for sediment transfer to surface 

water. Furthermore, the applicant would construct berms and recontour where possible to 

minimize potential erosion and sediment transfer to surface water (Uranerz, 2010). If surface 

water runoff was impeded by the presence of facilities, the applicant would install culverts and 

ditches to control runoff and to prevent excessive erosion (Uranerz, 2010). 

Temporary wellfield access roads would also be constructed for equipment delivery and for 

truck access to install injection and production wells. These access roads would cross 

ephemeral channels at two locations on the Nichols Ranch Unit and at three locations on the 

Hank Unit. The applicant stated that the stream crossing locations would be at the natural 

streambed elevation in shallow water and that no fill material would be required at these 

locations. The applicant would grade steep and incised channel banks to produce a gentle 

slope on the approach to channel crossings. The applicant stated that (i) proper sedimentation 

and erosion control measures, such as riprap, hay bales, or both, would be used to armor 

erosion-prone areas to minimize channel sedimentation and (ii) disturbed soil would be 

reseeded to reduce surface water runoff (Uranerz, 2007). 

The applicant would route overhead electric lines through both the Nichols Ranch and Hank 

Units on utility poles; however, poles are not typically installed in ephemeral streams, washes, 

or wetlands. Therefore, NRC concludes that there would be no impact on surface water from 

the construction of overhead lines. 

The applicant would avoid constructing wells in channels and washes, if possible, to minimize 

damage from erosion and to avoid damage to wellfield infrastructure; however, these areas 

might not be able to be avoided depending on the location of the subsurface ore bodies, which 

guides the placement of the supporting infrastructure. The applicant has proposed to install 

approximately 15 wells (5 production and 10 injection) in the Nichols Ranch Unit and 22 wells 

(11 production and 11 injection) in the Hank Unit within ephemeral channels (Uranerz, 2007). 

The applicant acknowledges that the magnitude of the peak flows and surface water velocities 

in the tributaries that cross the wellfields in the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit may be an erosion 

risk and could damage wellfield infrastructure (Uranerz, 2010). The applicant stated that for any 

well placed near a stream or within the 25-year flood plain of Cottonwood Creek shown in 

Figure 2-15a (Uranerz, 2007), erosion protection controls such as grading and contouring, 

culvert installation, low-water crossing constructed of stone, water contour bars, and designated 

traffic routes would be implemented to minimize damage (Uranerz, 2007). If wells were placed 

in a stream, the applicant would use appropriate well and wellhead protection, such as cement 
Environmental Impacts 

4-22 

blocks, protective steel casing, and other measures (Uranerz, 2007), and apply best 

management practices, such as the use of riprap and rock to protect embankments, culverts, 

and drainage crossings, in accordance with Chapter 3 of WDEQ Land Quality Division (LQD) 

rules and regulations. The applicant also stated that these practices would be implemented for 

either wells or infrastructure located in the 25-year floodplain of Dry Willow Creek at the Hank 

Unit (Uranerz, 2010). For wells located in ephemeral channels, water pumped during well 

development would be directly released into ephemeral channels per permit discharge limits, to 

percolate into the soil. After well installation, the applicant would implement mitigation 

measures, such as reseeding and mulching, using standard erosion-control techniques to 

stabilize loose soil (Uranerz, 2007). 

Pipeline connecting the injection and production wells with the Nichols Ranch Unit central 

processing plant and the Hank Unit satellite facility would be required to cross ephemeral 

channels at numerous locations. The applicant stated it would bury pipelines across ephemeral 

drainages and perform the work when the channels are dry using small-scale excavation 

equipment to create a narrow, shallow trench. The excavated soil to install the trench would be 

immediately reapplied after installation at the preexisting grade, and the applicant would reseed 

bare soil and mulch it for stability (Uranerz, 2007). 

Temporary soil disturbances from vehicular passes during construction could also result in 

sediment transport during periods of surface water flow. To avoid impacts to the ephemeral 

drainages, the applicant would use existing roads within the proposed project area. The 

applicant would implement sedimentation and erosion-control measures, and in steep graded 

areas, disturbed soil would be reseeded to minimize surface water runoff into channels. The 

applicant would mitigate potential spills of petrochemicals, such as oil and gasoline, by 

conducting routine vehicle maintenance and inspection. The applicant would also develop and 

implement an emergency response plan (ERP) to address such occurrences. The applicant 

would train personnel to properly handle and transport hazardous materials to reduce the 

potential occurrence of spills. The applicant would also dispose of waste via properly installed 

septic systems, deep disposal wells, or offsite transport (Uranerz, 2007). 

Because of the limited areal extent of construction, the limited occurrence of surface water and 

wetlands at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, and the applicant’s commitment to 

implement BMPs, (e.g., the self-containment of the central processing plant and satellite facility 

buildings and secondary containment of exterior chemical and fuel tanks as discussed in 

Section 2.2.1.2.2 and the applicant’s proposed mitigation measures described previously), the 

NRC staff concludes the potential impact from construction (including road construction, 

installation of electric lines, well construction, pipeline routing, building construction, and related 

vehicular traffic) would be SMALL. 

4.5.1.1.2 Operations Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.4.1.2 stated that through the permitting process, Federal and State agencies 

regulate the discharge of storm water runoff and the discharge of process-related water. 

Potential impacts from these discharges would be mitigated through permit conditions. The 

expansion of facilities or pipelines during operations could result in impacts comparable to those 

described for the construction phase. The potential impact from spills on surface water would 

depend on the size of the spill, the success of remediation, the use of the surface water, the 

proximity of the spill to surface water, and the volume of surficial aquifer discharge to the 

surface water. Because the potential impacts would be mitigated, the GEIS concluded that the 

potential impact on surface water during operations would be SMALL (NRC, 2009a). 
 Environmental Impacts

4-23 

No liquid effluent would be discharged to surface water as part of the proposed action. The 

applicant would develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with WDEQ 

requirements for the management of storm water runoff. If WDEQ were to issue a WYPDES 

permit, the permit would establish discharge limits for releases to surface water. The Storm 

Water Pollution Prevention Plan would address compliance with WYPDES permit limits and 

discuss the diversion of storm water runoff from both the Nichols Ranch Unit and Hank Unit into 

soils, rather than into the ephemeral channels. 

During routine well maintenance, vehicles would cross ephemeral channels to access the 

wellfields. Some channel crossings would occur at streambed locations that were unimproved. 

As discussed in Section 4.5.1.1.1, the applicant stated it would use appropriate erosion 

protection controls to minimize the impact to the drainage (Uranerz, 2007). Such controls could 

include crossing channels primarily during periods of low flow (Uranerz, 2010). Short-term soil 

disturbance from vehicular passes could result in limited downstream sediment transport. To 

avoid impacts to the ephemeral drainages, the applicant would use existing roads within the 

proposed project area (Uranerz, 2007). If an ephemeral drainage could be impacted by wellfield 

operations, the applicant would take appropriate measures to mitigate the impacts from erosion 

and sediment transport into the drainage as discussed in Section 4.5.1.1.1 (Uranerz, 2007). 

The applicant would construct the Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant and Hank Unit 

satellite facility on curbed concrete pads to contain spills and leaks. The applicant would also 

implement a storm water management plan in accordance with WDEQ requirements to retain or 

treat runoff from the facilities. Runoff would be diverted away from the facilities, where it would 

percolate into the soil. No wastewater discharge to surface water channels would occur. The 

applicant would also train personnel in proper handling and transport of hazardous materials to 

avoid spills. Piping connecting the wellfields to the central processing plant at the Nichols 

Ranch Unit and to the satellite facility at the Hank Unit would be equipped with high and low 

pressure alarms/shutdowns and flow meters to minimize the volume of fluid that could be 

released in the event of process pipeline failure (Uranerz, 2007). 

NRC staff concludes that there would be no impact to surface water during operations of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project because there would be no permitted discharge of 

wastewater to surface waters, the infrastructure would be in place to manage storm water 

discharge, and no large-scale earthmoving activities that could generate surface water runoff 

would occur. The occurrence of surface water within the proposed project area is limited, and 

there is intermittent surface water flow in the ephemeral channels. Lixiviant injection and 

subsequent extraction of the uranium-rich groundwater would occur within a closed and 

pressurized system of pipes at or near the ground surface. Processing of the uranium into 

yellowcake would be performed within the enclosed central processing plant and satellite 

facility. Accidental spills would be collected and disposed of in a Class I deep disposal well, and 

the applicant would be required to have a spill prevention and response plan. 

Because of the limited occurrence of surface water at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, 

the self-contained design of the central processing plant and satellite facility, the 

WDEQ-required storm water permit and storm water management plan to meet WYPDES 

permit limits, the implementation of a site-specific emergency response plan to address 

accidental spills, and the applicant’s commitment to conduct operations in accordance with 

standard operating procedures for spill prevention and control, the NRC staff concludes the 

potential impact on surface water from operations would be SMALL and further reduced by the 

applicant’s proposed mitigation measures described in Section 4.5.1.1.1. 
Environmental Impacts 

4-24 

4.5.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.4.1.3 identified aquifer restoration activities that could impact surface water. 

These activities included management of produced water, storm water runoff, accidental spills, 

and management of brine reject from the reverse-osmosis system. The GEIS concluded that 

the impacts from these activities would be similar to the impact from operations, because the 

infrastructure would be in place and similar activities would be conducted (e.g., wellfield 

operation, transfer of fluids, water treatment, storm water runoff). For these reasons, the GEIS 

concluded that aquifer restoration impacts on surface water would be SMALL (NRC, 2009a). 

Groundwater restoration at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would produce wastewater, 

primarily from groundwater sweep. The second wastewater source would be brine from the 

reverse-osmosis system. All wastewater would be disposed of in a Class I deep disposal well 

(Uranerz, 2007). The applicant would use automated sensors to monitor the injection process 

to detect leaks or pipe/well ruptures as described for operational monitoring. No wastewater 

would be discharged to surface water. The applicant would also be required to have an NRCapproved spill response plan (NRC, 2003b). 

Impacts to surface water from stormwater runoff and accidental spills could occur as discussed 

in SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.2; however, because of the applicant’s adherence to the mitigation 

measures described in SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.2 and its compliance with both NRC and WDEQ 

license and permit requirements, respectively, the NRC staff concludes the potential impact on 

surface water from aquifer restoration would be SMALL. 

4.5.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.4.1.4, impacts from decommissioning would be similar to the 

impacts from construction. The activities to clean up, recontour, and reclaim disturbed lands 

during decommissioning would mitigate long-term impacts to surface waters. The GEIS 

concluded potential impacts to surface water from decommissioning would be SMALL 

(NRC, 2009a). 

During decommissioning of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, the applicant would 

remove buildings and pipelines, and plug and abandon wells (Uranerz, 2007). The potential 

impact from decommissioning would be similar to the impact from construction discussed in 

SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.1. Soil disturbances would occur during the removal of buildings and 

pipeline and could result in localized soil erosion and surface water runoff. However, the effects 

from these actions would be short term, occurring while the action was being implemented. 

The applicant would replace stockpiled topsoil in previously disturbed areas, grade the surface 

to restore it to the predisturbance contours, and revegetate the affected area in accordance with 

WDEQ-LQD rules and regulations as part of a WDEQ-approved erosion and sedimentation 

control plan. Well and pipeline removal in ephemeral channels would temporarily disturb 

surface water in areas where a pipeline crossed the channels. Work would be performed during 

the dry season to minimize sedimentation. Surface soil would be returned to areas that had 

been excavated to remove pipeline such as at well head and trench locations. Restored 

trenches would be graded to preconstruction contours and seeded with a native seed mix in 

accordance with a WDEQ-approved restoration plan. The landowner would determine which 

access roads would be reclaimed; access roads would be restored following the same process 

described for trenches (Uranerz, 2007). 
 Environmental Impacts

4-25 

Because of the short-term, temporary nature of these activities, the applicant’s commitment to 

implement the BMPs discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.1, and NRC license and WDEQ permit 

requirements, NRC staff concludes the potential impact on surface water from decommissioning 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be SMALL. 

4.5.1.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, there would be no impact on either surface water or wetlands 

from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project because the facility would not be licensed, no 

central processing plant at the Nichols Ranch Unit and no satellite facility at the Hank Unit with 

their associated infrastructure (i.e., access roads and piping) would be constructed, and no 

wellfields would be developed and operated. 

The current land use on and near the proposed project area, which includes livestock grazing, 

natural resource extraction, and hunting and recreational activities as described in Section 3.2 

of the SEIS, would continue. The 17 CBM wells and 3 oil and gas wells located within the 

proposed project area would continue to operate and could potentially discharge to surface 

water via outfalls permitted through the WYPDES program. 

4.5.1.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) 

Under Alternative 3, the Hank Unit would not be constructed and operated and the proposed 

facilities would be located exclusively at the Nichols Ranch Unit. Similar to the proposed action, 

surface water could potentially be impacted by surface water runoff from well drilling, road and 

facility construction, and the installation of pipeline. However, only surface water located in the 

Tex Draw and Cottonwood drainage basins would be affected because the Hank Unit would not 

be constructed. Spills, leaks, and other inadvertent discharges into surface water could 

potentially occur during the operations phase at the Nichols Ranch Unit; however, as described 

in Section 4.5.1.1.1, the implementation of BMPs and adherence to the NRC license and WDEQ 

permit requirements would minimize the potential impact to surface water. None of the 

wetlands delineated at the Nichols Ranch Unit exceed 0.2 ha [0.5 ac] in size; therefore, no 

Nationwide Permit 44 would be required. Furthermore, because the wetlands were delineated 

on Cottonwood Creek south of the proposed ISR extraction activities and because the 

streambed does not flow through the area that would be impacted by activities in the extraction 

area, the NRC staff concludes impacts to wetlands would be SMALL. 

4.5.2 Groundwater Impacts 

Potential environmental impacts on groundwater at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site 

could occur during all phases of the ISR facility lifecycle, but primarily during operations and 

aquifer restoration. 

ISR activities can impact aquifers located both above and below the uranium-bearing aquifer as 

well as adjacent aquifers. Surface or near-surface activities that could introduce contaminants 

into soils would be more likely to impact shallow aquifers, while ISR operations and aquifer 

restoration would impact the deeper uranium-bearing aquifer and could potentially impact 

aquifers above and below the uranium-bearing aquifer as well as adjacent aquifers. 

ISR facility activities can impact groundwater resources from potential surface spills and leaks, 

from shallow surface piping releases, from consumptive water use, from potential horizontal and 

vertical leaching solution excursions from the production aquifer, by degrading water quality and 
Environmental Impacts 

4-26 

changing the water chemistry of the production aquifer, and from deep well injection of liquid 

effluent. Detailed discussion of the potential impact on groundwater resources from 

construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project is provided in the following sections. 

4.5.2.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

4.5.2.1.1 Construction Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.4.2.1 concluded that the potential for groundwater impacts during construction 

of ISR facilities is primarily from consumptive groundwater use, the introduction of drilling fluids 

and muds during well installation, and potential spills of fuels and lubricants from construction 

equipment. The GEIS further noted that groundwater use during the construction phase would 

be limited and that groundwater would be protected by implementing BMPs such as spill 

prevention and cleanup. A limited volume 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 groundwater, the GEIS concluded that 

construction impacts on groundwater would be SMALL (NRC, 2009a). 

Consumptive water use during the construction phase of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project would be limited to dust control, drilling support, and cement mixing. The water source 

used for construction activities would be the surficial aquifer (Uranerz, 2007). The NRC staff 

concludes the consumptive water use during construction would be SMALL compared to 

consumptive water use during ISR operations and restoration. 

The volume of drilling fluids and muds used during well installation would be limited; in addition, 

the WDEQ-LQD has guidelines on topsoil and subsoil management at Uranium ISR facilities 

that the applicant would be expected to follow (WDEQ, 2000). Attachment III to these 

guidelines identifies BMPs. The applicant proposes to use mudpits (Uranerz, 2007). Drilling 

fluids and muds would be stored in mud pits to manage the spread of fluids, to minimize the 

area of potential soil contamination, and to enhance evaporation. The NRC staff concludes the 

introduction of drilling fluids to the surficial aquifer could occur during well drilling, but the 

potential impact would be SMALL because drilling muds are designed to seal boreholes to set 

the casing. 

After wells were installed, water may be pumped from the wells for well development or for 

hydrologic testing, such as pumping tests. This water would be discharged to the surface in 

accordance with the applicant’s approved WYPDES permit. The surface discharge permits 

would protect near-surface aquifers by limiting the discharge volume and by prescribing 

concentration limits to discharged waters. Table 1-2 summarizes the status of the applicant’s 

WYPDES permit application. 

During the construction phase of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, the groundwater 

quality of near-surface aquifers would be protected by WDEQ-LQD and WQD permit 

requirements and BMPs that would include the applicant’s implementation of a 

WDEQ-approved spill prevention and cleanup program to prevent soil contamination from 

construction equipment fuel and lubricant leaks (Uranerz, 2007). The potential volume of stored 

fuels and lubricants within the proposed project area would be small, and leaks or spills would 

result in an immediate cleanup response to prevent soil contamination or infiltration to 

groundwater. 
 Environmental Impacts

4-27 

The types of construction activities for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would have an 

anticipated SMALL impact on groundwater resources, applying GEIS criteria. Based on this 

analysis, consumptive groundwater use during the construction phase would be limited to 

routine activities, such as dust suppression, mixing cements, and drilling support, and have a 

SMALL and temporary impact. The impact to groundwater resources during wellfield and facility 

construction would be SMALL, based on the limited nature of construction activities and the 

applicant’s implementation of WYPDES permit requirements and the BMPs described 

previously to protect soils and shallow groundwater. 

4.5.2.1.2 Operations Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.4.2.2 described impacts on shallow (near-surface) aquifers during ISR 

operations and concluded the environmental impacts are from leaks of lixiviant from pipelines, 

wells, or header houses. In addition, potential environmental impacts on groundwater resources 

in the production and adjacent aquifers could occur from consumptive water use and from water 

quality changes that result from normal operations in the production aquifer and from potential 

horizontal and vertical lixiviant excursions beyond the production zone. Disposal of liquid 

effluent by deep well injection during ISR operations could also potentially impact groundwater 

resources (NRC, 2009a). 

4.5.2.1.2.1 Operation Impacts to Shallow (Near-Surface) Aquifers 

GEIS Section 4.3.4.2.2.1 discusses the potential impacts on shallow aquifers during ISR 

operations. A network of buried pipelines is used during ISR operations to transport lixiviant 

between the pump house and the satellite facility or central processing plant and also to connect 

injection and extraction wells to manifolds inside the header houses. The failure of pipeline 

fittings or valves or failures of well mechanical integrity in wells in shallow aquifers could result 

in leaks and spills of pregnant and barren lixiviant, which could impact the water quality of the 

shallow aquifers. The potential environmental impact from such pipeline, valve, or well-integrity 

failure or pond leakage depends on several factors, including the depth-to-shallow groundwater, 

the use of shallow groundwater, and the degree of hydraulic connection between shallow 

aquifers and regionally important aquifers. Spills of either chemicals or petroleum products 

could also impact shallow groundwater quality and must be reported to WDEQ. The GEIS 

concluded that the potential environmental impact on shallow aquifers could range from 

MODERATE to LARGE if 

• The groundwater in shallow aquifers is close to the ground surface 

• The shallow aquifers are important sources for local domestic or agricultural 

water supplies 

• Shallow aquifers are hydraulically connected to other locally or regionally 

important aquifers 

The GEIS also concluded that the potential environmental impacts could be SMALL if shallow 

aquifers have poor water quality, well yields are not economically viable for production, and the 

shallow aquifers are hydraulically separated from other locally and regionally important aquifers. 

(NRC, 2009a) 

Sections 3.4.1 and 3.5.2 of the SEIS described the Wasatch Formation, which outcrops in the 

proposed project area and is characterized by a series of sand layers separated by mudstones 
Environmental Impacts 

4-28 

and siltstones as shown in Figure 3-3. The applicant identified a series of sand layers in the 

upper portion of the Wasatch Formation and labeled them from the shallowest to the deepest as 

the H, G, F, C, B, A, and 1 Sands (Figure 3-4). The depth to groundwater across the Nichols 

Ranch Unit is variable and depends on surface topography. The surficial sand aquifer likewise 

varies across the proposed project area. In the southern portion of the Nichols Ranch Unit, 

where the proposed central processing plant would be located, shallow groundwater is first 

encountered in the Cottonwood Creek alluvium within 3 m [10 ft] bgs (Uranerz, 2007). In the 

middle portion of the Nichols Ranch Unit, shallow groundwater is first encountered in the F Sand 

aquifer at depths ranging from 15 to 30 m [50 to 100 ft] bgs. In the northernmost portion of the 

Nichols Ranch Unit, the G Sand is typically the shallow aquifer, with the depth to groundwater 

ranging from 15 to 30 m [50 to 100 ft] bgs. Groundwater flow in the F and G Sands is to the 

south (Uranerz, 2007, 2010). 

The depth to groundwater in the proposed central processing plant area is approximately 15 m 

[50 ft] bgs based on well data. Portions of the proposed production zone to the south extend to 

the area overlying the Cottonwood Creek alluvium, where groundwater may occur at depths as 

shallow as 3 m [10 ft] bgs. The proximity of the groundwater to the ground surface in this area 

may increase the potential for a contaminant release at the ground surface to reach the surficial 

aquifer. The water level in the F Sand shallow aquifer is shown in Figure 2-20 of the applicant’s 

technical report (Uranerz, 2010). 

The groundwater quality data for the F Sand surface aquifer indicate relatively high total 

dissolved solids (TDS), but the groundwater would be suitable for livestock watering 

(Wyoming Class III groundwater). The applicant’s well survey indicates six stock watering wells 

are located within a 0.8-km [0.5-mi] radius of the proposed project area. One well (N1, 11849) 

at the Nichols Ranch Unit is screened in (open to) the F Sand shallow aquifer and could 

potentially be impacted if a surface release migrated downgradient to the west. The location of 

this stock watering well is shown in Figure 3-6 (Uranerz, 2007). 

The depth to shallow groundwater at the Hank Unit is deeper than at the Nichols Ranch Unit. 

The H Sand is the surficial aquifer in this area, and the depth to groundwater ranges between 

15 m [50 ft] bgs at the low lying areas west of the Hank Unit and 61 m [200 ft] bgs along the 

eastern border of the Hank Unit. The average depth to groundwater is approximately 30 m 

[100 ft] bgs or more beneath most of the Hank Unit and the planned satellite facility. 

Groundwater flow in the H Sand at the Hank Unit is to the west. The Willow and Dry Willow 

Creek alluvium at the Hank Unit are mostly dry, except after surface water runoff events. 

(Uranerz, 2007) 

Based on applicant-provided groundwater quality data from the H Sand aquifer, this aquifer is 

suitable for livestock use (Wyoming Class III groundwater). As noted previously, the applicant’s 

well survey indicated six stock watering wells are located within a 0.8-km [0.5-mi] radius of the 

proposed project area. None of the stock wells at the Hank Unit are installed in the H Sand 

aquifer. However, three monitoring wells are screened in the surficial H Sand aquifer (i.e., BR-I, 

BR-K, URZHH-7) (Uranerz, 2007). 

As discussed in the GEIS, NRC-required leak detection programs would greatly reduce the 

potential impact on shallow groundwater from surface releases. As described in SEIS Section 

6.3.2, the applicant would be required to have leak detection, spill response, and cleanup 

programs (Uranerz, 2007). Furthermore, the NRC requirement for well mechanical integrity 

testing (NRC, 2003b) and similar requirements in the WDEQ UIC permit (Uranerz, 2007) would 

further reduce the potential for well integrity failure during operations. 
 Environmental Impacts

4-29 

In conclusion, shallow aquifers in the Nichols Ranch ISR Project area are not known to be 

hydraulically connected with more significant local and regional water supply aquifers. Only one 

well near the Nichols Ranch Unit is known to be in the shallow F Sand aquifer and is used by 

ranchers to water their stock. No other wells are known to be used for domestic or livestock 

water in the shallow aquifers in the Nichols Ranch ISR Project area. As discussed previously 

for the Nichols Ranch Unit, the surficial aquifer is 3 m [10 ft] bgs in the southern portion of the 

unit and, therefore, may be connected to the surface water in Cottonwood Creek. Therefore, in 

accordance with GEIS criteria, the NRC staff concludes the impact on the shallow aquifer 

system at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be MODERATE. However, 

implementation of the leak detection and correction program and mechanical integrity testing 

could mitigate the potential impact (i.e., early detection and cleanup) and result in SMALL 

operational impacts on shallow (near-surface) aquifers for the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units. 

4.5.2.1.2.2 Operations Impacts to Production and Surrounding Aquifers 

The potential environmental impacts on groundwater supplies in the production and other 

surrounding aquifers are related to consumptive water use and groundwater quality. 

Water Consumptive Use

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.4.2.2.2, groundwater is withdrawn and reinjected into the 

production zone during ISR operations. Most of the water withdrawn from the aquifer is 

returned to the aquifer. That portion of water not returned to the aquifer is referred to as 

consumptive use. Consumptive use is due primarily to production bleed but also includes other 

smaller losses. The production bleed is the net withdrawal maintained to ensure that 

groundwater flow is toward the production network (inward gradient) to minimize the potential 

movement of lixiviant and its associated hazardous constituents out of the wellfield 

(NRC, 2009a). 

As discussed in GEIS Section 1.7.2.1, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must 

designate the portion of an aquifer where the production occurs as an exempt aquifer pursuant 

to the federal underground injection control (UIC) regulations before any production begins. An 

exempt aquifer designation means the aquifer is not, nor would it ever be, a source of drinking 

water in the location the exemption covered (NRC, 2009a). The aquifer exemption criteria are 

described in 40 CFR 146.6. These criteria include whether the aquifer is currently a source of 

drinking water, whether the water quality is economically or technologically impractical to use for 

a public water system, whether the TDS content of the groundwater is more than 3,000 ppm 

and less than 10,000 ppm, and assurance that the aquifer is not reasonably expected to supply 

a public water system. Moreover, under the federal UIC regulation, the exempted aquifer would 

no longer be protected under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) as an Underground Source 

of Drinking Water (USDW). At the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, portions of the A Sand 

at the Nichols Ranch Unit and the F Sand at the Hank Unit (both units in which production 

operations would occur) and typically a buffer zone would be sought to be declared as exempt 

by EPA. Groundwater in the aquifer outside the designated exempt zone would still be 

considered a possible source of drinking water, if of appropriate quality. 

Consumptive water use during ISR operations could potentially impact a local water user who 

uses water from the production aquifer outside the exempted zone. This potential impact 

results from a lowering of the water levels in nearby wells in response to pumping within the 

production zone. This water level decrease, referred to as a drawdown, if significant enough 

relative to the original water level, can potentially reduce well yields. In addition, if the 
Environmental Impacts 

4-30 

production zone is hydraulically connected to other aquifers above and/or below, consumptive 

use may potentially impact the water levels in these overlying and underlying aquifers and 

cause a drawdown in water level, thus reducing the potential yield from nearby wells completed 

in these aquifers. Water consumptive use is described in GEIS Section 4.3.4.2.2.2 

(NRC, 2009a). 

The applicant provided a map of water wells within 0.81 km [0.5 mi] of the Nichols Ranch Unit 

project area. Completion data for these wells, including the aquifers in which they are screened 

(i.e., open to the environment), were provided. Based on a search of the Wyoming State 

Engineer’s Office (WSEO) water permit database within this area, the NRC staff found the 

majority of wells are either stock or monitoring wells. No water wells permitted for domestic use 

are located within the 0.81 km [0.5 mi] boundary of the Nichols Ranch Unit. The applicant also 

provided a map of all permitted wells within a 4.8-km [3-mi] radius of the Nichols Ranch Unit. 

According to the summary table, the majority of wells within this radius were either stock or 

monitoring wells. Two domestic wells, Doughstick #3 and Garden Well, located approximately 

3.2 km [2 mi] southeast of the proposed project area, are drilled to a depth of 168 and 159 m 

[550 and 520 ft] bgs, respectively. One other domestic well, Dry Fork #1, associated with a 

residence at Dry Fork Ranch, is located at a distance of a little over 0.6 km [1 mi] to the west of 

the proposed project area. The depth of this well could not be determined. 

The applicant predicted drawdown from production bleed during operations (Uranerz, 2007) 

based on a simple analytical model and using aquifer properties determined from either aquifer 

testing or assumptions based on site-specific conditions. Assuming a production rate of 

13,250 Lpm [3,500 gpm] and a 1 percent bleed rate, a groundwater withdrawal rate of 133 Lpm 

[35 gpm] was used to predict drawdown at the Nichols Ranch Unit. Based on these inputs, the 

potential drawdown from this pumping rate was predicted using the aquifer properties of 

4,350 L/day/m [350 gal/day/ft] for transmissivity and a storage coefficient of 1.8 × 10-4. The 

applicant conducted simulations to evaluate drawdown over the entire production area resulting 

from several extraction wells sited at various locations within the production area. These 

predictions show 9 m [30 ft] of drawdown from a combined 35 gpm rate would extend 

approximately 2,100 m [7,000 ft] outward from the center of the entire production area. The 

1.5 m [5 ft] drawdown contour was projected to extend approximately 6,860 m [22,500 ft] or 

approximately 6.4 km [4 mi] beyond the Nichols Ranch Unit boundary. 

The applicant stated the primary effect from the Nichols Ranch Unit bleed would be drawdown 

in those wells completed in the ore zone (i.e., the A Sand) (Uranerz, 2007). The applicant 

further stated the predicted drawdown would not greatly impact production from pumping wells 

because in the A Sand confined aquifer the available groundwater levels (hydraulic head) is 

sufficient to allow drawdown without impacting well yields. As discussed in SEIS Section 

3.5.2.3.4, the applicant reviewed WSEO data for wells located within 4.8-km [3-mi] of the 

Nichols Ranch Unit, which showed there was an average hydraulic head (available groundwater 

level) in the wells of about 136 m [446 ft]. A decrease of 9 m [30 ft] in the water level in wells 

located approximately 2,134 m [7,000 ft] from the center of the production area would, therefore, 

represent less than 7 percent of the available water level in the aquifer. The NRC staff 

concludes this decrease would not significantly impact well yield. 

Although the available hydraulic head is sufficient to prevent an impact on well yield in most of 

the private wells, there are naturally flowing wells (i.e., those wells with a water level above the 

ground surface) located in the vicinity of the Nichols Ranch Unit. The predicted drawdown could 

cause these wells to cease to flow naturally because it would drop their water level below 

ground surface. The applicant stated that flowing wells located within the 3 m [10 ft] drawdown 
 Environmental Impacts

4-31 

contour could be impacted and that within an 8 km [5 mi] radius, 10 flowing wells screened 

within the A Sand could be affected (Uranerz, 2007). The applicant also stated that if any of 

these wells stopped flowing, either a pump or other supplement to lift the water to the surface 

might need to be installed. The applicant stated “confidential surface use agreements (are) in 

place with the landowners” who own these free-flowing wells to address mitigation measures 

the applicant would implement should a free-flowing well be impacted by drawdown from the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (Uranerz, 2007). These measures include either providing 

additional pumping capacity or replacing the well. 

In addition to drawdown, production from the A Sand could induce water from the overlying 

and/or underlying aquifers to move across the aquitards (confining layers) into the production 

zone. This water movement is referred to as leakage. Leakage could potentially occur in areas 

where the intervening aquitards are not extensive, where the aquitard has been compromised 

by wells screened over multiple aquifers, or where inadequately sealed wells or boreholes are 

present. Leakage across confining beds could result in a drawdown in the overlying and 

underlying strata. Pumping tests conducted by the applicant at the Nichols Ranch Unit have not 

demonstrated leakage from either the overlying B Sand or the underlying 1 Sand into the A 

Sand. Based on the results from two multiwell pumping tests (MN–1 and MN–2) conducted by 

the applicant that evaluated pumping and monitoring the A Sand, the overlying B Sand aquifer, 

and the underlying 1 Sand aquifer (Uranerz, 2007), there is no hydraulic connection across the 

aquitards between the A Sand, and the B Sand or 1 Sand. Because of the large hydraulic head 

in the A Sand, which would only be reduced a small percentage by consumptive groundwater 

use, the mitigation measures the applicant would implement if a free-flowing well was impacted, 

and the results from the pumping test data that indicate no leakage from either overlying or 

underlying aquifers, the NRC staff concludes the short-term impact from consumptive 

groundwater use at the Nichols Ranch Unit during the production phase would be SMALL. 

As shown by the Nichols Ranch Unit drawdown estimates, the net consumptive use of water at 

the Nichols Ranch Unit during the operational phase (production and restoration) would reduce 

groundwater levels in the A Sand by a small fraction of the existing groundwater levels in the 

Powder River Basin. After production and restoration are completed and groundwater 

withdrawals are terminated at the Nichols Ranch Unit, groundwater levels would recover with 

time. Thus, the NRC staff concludes the potential long-term environmental impact from 

consumptive groundwater use during the operations phase at the Nichols Ranch Unit would be 

SMALL. 

As discussed in SEIS Section 3.5.2, the F Sand production zone at the Hank Unit is not 

completely saturated. Therefore, it is an unconfined aquifer. The unconfined conditions in the 

production zone reduce the potential impact from consumptive groundwater use during ISR 

operations. For a given net withdrawal in an unconfined aquifer, substantially less water level 

drawdown would occur over a smaller area compared to that in a confined aquifer. As shown in 

Figure 4-1, the water produced from a well in an unconfined aquifer (water level below overlying 

aquitard) comes from dewatering of the aquifer pore space in the production zone. However, 

the water moving to a well in a confined aquifer (water level above overlying aquitard) comes 

from the sediment compression and water expansion from the pressure drawdown in the 

production zone, but does not drain the pore spaces. Therefore, much more water is produced 

from dewatering drawdown over a small area of an unconfined aquifer to meet the well flow 

rate, whereas the pressure drawdown to produce water from a confined aquifer occurs over a 

larger area to meet the well flow rate. 
Environmental Impacts 

4-32 

Figure 4-1. Drawdowns in an Unconfined Aquifer and Confined Aquifer from an 

Extraction Well Operating at Same Rate. Modified from Uranerz (2007).

The applicant provided a map of water wells within 0.81 m [0.5 mi] of the Hank Unit proposed 

project area. Completion data for these wells, including the aquifers in which they are screened, 

were provided. Based on a search of the Wyoming State Engineers Office database of 

groundwater permits and well descriptions within this area, the NRC staff found the majority of 

wells are stock wells or monitoring wells. No water wells permitted for domestic use were 

located within 0.81 km [0.5 mi] of the Hank Unit. The applicant also provided a map of all 

permitted wells within a 4.8 km [3 mi] radius and the associated groundwater permits, which 

indicated the majority of wells were either stock or monitoring wells. 

For the Hank Unit, two domestic wells, Doughstick #3 and Garden Well, are located 

approximately 4.8 km [3 mi] southwest of the proposed project area and drilled to a depth of 168 

and 159 m [550 and 520 ft] bgs, respectively. The applicant stated that a domestic well was 

located at a residence at Pfister Ranch, approximately 1 km [0.6 mi] north of the Hank Unit 

northern boundary. The only well shown at this location is BR-T. The applicant stated this well 

was located at a depth stratigraphically below the F Sand ore zone in the B Sand aquifer 

underlying the production zone. Completion information for BR-T was provided in Uranerz 

(2007,Table D6-3), but no permit for this well was identified in Uranerz (2007, Table D6G2-2). 

The NRC staff was unable to locate BR-T or any other domestic wells associated with this ranch 

from the Wyoming State Engineers Office water permit database. However, the staff accepts 

that the applicant has located and assessed this well location, well completion, and its use as a 

domestic well. 

To evaluate production impacts, the applicant predicted the drawdown from production bleed in 

the F Sand at the Hank Unit assuming the following inputs: a production rate of 9,470 Lpm 

[2,500 gpm], a bleed rate of 3 percent, and a groundwater withdrawal rate of 284 Lpm [75 gpm]. 

The resulting drawdown calculation was based on the aquifer properties of a transmissivity of 

4,968 L/day/m [400 gal/day/ft] and a storage value of 0.05 for the unconfined F Sand. The 

simulations assumed 284 Lpm [75 gpm] withdrawals at six locations in the northern wellfield for 

1.5 years followed by a second set of six withdrawals in the southern wellfield for 1.5 years. 

The simulations predicted that the 3 m [10 ft] drawdown contour would extend out to the area 

immediately adjacent to the southern wellfield, while the drawdown contour of 1.5 m [5 ft] would 

extend approximately 270 m [900 ft] from the wellfield. The drawdown in the F Sand at the 

Hank Unit is lower compared to drawdown in the A Sand in the Nichols Ranch Unit because of 

the unconfined (unsaturated) nature of the F Sand aquifer. 

Applicant-performed aquifer testing at the Hank Unit has not indicated leakage from either the 

overlying G Sand or the underlying B Sand into the production zone. Specifically, two applicant-
 Environmental Impacts

4-33 

performed multiwell pumping tests (URZHF–1, URZHF–5) included pumping and monitoring the 

F Sand, monitoring the overlying G Sand aquifer, and monitoring the underlying B Sand aquifer 

(Uranerz, 2007). Neither test indicated a hydraulic connection (drawdown) between the F Sand 

and either the G Sand or B Sand. No flowing wells have been identified in the F Sand in the 

Hank Unit. In addition, the applicant stated that wells screened in the F Sand in the immediate 

area adjacent to the Hank Unit would either need to be abandoned using acceptable 

WDEQ methods or be used as monitoring wells (if not completed in multiple sands) because of 

their close proximity to the production zone (Uranerz, 2007). Given the anticipated groundwater 

flow behavior in the unconfined aquifer at the Hank Unit, the applicant will be required by license 

condition to provide to NRC after the wellfield production and monitoring wells have been 

installed, the wellfield data hydrologic package on the unconfined aquifer for at least one 

wellfield at the Hank Unit for NRC review and approval before operations are initiated. This 

package will contain the pumping test data and the applicant’s analysis of the wellfield 

groundwater flow behavior.

As described previously, the applicant has predicted that the projected drawdown would not 

impact the yield at any private wells located outside the proposed Hank Unit. Private wells 

completed in the production zone within the Hank Unit project area would be plugged and 

abandoned. The applicant has also demonstrated through pumping tests that there is no 

hydraulic connection with either the overlying or underlying aquifers. The applicant will be 

required by license condition to submit information verifying these conditions in its wellfield 

hydrologic data package. The license condition will require NRC review and approval of at least 

one wellfield hydrologic package at the Hank Unit before operations begin. Based on the 

applicant’s initial drawdown predictions and the wellfield testing and verification required by 

NRC license condition, the NRC staff concludes the environmental impact from consumptive 

groundwater use at the Hank Unit during the operations phase would be SMALL. 

As shown by the Hank Unit drawdown estimates, the net consumptive use of water at the Hank 

Unit during the operational phase (production and restoration) is predicted to reduce 

groundwater levels by a small fraction of the groundwater levels currently in the F Sand in the 

Powder River Basin. After production and restoration are completed and groundwater 

withdrawals are terminated at the Hank Unit, the groundwater levels would recover with time. 

Thus, NRC staff concludes that the potential long-term environmental impact from consumptive 

groundwater use during the operational phase at the Hank Unit would be SMALL. 

Excursions and Groundwater Quality

GEIS Section 4.3.4.2.2.2 discussed how groundwater quality in the production zone would be 

degraded as part of ISR operations. Excursions are defined as the movement of fluids away 

from the production zone aquifer during operations. NRC would require the applicant to take 

preventative measures to reduce the likelihood and consequences of potential excursions. 

These measures include conducting wellfield operations to ensure fluids stay within the wellfield 

and specific requirements for monitoring, reporting, and correcting excursions if they occur. 

(NRC, 2009a) 

Horizontal excursions are defined as movement of production fluids into the aquifer surrounding 

the wellfield, which may be caused by an imbalance in injection and production rates in the 

wellfield. To prevent such an imbalance, a licensee is required to maintain an inward hydraulic 

gradient by extracting more fluid than is injected to create a wellfield bleed. This bleed ensures 

that groundwater is drawn into the wellfield to minimize the potential for production fluids to 

move out of the production zone. To detect a horizontal excursion, the licensee is also required 
Environmental Impacts 

4-34 

to install a ring of monitoring wells located within and encircling the production zone to detect 

horizontal excursions, as discussed in SEIS Chapter 6. 

Vertical excursions are defined as movement of production fluids into aquifers overlying or 

underlying the production zone aquifer. The GEIS stated that the potential for leaching solution 

to migrate into an overlying or underlying aquifer would be small if the aquitard separating the 

production zone from the overlying and underlying aquifers is of sufficient thickness and has a 

low permeability. Steep hydraulic gradients in which the potentiometric head of the production 

zone is above that of the overlying or underlying aquifers could also result in a vertical 

excursion. Vertical excursions can also result from improperly sealed boreholes, from poorly 

completed wells that provide a pathway for vertical flow, or from a loss of mechanical integrity in 

the ISR injection and extraction wells. NRC requires monitoring of the overlying and underlying 

aquifers to detect vertical excursions using monitoring wells at a spacing of not less than one 

every 1.6 ha [4 ac]. The applicant would be required to take preventive measures against 

vertical excursions prior to operations, including well integrity tests (NUREG–1910, Section 1). 

The applicant would be required to conduct mechanical integrity testing of each well to check for 

leaks or cracks in the casing, in compliance with 40 CFR 146.8. The conduct of mechanical 

integrity testing reduces the likelihood of poor well integrity and potential excursions. 

NRC requires the excursion monitoring wells surrounding, below, and above the production 

zone be sampled every 2 weeks for excursion indicators. At least three chemical indicators of 

horizontal and vertical excursions are required. These indicators must be conservative 

(i.e., nonreactive or unretarded) constituents of the lixiviant, such as alkalinity, conductivity, and 

chloride. If the value of any two of these constituents is elevated above certain values approved 

by NRC, it indicates that a potential excursion has occurred. If the excursion is confirmed by 

additional sampling, it must be reported to NRC within 24 hours. Corrective action would be 

required to either stop or reverse the fluid movement. The applicant would modify wellfield 

operations, as necessary, to correct the excursion. If a well remained on excursion for more 

than 60 days, the applicant would be required to provide NRC with a written report describing 

the excursion event, corrective actions, and results of the corrective actions. If the excursion 

was not corrected after 60 days, the applicant would be required to cease lixiviant injection or 

increase the financial surety bond to cover the cost of restoration from the excursion. 

In GEIS Section 2.11.4, the NRC staff documented that, based on historical information, 

excursions have occurred at operating ISR facilities. Separately, NRC staff analyzed the 

environmental impacts from both horizontal and vertical excursions at three NRC-licensed ISR 

facilities. In that analysis, which involved 60 events at the three facilities, the NRC staff found 

that, for most of the events, the licensees were able to control and reverse the excursions 

through pumping and extraction at nearby wells. Most excursions were short lived, although a 

few continued for several years. In all cases, environmental impacts were SMALL and 

temporary (NRC, 2009b). 

To examine the potential for excursions at the Nichols Ranch Project, the hydrogeology, ISR 

operating conditions, and potential to prevent and control excursions were evaluated by NRC 

staff for both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units. Groundwater in the A Sand (the production 

zone) at the Nichols Ranch Unit is confined (saturated conditions), and the aquifer has sufficient 

hydraulic conductivity for ISR operations. The drawdown from pumping in the production zone 

would facilitate both lixiviant containment in the ore zone and the recovery of either a horizontal 

or vertical excursion. The A Sand is both overlain and underlain by thick extensive aquitards 

that are shown on the north-south and east-west cross sections at the Nichols Ranch Unit 

[exhibits D5-10 and D5-11, respectively, of Uranerz (2007)] and would isolate the lixiviant in the 
 Environmental Impacts

4-35 

A Sand. The results of the applicant’s pumping tests conducted to date indicate no hydraulic 

connection between the A Sand to either the overlying or underlying sands. Before the initiation 

of ISR operations, extensive aquifer testing would be conducted in each production area. For 

the Nichols Ranch Unit ISR Project, the applicant demonstrated through modeling that a 1 

percent production bleed would be maintained to ensure groundwater flow is toward the 

production zone (Uranerz, 2007). This inward groundwater flow toward the extraction wells 

minimizes the potential for horizontal excursions of leaching solutions away from the production 

zone. To ensure the hydrogeology and monitoring wells are sufficient to prevent and correct an 

excursion, the aquifer testing field results for at least the first wellfield package at the Nichols 

Ranch Unit would be provided in wellfield hydrologic data package submitted to NRC staff by 

license condition for review and approval before operations begin. 

At the Hank Unit, the occurrence of unconfined aquifer (unsaturated) conditions in the 

production zone presents special considerations to maintain the necessary hydraulic control of 

the wellfield through an inward hydraulic gradient, to monitor the wellfield periphery, and to 

reverse a potential horizontal excursion by drawing lixiviant back to a producing well. The 

licensee must demonstrate that groundwater levels in the unconfined aquifer would be sufficient 

to support the extraction rate required to pull back a horizontal or vertical excursion without 

dewatering the ore zone. By license condition, NRC will require the applicant to conduct a 

hydrogeologic test at the Hank Unit using the proposed injection and production pattern to 

demonstrate that an inward gradient to the wellfield can be maintained in the unconfined aquifer 

given the planned production bleed during the operation and that an excursion could be 

corrected. The applicant has already performed several pumping tests at the Hank Unit, which 

indicate no hydraulic connection between the production zone and the overlying and underlying 

aquifers across the aquitards above and below the F Sand production aquifer. The applicant 

will also perform additional wellfield pumping tests before operations to verify this lack of vertical 

communication and to demonstrate the wellfield is in hydraulic communication with the 

monitoring ring wells. By license condition, NRC will require that the applicant provide detailed 

hydrologic test data packages for the first wellfield describing the wellfield pumping tests to 

demonstrate that all of these requirements are satisfied before the operations at the Hank Unit 

will be approved. 

In addition, for both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units, NRC will require by license condition 

that the applicant maintain an inward hydraulic gradient in the production aquifer within the 

perimeter monitoring ring wells during all phases of the ISR lifecycle to prevent horizontal 

excursions. NRC will require another license condition that if an excursion is detected and 

confirmed in a monitoring well, the excursion must be reported to NRC within 24 hours and the 

licensee must take corrective action. Because NRC would require the applicant to take 

preventative measures to reduce the likelihood and consequences of potential excursions, and 

impose several license conditions that would require extensive further testing to demonstrate 

hydraulic control to prevent and correct excursions, the NRC staff concludes the estimated 

environmental impact on groundwater quality from a potential excursion at the Nichols Ranch 

Project would be SMALL. 

To prevent any impact to overlying, underlying, and surrounding groundwater after production 

operations are completed, the licensee would be required to return water-quality parameters to 

the standards in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). As stated in 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5), “at the point of compliance, the concentration of a hazardous 

constituent must not exceed (a) the Commission approved background concentration of that 

constituent in the groundwater; (b) the respective value given in the table if the constituent is 

listed in the table and the background level of the constituent is below the value listed; or (c) an 
Environmental Impacts 

4-36 

alternative concentration limit (ACL) established by the Commission.” Only after demonstrating 

that it cannot restore a particular hazardous constituent to the background concentration or 

maximum contaminant level (MCL) can a licensee request a license amendment from NRC for 

an ACL for a particular hazardous constituent. Appendix C explains the process for granting an 

ACL. For ACLs to be approved, they must be shown to protect public health at the site. For 

these reasons, potential impacts to the aquifers surrounding the wellfield production zone 

aquifer after operations at the Nichols Ranch Project would be SMALL. 

4.5.2.1.2.3 Operations Impacts to Deep Aquifers Below the Production Aquifers 

Environmental impacts on confined deep aquifers located below the production aquifers could 

result from deep well injection of byproduct material. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA), EPA has statutory authority to regulate injection well activities that may affect the 

environment. Underground injection of fluid requires a permit from EPA or from an authorized 

state UIC program under the SDWA. WDEQ has been authorized to administer the UIC 

program in Wyoming and is responsible for issuing permits for deep well disposal at the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. WDEQ would only permit Class I disposal wells if the 

groundwater quality in the injection zone would not be suitable for domestic or agricultural uses 

(e.g., high salinity), if the groundwater could not be designated as a USDW, and if the injection 

zone was confined above by sufficiently thick and continuous low-permeability layers. The 

GEIS concluded that the potential environmental impact of injecting byproduct material into 

deep aquifers below the ore-bearing aquifers would be SMALL if the aquifers were located 

below a USDW, if water production from deep aquifers was not economically feasible, or if the 

groundwater quality from these aquifers would not be suitable for domestic or agricultural uses 

(e.g., high salinity) and if they were confined above by sufficiently thick and continuous low 

permeability layers (NRC, 2009a). 

GEIS Section 4.3.4.2.2.3 stated that in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region where the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is located, the Paleozoic aquifers are hydraulically 

separated from the proposed aquifer sequence where ISR operations would occur (NRC, 

2009a). The stratigraphic sequence, from shallowest to deepest, includes the Wasatch 

Formation, Fort Union Formation, Lance Formation, and the Fox Hills Formation. Thick, 

low-permeability confining layers separate the aquifer sequence, including the Pierre Shale, the 

Lewis Shale, and the Steele Shale (Whitehead, 1996). Hence, the nonkarstic Paleozoic 

aquifers (e.g., Tensleep Sandstone) can be investigated for their suitability for deep well 

disposal of liquid effluent. The GEIS concluded that in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling 

Region, because of the relative poor water quality in and the reduced water yields from 

nonkarstic Paleozoic aquifers and the occurrence of thick and regionally continuous aquitards 

confining them from above, the potential environmental impacts from deep well injection of liquid 

effluent into the nonkarstic Paleozoic aquifers could be SMALL (NRC, 2009a). Regionally, the 

Pierre Shale was reported to be fractured in some places (Whitehead, 1996). Because of 

potential heterogeneities in the hydrologic properties of the Pierre Shale, the potential impacts 

could range from SMALL to MODERATE at locations where the Pierre Shale is fractured. 

WDEQ is reviewing a permit application for up to four Class I wells to be drilled in each the 

Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit, depending on the production rates and the capacity of 

each disposal well. The application states that the fluid would be injected in the Cretaceous 

Teckla, Teapot, and Parkman sandstones at depths of approximately 2,326 to 2,652 m [7,630 to 

8,700 ft] bgs at the Nichols Ranch Unit and at depths of approximately 2,360 to 2,652 m [7,740 

to 8,700 ft] bgs at the Hank Unit. This aquifer may be a candidate for exempt aquifer status if 

(i) it does not currently serve as a source of drinking water; (ii) it cannot now, or will not in the 
 Environmental Impacts

4-37 

future, serve as a source of drinking water because of contamination or economic or technical 

impracticability; and (iii) the TDS concentrations are greater than 3,000 ppm and less than 

10,000 mg/L, and not reasonably expected to supply a public water system (40 CFR 146.4). 

WDEQ will evaluate the suitability of the formations the applicant has proposed for deep well 

injection and would only grant a permit if the applicant demonstrates that liquid effluent could be 

safely isolated in a deep aquifer. Consequently, the NRC staff concludes that if WDEQ were to 

issue a permit for these wells, the potential environmental impact on deep aquifers from deep 

well injection at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be SMALL. 

4.5.2.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.4.2.3 describes the potential environmental impact on groundwater resources 

during aquifer restoration and states the impact is from groundwater consumptive use and 

waste management practices, including the potential deep disposal of brine slurries from 

reverse osmosis (NRC, 2009a). The purpose of aquifer restoration is to return the groundwater 

quality in the production zone to groundwater protection standards in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix 

A, Criterion 5B(5). These standards state the concentration of a hazardous constituent must not 

exceed (i) the Commission-approved background concentration of that constituent in 

groundwater, (ii) the respective value in the table in paragraph 5C if the constituent is listed in 

the table and if the background level of the constituent is below the value listed, or (iii) an 

alternative concentration limit the Commission establishes. 

The applicant is planning three phases of aquifer restoration: groundwater sweep, groundwater 

transfer, and groundwater treatment. The actual restoration sequence would be based on 

operating conditions. The applicant stated that restoration would be sequenced with production, 

meaning that initially only production would occur. However, when production moved from one 

wellfield to another, restoration and production would occur simultaneously. After production 

was complete, only restoration would occur (Uranerz, 2007). 

Hydraulic control of the former production zone during each restoration phase would be 

maintained by establishing an inward hydraulic gradient through production bleed (see SEIS 

Section 4.5.2.1.2.2). As discussed in the GEIS, the impact from groundwater consumptive use 

during aquifer restoration is generally greater than during ISR operations (NRC, 2009a). The 

applicant stated that aquifer restoration would consume additional water during the groundwater 

sweep phase because water would not be reinjected. During the groundwater treatment phase, 

approximately 20 to 25 percent of the groundwater treatment flow through the reverse-osmosis 

system would be disposed of as brine via deep well disposal. Based on the projected disposal 

rates for the deep disposal wells, net withdrawals from both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units 

could approach 380 Lpm [100 gpm] during the combined production and restoration operations 

and during restoration alone (Uranerz, 2007). 

The applicant’s drawdown predictions (see SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.2.2) show that at a pumping 

rate of 133 Lpm [35 gpm], the potential drawdown from restoration of the Nichols Ranch Unit 

would affect an area within an 8-km [5-mi] radius. During Nichols Ranch Unit operations, 

restoration consumptive use could increase to 340 Lpm [90 gpm], which would increase the 

drawdown outside the proposed project area to much greater than the 9 m [30 ft] at 2,133 m 

[7,000 ft] from the center of the proposed project area, that was predicted for the production 

consumptive use at a pumping rate of 133 Lpm [35 gpm] (Uranerz, 2007). The NRC staff 

concludes the environmental impact from groundwater consumptive use during aquifer 

restoration of the Nichols Ranch Unit would therefore be MODERATE at private wells located 

just outside the Nichols Ranch Unit boundary. The applicant stated that it has confidential 
Environmental Impacts 

4-38 

agreements in place with private well owners to either provide the pumping capability or to 

replace wells if the water level drawdowns affect well yield. After production and aquifer 

restoration are completed and groundwater withdrawal ceased at the Nichols Ranch Unit, the 

groundwater levels would recover with time. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes the potential 

long-term environmental impact from consumptive groundwater use during the restoration 

phase at the Nichols Ranch Unit would be SMALL. 

For the Hank Unit, the production drawdown predictions (see SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.2.2) show 

that at a production rate of 284 Lpm [75 gpm], limited, localized drawdowns would result 

because of the unconfined nature of the F Sand production aquifer at the Hank Unit (Uranerz, 

2007). The additional pumping that could occur during aquifer restoration could increase the 

consumptive use to 340 Lpm [90 gpm], but given the unconfined aquifer setting, the NRC staff 

concluded this additional 15 gpm over the production consumptive use of 284 Lpm [75 gpm] 

would not likely significantly increase the drawdown. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes the 

potential environmental impact from consumptive groundwater use during aquifer restoration at 

the Hank Unit would be SMALL. 

The process of aquifer restoration is described in GEIS Section 2.5 (NRC, 2009a). Restoration 

fluids would be transported via a network of buried pipelines between the pump house and the 

satellite facility or central processing plant; buried pipeline would also connect injection and 

extraction wells to manifolds inside the header houses. As lixiviant injection is terminated, fluids 

transported in the pipelines during aquifer restoration would have lower concentrations of 

hazardous constituents than production fluids. The potential failure of pipeline fittings or valves, 

or a failure of well mechanical integrity in shallow aquifers, could result in leaks and spills that 

could impact the water quality in shallow aquifers. However, as discussed in SEIS Section 

4.5.2.1.2.1, the applicant has committed to implementing a leak-detection and spill-cleanup 

program (Uranerz, 2007), and NRC and the WDEQ UIC program would regulate well 

mechanical integrity testing. The NRC staff concludes the implementation of these mitigative 

measures would result in a SMALL impact on shallow (near-surface) aquifers at the Nichols 

Ranch and Hank Units. 

The applicant has proposed to use deep well injection for disposal of liquid effluent during 

restoration and obtain Class I UIC permits from WDEQ for four disposal wells at each unit. By 

license condition, NRC will require the applicantto have enough disposal capacity to support 

operations. As discussed, the NRC staff concludes the potential environmental impact from 

deep well injection into deep aquifers located below the production aquifers would be SMALL 

because of WDEQ UIC permit requirements. The applicant also indicated (Uranerz, 2010) that 

if a disposal well became inoperable because of mechanical problems with pumps, piping, 

valves, or a mechanical integrity test failure, large tanks at each unit would provide surge 

capacity. This availability of water disposal capacity is critical to ensure that an inward gradient 

can be maintained during restoration through the wellfield consumptive water use. At the 

Nichols Ranch Unit, surge capacity would be provided by four tanks, each with a capacity of 

64,350 L [17,000 gal]. At the Hank Unit, the applicant stated that surge capacity would be 

provided by six 64,350 L [17,000 gal] tanks. At the projected fill rates, the applicant estimated 

22 to 24 hours of surge capacity would be provided by the tanks (Uranerz, 2010). In the case of 

emergency maintenance, the applicant also estimated the maximum down time for each deep 

disposal well as 5 days and proposed a plan to obtain readily available, large capacity bladder 

tanks with a volume of 63,600 L [16,800 gal] for additional surge capacity. The applicant 

committed to having two operational deep disposal wells and adequate availability of spare 

parts before commercial operations begin at the Nichols Ranch ISR Unit (Uranerz, 2010). The 

applicant also committed to other options to manage surge capacity in addition to the rental of 
 Environmental Impacts

4-39 

bladder tanks as discussed previously, which included hauling solution by tanker truck to the 

other unit and reducing production flow rates to minimize the tank fill rate. Because of the 

applicant’s commitment to provide fixed surge capacity onsite, and the availability of different 

options to provide additional surge capacity, the NRC staff concludes the potential impact from 

the loss of disposal well availability would be SMALL. 

The applicant also analyzed natural groundwater gradient recovery and lixiviant plume transport 

from shutting down an operational wellfield (in either the production or aquifer restoration phase) 

if all the deep disposal wells become inoperable and surge capacity exhausted. The applicant 

calculated that if the inward gradient was lost, the natural groundwater velocities of 3.7 m/yr 

[12 ft/yr] for the Nichols Ranch Unit and 5.4 m/yr [8 ft/yr] for the Hank Unit would result in 

migration of the lixiviant plume by about 0.6 m [2 ft] or less during 45 days of a nonoperating 

disposal well. The applicant’s calculations demonstrated the plume could be recovered once 

the deep disposal wells became fully operational. The NRC staff concludes that the potential 

impact from this type of wellfield shut-in would be SMALL. 

The applicant has proposed to dispose of liquid effluent during restoration using deep well 

disposal and has submitted a permit application to WDEQ for Class I injection wells. Each unit 

could have up to four deep injection wells. WDEQ would evaluate the suitability of the proposed 

deep disposal wells. WDEQ would only grant such a permit if the waste fluids can be suitably 

isolated in a deep aquifer. Consequently, the NRC staff concludes the estimated environmental 

impact on deep aquifers located below the production zone aquifers from deep well disposal 

would be SMALL. 

4.5.2.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.4.2.4 describes the environmental impact on groundwater during the 

dismantling and decommissioning of ISR facilities and states the impact would primarily be from 

consumptive groundwater use, from potential spills of fuels and lubricants, and from improperly 

plugged and abandoned wells. Consumptive groundwater use could result from the use of 

water for dust suppression, revegetation, and reclaiming disturbed areas. The environmental 

impact during the decommissioning phase would be similar to potential impacts during the 

construction phase. Groundwater consumptive use during the decommissioning phase would 

be less than groundwater consumptive use during the ISR operation and groundwater 

restoration phases. Potential spills of fuels and lubricants during the decommissioning phase 

could impact shallow aquifers. Implementation of BMPs during decommissioning could reduce 

the likelihood and magnitude of such spills and facilitate cleanup (NRC, 2009a). 

Before NRC terminates an ISR source material license, a licensee must demonstrate that there 

would be no long-term impacts to USDWs. NRC review and approval of the wellfield restoration 

would ensure that the restoration standards were met and were protective of public health and 

safety (NRC, 2009a). 

After completion of ISR operations at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, improperly 

plugged and abandoned wells could potentially impact aquifers overlying the production zone by 

providing a hydrologic conduit between the aquifers. As part of the restoration and reclamation 

activities, the applicant would plug and abandon monitoring, injection, and production wells in 

accordance with Wyoming UIC requirements. The wells would be filled with cement and clay 

and the casing cut off below plow depth to ensure groundwater would not flow through 

abandoned wells (Uranerz, 2007). If wells were properly plugged, abandoned, and isolated 
Environmental Impacts 

4-40 

from the flow domain, the NRC staff concludes the potential environmental impact would be 

SMALL (NRC, 2009a). 

4.5.2.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, no construction or operational activities would occur onsite that 

could impact shallow groundwater. No lixiviant would be injected into the production aquifer nor 

would consumptive groundwater use occur under this alternative. No disposal of liquid effluent 

and solid waste would occur from the proposed action; therefore, there would be no threat to 

groundwater quality from the proposed action. Impacts on groundwater from other activities in 

the area, such as CBM extraction, could occur. 

4.5.2.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) 

Under Alternative 3, the applicant would construct, operate, perform aquifer restoration, and 

decommission facilities for ISR uranium milling and processing for only the Nichols Ranch Unit. 

ISR operations would not occur at the Hank Unit. Under Alternative 3, the same environmental 

impacts evaluated for the Nichols Ranch Unit under Alternative 1 (see Section 4.5.2.1 of the 

SEIS) would result; however, there would be no impact at the Hank Unit. 

4.5.2.3.1 Construction Impacts 

As shown for the evaluation of the environmental impacts at the Nichols Ranch Unit in SEIS 

Section 4.5.2.1.1, the estimated environmental impacts to groundwater resources during 

construction of the Nichols Ranch Unit would be SMALL, based on the limited nature of 

construction activities and implementation of BMPs to protect shallow groundwater. 

4.5.2.3.2 Operations Impacts 

As discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.2, during the operation phase, the estimated 

environmental impact on shallow groundwater quality at the Nichols Ranch Unit would be 

SMALL. Additionally, the short-term environmental impact from consumptive groundwater use 

during the operations phase at the Nichols Ranch Unit would be SMALL. After production and 

aquifer restoration were complete and groundwater withdrawals had ceased, the groundwater 

levels would recover with time. Thus, the estimated long-term impact from consumptive 

groundwater use during the operations phase at the Nichols Ranch Unit would be SMALL. The 

NRC staff concludes the environmental impact on groundwater quality in the production zone 

during operations would be SMALL at the Nichols Ranch Unit. During operations, the estimated 

environmental impact on deep aquifers below the production zone from deep well disposal of 

liquid effluent would be SMALL. 

4.5.2.3.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

As discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.3, the short-term environmental impact from consumptive 

groundwater use during aquifer restoration at the Nichols Ranch Unit could be MODERATE. 

After production and aquifer restoration were completed and groundwater withdrawals ceased, 

the groundwater levels at the Nichols Ranch Unit would recover with time. Thus, the NRC staff 

concludes the estimated long-term environmental impact from consumptive groundwater use 

during the aquifer restoration phase at the Nichols Ranch Unit would be SMALL. The estimated 

impact on shallow groundwater during restoration at the Nichols Ranch Unit would be SMALL. 
 Environmental Impacts

4-41 

During aquifer restoration, the environmental impact on deep aquifers from disposal of liquid 

effluent below the production aquifers would be SMALL. 

4.5.2.3.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

During decommissioning, the environmental impact on groundwater resources in shallow 

aquifers at the Nichols Ranch Unit would be SMALL. As described in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.4, 

before NRC terminates an ISR source material license, a licensee would need to demonstrate 

there would be no long-term impacts to USDWs. NRC approval after wellfield restoration 

completion would determine that the restoration standards had both been met and were 

protective of public health and safety. 

4.6 Ecological Resources Impacts 

Potential environmental impacts to ecological resources at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project site may occur during all phases of the ISR facility lifecycle. Impacts may include 

removal of vegetation from the site (with the associated reduction in wildlife habitat and forage 

productivity and an increased risk of soil erosion and weed invasion); modification of existing 

vegetative communities as a result of site activities; loss of sensitive plants and habitats; and 

the potential spread of invasive species and noxious weed populations. Impacts to wildlife 

could involve loss, alteration, or incremental fragmentation of habitat; displacement of and 

stresses on wildlife; and direct or indirect mortalities. Disturbance of stream channels, 

increases in suspended sediments, fuel spills, and habitat reduction could affect 

aquatic species. 

The potential environmental impacts to ecological resources from construction, operation, 

aquifer restoration, and decommissioning are detailed in the following sections. 

4.6.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

4.6.1.1 Construction Impacts 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.5.1, during construction, terrestrial vegetation may be 

affected through (i) the removal of vegetation from the milling site (and associated reduction in 

wildlife habitat and forage productivity and an increased risk of soil erosion and weed invasion); 

(ii) the modification of existing vegetative communities; (iii) the loss of sensitive plants and 

habitats as a result of clearing and grading; and (iv) the potential spread of invasive species and 

noxious weed populations. As further indicated in the GEIS, the percentage of vegetation 

removed and land disturbed by construction activities (from less than 1 percent and up to 

20 percent of the permit area) would be a SMALL impact compared to the total permit area and 

surrounding plant communities. Additionally, the clearing of herbaceous vegetation in an open 

grassland or shrub steppe community would have a short-term SMALL impact, given the rapid 

colonization of annual and perennial species in the disturbed areas. The clearing of wooded 

areas may have a long-term impact given the pace of natural succession, and such impacts 

could range from SMALL to MODERATE, depending on the amount of the surrounding wooded 

area. Noxious weeds would be expected to be controlled with appropriate spraying techniques 

and therefore impacts would be SMALL. 

Ecological resources could be affected by land disturbance during facility construction. The 

construction phase of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project could potentially impact 

ecological resources from clearing vegetation; constructing the central processing plant and the 
Environmental Impacts 

4-42 

satellite facility; developing the wellfields, including drilling wells; building header houses; 

constructing access roads; and clearing field laydown areas 

4.6.1.1.1 Terrestrial Ecology 

The terrestrial ecology at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is discussed in the following 

sections. Potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife are described in Sections 4.6.1.1.1.1 and 

4.6.1.1.1.2, respectively. 

4.6.1.1.1.1 Vegetation 

Because sagebrush shrublands and mixed grasslands cover 88 percent of the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project, these plant communities would be most affected by the proposed action 

(Uranerz, 2007). A total of 120 ha [300 ac] of land would be disturbed by the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project from construction of the central processing plant, satellite facility, main 

access roads, and wellfields. This disturbance would occur over an anticipated 10 year life of 

the project and would affect approximately 24 to 32 ha [60 to 80 ac] of land at any time. The 

majority of vegetation disturbance would result from wellfield development, and each wellfield 

area would be reclaimed and reseeded with native plants and grasses as soon as practicable 

following project completion in accordance with a reclamation plan that would consider 

WDEQ-LQD regulations and the requirements in the WDEQ mine permit. Some recruitment 

from native populations bordering disturbed areas can also be expected, which would facilitate 

the revegetation process. 

Existing access roads would be used and possibly upgraded to minimize new disturbance of 

sagebrush habitat following BLM and Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) 

recommendations to minimize road width, revegetate road shoulders, and limit vehicle speeds. 

Surface disturbance from the construction activity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

could result in the spread of invasive and noxious weeds. One noxious weed species, Canada 

thistle (Cirsium arvense), is found in the proposed project area. Canada thistle can crowd out 

native species and reduce crop and forage yields if not properly controlled. The applicant has 

committed to mitigation measures, which include washing, on an as needed basis, vehicles that 

come into the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project and herbicide application, as necessary, to 

control the spread of Canada thistle and prevent the introduction of any additional noxious 

weeds (Uranerz, 2007). 

Because the disturbed land area of 120 ha [300 ac] would comprise less than 10 percent of the 

total proposed project site {1364 ha [3,371 ac]}, some vegetation would be affected. However, 

because construction activities would not affect 120 ha [200] contiguous acres and the 

predominant vegetation communities comprise 88 percent of the site, the potential impact would 

not affect a sizeable segment of any species’ population. Furthermore, disturbed areas would 

be revegetated according to a reclamation plan, and the applicant would implement mitigative 

measures to minimize the spread of noxious weeds (Uranerz, 2007). Therefore, the potential 

impact on vegetation during the construction phase would be SMALL. 

4.6.1.1.1.2 Wildlife 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.5.1, during construction, terrestrial wildlife may be affected 

through (i) habitat loss or alteration and incremental habitat fragmentation, (ii) displacement of 

wildlife from project construction, and (iii) direct or indirect mortalities from project construction 
 Environmental Impacts

4-43 

and operation. The GEIS also states that construction impacts to wildlife habitat would be 

minimized with the timely reseeding of disturbed areas following construction. In general, 

wildlife species could disperse from the project area as construction activities approach, 

although smaller, less mobile species may die during clearing and grading. Habitat 

fragmentation, temporary displacement, and direct or indirect mortalities could occur, and thus 

construction impacts could be SMALL to MODERATE. If an applicant or licensee adhered to 

WGFD-recommended standard management practices, the potential impact to wildlife could be 

mitigated as discussed in the following sections. Furthermore, the BLM and WGFD published 

guidelines to mitigate potential impacts to Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

and big game species that the applicant could also implement. Potential impacts to raptor 

species from power distribution lines could be mitigated by following the Avian Power Line 

Interaction Committee (APLIC) guidance and to avoid activities near active nests, especially 

prior to the fledgling of young (APLIC, 2006). 

Big Game

Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are the 

most likely big game species to be impacted by construction of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project. These species would be affected by reduction of available habitat due to fencing of 

primary facilities, disturbance of a portion of winter/yearlong range, loss of forage, and the 

potential for vehicular collision accidents. During baseline wildlife inventories the applicant 

conducted (Uranerz, 2007), pronghorn antelope were mainly observed in mixed grassland and 

sagebrush shrubland vegetative communities, which are the vegetative communities most likely 

to be disturbed during construction. Mule deer were generally observed in mixed sagebrush 

grassland and juniper outcrop vegetative communities. Juniper outcrop would likely continue to 

be available for foraging throughout the life of the proposed project. 

An estimated 120 ha [300 ac] would be disturbed during the approximate 10-year life of the ISR 

facility with 24 to 32 ha [60 to 80 ac] disturbed at a time. Winter/yearlong range carrying 

capacity for big game species could be reduced during the life of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project and for several years thereafter until vegetative growth in restored areas becomes 

productive enough to support big game. However, the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site 

covers an area of 13 km2

 [5 mi2], which is a small fraction (0.003 percent) of the 2,485 km2

[1,544 mi2

] area covered by the Pumpkin Buttes Antelope Herd Unit; therefore, the proposed 

action would have a negligible effect on the pronghorn antelope population either during the 

construction phase or over the 10-year lifespan of the proposed project. Likewise, the Pumpkin 

Buttes Mule Deer Herd Unit also occupies a large area {4,355 km2

 [2,706 mi2]} compared to the 

13 km2

 [5 mi2] area comprising the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project; therefore, the 

proposed action would have a negligible effect on the mule deer population. 

The potential for vehicular collisions with big game species would not significantly increase in 

the area, because of the short distance of the access roads {approximately 0.32 km [0.20 mi] 

in length}. The applicant’s mitigative actions such as the enforcement of speed limits 

{32 to 48 kph [20 to 30 mph]} on the access roads would further reduce big game conflicts. 

Direct impacts to the pronghorn antelope and mule deer would be SMALL because a few 

animals could be affected and the continued existence of the species would not be threatened. 

Big game species could be indirectly affected during construction by noise, (including generator 

noise), lighting, and human presence, which could cause these species to avoid habitat 

adjacent to disturbed areas. However, the construction phase of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project has been projected at 9 months to 1 year in duration and adequate habitat for both 
Environmental Impacts 

4-44 

pronghorn antelope and mule deer exists in the surrounding areas; therefore, displaced 

populations could return to affected areas after the construction phase was complete. 

Furthermore, the applicant committed to implement mitigation measures, such as reduced 

speed limits and the use of fencing over the lifespan of the proposed project, to reduce the risk 

of vehicular collision (Uranerz, 2007). Therefore, the potential impact on big game species 

during the construction phase would be SMALL. 

Upland Game Birds

Greater sage-grouse and gray partridge (Perdix perdix) are the most likely upland game bird 

species to be potentially impacted by construction of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

Sage-grouse is a federal candidate species, a State of Wyoming species of concern, and a 

BLM-designated sensitive species and is discussed in more detail in Section 4.6.1.1.3 of the 

SEIS. Direct impacts to upland birds from proposed project activities would include habitat loss 

and fragmentation from wellfield, road, pipeline, and power line construction; alteration of plant 

and animal communities; increased human activity or noise (including generator noise), that 

could cause the birds to avoid a specific area or reduce breeding efficiency; increased 

motorized access to the public, which could lead to harvesting of individuals (legal and illegal); 

greater risk of mortality from vehicular collisions; and an increase in mortality from raptors if 

power poles or tall buildings are placed in occupied habitat. 

Because only 24 to 32 ha [60 to 80 ac] of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site would be 

disturbed at any given time, some individuals would be displaced and temporary habitat loss 

would occur over the life of the proposed project as development progressed. The applicant 

would minimize the removal and disturbance of vegetation, where possible, through the use of 

existing ranch roads for travel and for the placement of pipelines (Uranerz, 2007). The land 

disturbed by the proposed project would be revegetated following the reclamation process that 

would be described in the applicant’s final decommissioning plan. The plan which would be 

submitted to the NRC for review and approval at least 12 months prior to the planned 

decommissioning of either a project area or wellfield (Uranerz, 2007). The applicant’s 

commitment to implement mitigative measures, such as minimizing noise, vehicular traffic, and 

human proximity, near Greater sage-grouse leks (discussed in detail in Section 4.6.1.1.3 of the 

SEIS) would also benefit gray partridge and other upland bird species and nests within the 

vicinity of the leks. Therefore, the potential impact to upland game birds during the construction 

phase would be SMALL. 

Raptors

The red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), long-eared owl (Asio otus), great 

horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and the rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus) occur on or in the 

vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site based on raptor surveys the applicant 

during conducted 2006 and 2007 as discussed in Section 3.6.1.2.3 of the SEIS. These would 

be the primary raptor species potentially impacted by the proposed action. Raptors are 

particularly sensitive to noise and the presence of human activity, which would be heightened 

during the construction period. Direct impacts to raptor species include displacement, loss of 

forage habitat, increased potential for collisions with structures and vehicles, increased potential 

for nest abandonment and reproductive failure due to increased human disturbance, and the 

potential reduction in prey populations within the proposed project site. 
 Environmental Impacts

4-45 

The applicant would follow an annual raptor monitoring and mitigative plan to minimize 

conflicts between active nest sites and project-related activities (Uranerz, 2007). Mitigative 

measures, such as minimizing noise, vehicular traffic, and human proximity, taken near the 

Greater sage-grouse leks (discussed in detail in Section 4.6.1.1.3 of the SEIS), would also 

benefit raptor species and nests within the vicinity of the leks. Additional seasonal guidelines 

with respect to noise (including generator noise),, vehicular traffic, and human proximity for 

wildlife have been established by the WGFD (WGFD, 2010) and BLM (BLM, 2008). Based on 

the applicant’s implementation of the mitigative measures described previously, the potential 

impact to raptor species during the construction phase would be SMALL. 

Waterfowl and Shorebirds

Only limited, seasonal wetland habitat exists on the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site for 

waterfowl and shorebirds; therefore, construction would not be expected to disrupt any breeding 

or nesting habitat. The wetland areas would not be disturbed by construction and would be 

avoided by project-related vehicles (discussed in more detail in Section 4.5.1 of the SEIS); 

therefore, there would be no impact to the limited existing habitat. The impact to waterfowl and 

shorebirds during the construction phase would be SMALL. 

Nongame/Migratory Birds

Impacts to nongame/migratory birds would be similar to those discussed for upland game birds 

(Section 4.6.1.1.1.2 of the SEIS). Some habitat loss and potential reduction in the carrying 

capacity for nongame/migratory birds within the proposed project area would occur; however, 

because only 10 percent of the proposed project area would be affected by the proposed action 

and at any given time activities would be occurring over less than 1 percent of the area, the 

potential habitat loss would be minor. Direct impacts to nongame/migratory birds could include 

habitat loss and fragmentation, alteration of plant and animal communities, and increased 

human activity or noise that could cause the birds to either avoid a specific area or to reduce 

their breeding efficiency. Nongame/migratory birds would benefit from the implementation of 

mitigation measures near Greater sage-grouse leks (discussed in detail in Section 4.6.1.1.3 of 

the SEIS) because these measure would limit noise, vehicular traffic, and other human 

disturbances near these areas. Therefore, the potential impact to nongame/migratory birds 

during the construction phase would be SMALL. 

Other Mammals

Mammalian predators such as the bobcat (Lynx rufus), badger (Taxidea taxus), coyote 

(Canis transens), and swift fox (Vulpes velox) would experience habitat loss and fragmentation 

and potential range reduction. Displacement of prey species may reduce food availability within 

the area; however, the outbreak of tularemia in the vicinity of the proposed site during the 2006 

and 2007 wildlife inventories may have affected the rodent prey base and caused a shift of 

predators to neighboring areas. Predator species are more sensitive to noise and the presence 

of human activity, which would be heightened during the construction phase, though the species 

documented onsite are nocturnal; therefore, construction that occurred during daylight hours 

would not be expected to noticeably alter these species’ patterns or behavior. Impacts to the 

swift fox (Vulpes velox), specifically, are discussed in more detail in Section 4.6.1.1.3 of 

the SEIS. 

Desert cottontails (Sylvilagus audubonii), white-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus townsendii), ground 

squirrels (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus), black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus), 
Environmental Impacts 

4-46 

and other rodents would experience habitat loss or displacement. Because these species build 

dens, loss of habitat from construction activities on or near dens would have a greater effect on 

these species compared to the mammalian predator species discussed previously. Other 

potential impacts would include the increased potential for vehicular collision. Because small 

mammals are relatively abundant in the proposed project area and generally show a preference 

for disturbed areas, construction impacts would not impact the population size of any 

small-mammal species within the area. Impacts to black-tailed prairie dogs are discussed in 

detail in Section 4.6.1.1.3 of the SEIS. 

Because only a few individuals would be affected and most mammal species would likely travel 

to suitable habitat adjacent to construction areas, the potential impact to other mammals from 

construction of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be SMALL. 

Reptiles and Amphibians

Prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) and bullsnake (Pituophis melanoleucas sayi) were the only 

species observed during the applicant’s 2006 and 2007 wildlife inventories (Uranerz, 2007). 

During the construction phase, the potential impact to reptile and amphibian species would be 

similar to that described for mammal species (Section 4.6.1.1.1.2 of the SEIS), which includes 

loss or fragmentation of habitat, displacement, disturbance from noise and human proximity, 

and increased risk of vehicular collision. Because of the small amount of land {i.e., 24 to 32 ha 

[60 to 80 ac]} that would be disturbed at any given time during the life of the proposed project 

and the limited occurrence of habitat to support amphibians and reptiles within the proposed 

project area, the potential impact on either reptile or amphibian species’ population during the 

construction phase would be SMALL. 

Summary of Wildlife Impacts 

As described previously, crucial habitat and mating areas are neither present within the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area nor would the small disturbed area affect a large 

proportion of a species habitat. Furthermore, the applicant has committed to mitigate the 

potential impact to wildlife through the implementation of reduced speed limits, limited hours for 

construction, and fencing to further reduce the potential impact to wildlife. For these reasons, 

the NRC staff concluded the potential impact to wildlife during the construction phase would 

be SMALL. 

4.6.1.1.2 Aquatic Ecology 

GEIS Section 4.3.5.1 discussed impacts to aquatic species that could be temporarily disturbed 

by in-stream channel activities and concluded the potential impact would be SMALL. Sediment 

loads in streams would be expected to taper off quickly both in time and distance, and long-term 

impacts would be SMALL. Additionally, standard management practices WGFD issues would 

help to limit impacts to aquatic life. 

Because of the limited occurrence of surface water at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, 

the occurrence of aquatic species is also limited. As described in Section 3.6.2 of the SEIS, 

surface water at the proposed project site is ephemeral and seasonal in nature; thus, the site 

does not provide a year round source of surface water sufficient to maintain a population of 

aquatic species. Therefore, the potential impact on aquatic species from implementing the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site would be SMALL. 
 Environmental Impacts

4-47 

4.6.1.1.3 Protected Species 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.5.1, if threatened or endangered species are identified on the 

proposed project site, the potential impact could range from SMALL to LARGE, depending on 

site conditions. Mitigation plans to avoid and reduce impacts to potentially affected species 

would be developed. 

One federal candidate species, the Greater sage-grouse, is known to occur in the vicinity of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. There are eight known leks within a 3.2-km [2-mi] 

radius of the Hank Unit, and one lek within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the Nichols Ranch Unit. No 

suitable habitat for the blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) or Ute ladies’-tresses orchid 

(Spiranthes diluvialis) exists on the proposed site. 

Potential suitable habitat {a black-tailed prairie dog complex totaling 381.1 ha [941.8 ac]} for the 

black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) exists; however, no black-footed ferret population occurs 

near the proposed site. The closest successfully reintroduced population of black-footed ferrets 

is in Shirley Basin, Wyoming, approximately 160 km [100 mi] south of the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project site (FWS, 2008). As discussed in Chapter 3, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) (FWS, 2004) relieved the requirement for black-footed ferret surveys to be 

conducted in black-tailed prairie dog habitat within the State of Wyoming for the purpose of 

identifying previously unknown ferret populations; therefore, no specific surveys were conducted 

during the applicant’s 2006 and 2007 wildlife inventories on the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project site. However, FWS continues to direct Federal agencies to assess whether a proposed 

action could have an adverse effect on the value of prairie dog habitat as a future reintroduction 

site for the black-footed ferret (FWS, 2004). Because of the presence of black-tailed prairie dog 

habitat, NRC conducted informal consultation with FWS to ensure the provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) are upheld regarding the black-footed ferret for the proposed 

project. FWS concluded no adverse impacts to the species would be likely as a result of the 

proposed action (NRC, 2009c). 

Several Wyoming species of concern and BLM-designated sensitive species are known to occur 

on and in the vicinity of the site. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), black-tailed prairie 

dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), and swift fox (Vulpes velox) were recorded during wildlife 

inventories the applicant conducted (Uranerz, 2007) in 2006 and 2007. 

No known bald eagle nests or roosts would be displaced during the construction phase. During 

its raptor nesting survey, the applicant identified the nearest nest 16 km [10 mi] west of the 

proposed site and winter roost 7.2 km [4.5 mi] southwest of the Nichols Ranch Unit. An 

additional winter roost was identified from information in the BLM (2009b). Construction would 

not directly impact any of these nests or roosts. However, individuals nesting nearby or 

migrating through the area could use the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site and 

surrounding lands for foraging during winter months; these lands would be unavailable during 

construction until the disturbed areas were reclaimed and prey species returned. Because only 

24 to 32 ha [60 to 80 ac] of land would be disturbed at any given time over the life of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, this disturbance would not significantly reduce the 

available foraging habitat on the proposed 1,365 ha [3,371 ac] site (Uranerz, 2007). 

Additionally, bald eagles prefer to nest and hunt near large lakes, rivers, and other open bodies 

of water near forested habitat (WGFD, 2005a); therefore, the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project site does not represent optimal or preferred habitat for the species. 
Environmental Impacts 

4-48 

On September 11, 2009, FWS published a rule concerning eagle take permits (74 FR 46836). 

NRC contacted FWS on March 15, 2010, to discuss whether the applicant would be required to 

obtain an eagle permit for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project per this rulemaking. FWS 

concluded NRC does not need to further pursue consultation nor does the applicant need to 

obtain an eagle take permit for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, because no trees with 

nests would be disturbed (NRC, 2010). 

A black-tailed prairie dog complex, consisting of 11 black-tailed prairie dog colonies and totaling 

381.1 ha [941.8 ac], exists on or within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project site. The largest of the colonies is located on the Nichols Ranch Unit. The 

applicant (Uranerz, 2007) stated it “will take steps to minimize disturbance to known small 

mammal habitat such as black-tailed prairie dog towns, but some disturbance will be 

unavoidable.” Because slightly more than one-third {1,443 ha [356.5 ac]} of the prairie dog 

habitat is onsite, construction activities could significantly reduce available habitat to this 

species. Because construction would only disturb small areas of land at a time, the species 

would be displaced and could adapt to small losses of habitat over the course of the 10-year 

project lifespan. This species is also prey to a number of species, including the black-footed 

ferret, swift fox, mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), and 

burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), all of which are federally or state-listed species. The 

mountain plover, a federal species proposed as threatened also relies on black-tailed prairie 

dog burrows for nesting areas. Therefore, destruction of prairie dog habitat could affect these 

species as well and reduce the amount of mountain plover breeding habitat within the Nichols 

Ranch Unit, forcing the mountain plover into poor quality habitat. 

No BLM or Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) records suggest that mountain 

plovers have been observed within the proposed project area. The applicant Environmental 

Report (Uranerz, 2007, Section 3.5.3.3) states that the closest reported BLM sighting of 

mountain plover as of 2006 was approximately 6.4 km [4.0 mi] from the proposed project area. 

Only the Nichols Unit contains prairie dog colonies where project activities are planned. NRC 

staff confirmed that although most of Wyoming is part of the plover’s breeding range including 

the proposed site, no confirmed or unconfirmed observations have been recorded at the 

proposed site (WYNDD, 2010; BLM, 2007). The highest populations of mountain plovers in 

Wyoming are found in the Shirley and Laramie Basins in the southern half of the state. 

Although overall impacts on mountain plovers from oil-and-gas type activities are relatively 

unknown, individual mountain plovers adapt well to human disturbances and could respond to 

proposed project activities by nesting in pipeline corridors, on roads, and in cleared areas 

(Andres, 2009). Conversely, human proximity could be disruptive. Because no mountain 

plovers have been observed at the proposed project site, mountain plovers are known to 

tolerate human disturbances, and because phased construction activities are planned over the 

life of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, the NRC staff concluded the potential impact to 

mountain plovers would be SMALL. 

WGFD (2005b) contains management objectives for grassland and sagebrush shrubland 

habitat, which supports a number of Wyoming species of concern, including the black-tailed 

prairie dog. The objectives focus on working with private landowners and cooperatives with 

FWS, BLM, and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) (WGFD, 2005b). WGFD aims to preserve 

88,600 ha [219,000 ac] of black-tailed prairie dog habitat across the state. However, WGFD 

gives priority management attention to black-tailed prairie dog complexes that cover an area of 

at least 2,000 ha [5,000 ac] because WGFD considers conserving these to be “integral to the 

black-tailed prairie dog’s ecology” and “important habitat for many associated or dependent 

species” (WGFD, 2005b). The black-tailed prairie dog habitat on and in the vicinity of the 
 Environmental Impacts

4-49 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site is not large enough to be considered a management 

priority; however, the applicant should strive to both avoid and to minimize noise, including 

generator noise, and traffic surrounding these areas during construction. 

Eight Greater sage-grouse leks were identified within a 3.2-km [2.0-mi] radius of the Hank Unit 

and one lek within a 3.2-km [2.0-mi] radius of the Nichols Ranch Unit of the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project site, according to data provided by WGFD and reviewed by the Governor’s 

Sage Grouse Implementation Team (Figure 3-8). None of these leks occur within the proposed 

project site; however, construction would result in habitat loss and fragmentation to the species, 

as well as alteration of the plant and animal communities in disturbed areas and increased noise 

and human activity, which could cause sage-grouse to avoid previously used habitat. In its 

license application (Uranerz, 2007), the applicant committed to implementing the following 

mitigative measures during construction to minimize potential impacts to the Greater sagegrouse: 

• Minimize or delay project activity and vehicular traffic within 0.15 km [0.25 mi] of active 

leks between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. during the March 1 to May 15 

strutting period 

• Minimize or delay project activity within 1.6 km [2.0 mi] of active leks between March 15 

and July 15 

• Avoid constructing overhead power lines or high-profile structures within 0.15 km 

[0.25 mi] of leks to minimize raptor predation 

• Minimize removal of vegetation, where possible, and revegetate disturbed areas as soon 

as practicable following project completion 

WGFD (2010) and BLM (2008b, 2010) established seasonal guidelines for Greater sage-grouse 

with respect to noise, vehicular traffic, and human proximity. The previously mentioned 

mitigation measures are consistent with these guidelines. 

Swift fox (Vulpes velox) is also known to occur within the vicinity of the proposed site 

(Uranerz, 2007). No family groups or dens have been identified on the proposed site; however, 

construction could decrease the range of individuals and shift prey availability. Heightened 

noise and the presence of human activity during the construction phase could cause the species 

to avoid habitat located adjacent to the proposed site. However, because the swift fox is 

nocturnal and the species would likely avoid habitat near construction areas, the construction 

phase of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would not noticeably alter these species’ 

patterns or behavior. WGFD considers the swift fox habitat vulnerable, but not in a state of 

ongoing significant loss (WGFD, 2005c); therefore, the small amount of land disturbed at one 

time over the life of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is unlikely to affect the local 

population of the swift fox. 

Additional BLM-designated sensitive species and Wyoming species of concern may occur on or 

in the vicinity of the site but were not documented during the 2006 and 2007 wildlife inventories 

the applicant conducted (Uranerz, 2007). Some BLM-designated sensitive species and 

Wyoming species of concern are likely to be impacted by habitat loss or displacement. 

Additionally, behavioral changes may occur due to noise, lighting, and human proximity. 

Impacts to protected species would be minimized because only small areas of land would be 

disturbed at any given time during the life of the proposed project. Because potential black-
Environmental Impacts 

4-50 

footed ferret habitat exists on and in the vicinity of the proposed site, NRC conducted informal 

consultation with FWS on November 6, 2009 (NRC, 2009c), to ensure the provisions of the ESA 

are upheld for this species. During the teleconference, NRC updated FWS on the status of the 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project environmental review and described the black-tailed prairie dog 

habitat on and in the vicinity of the proposed site. FWS indicated that because the habitat for 

the black-tailed prairie dog complex on the proposed project covers less than 400 ha [1,000 ac] 

[the minimum required for block-clearing the State of Wyoming (FWS, 2004)], the black-tailed 

prairie dog habitat on the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site did not need to be surveyed. 

FWS also concluded NRC did not need to initiate formal consultation or submit a biological 

assessment (BA) for the black-footed ferret for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

Because only 24 to 32 ha [60 to 80 ac] of the site would be disturbed at any given time over the 

life of the proposed project, no sensitive vegetation species occur on the proposed site, the 

proposed construction activities would not noticeably alter wildlife behaviors because of the 

limited disturbed area, and the applicant committed to implement sage-grouse guidelines the 

NRC staff concludes that the impact to protected species from construction activities would be 

SMALL. 

4.6.1.2 Operations Impacts 

As discussed in Section 4.3.5.2 of the GEIS, wildlife habitats could be altered by operations 

(fencing, traffic, noise), and individual takes could occur due to conflicts between species habitat 

and operations. Access to crucial wintering habitat and water could be limited by fencing. 

However, WGFD specifies fencing construction techniques to minimize impediments to big 

game movement. 

As further indicated in GEIS Section 4.3.5.2, temporary contamination or alteration of soils could 

occur from operational leaks and spills and possibly from transportation or land application of 

treated wastewater. However, the detection and response to leaks and spills (e.g., soil cleanup) 

and eventual survey and decommissioning of all potentially impacted soil would limit the 

magnitude of impacts to terrestrial ecology. The implementation of spill detection and response 

plans would also mitigate impacts to aquatic species from spills around well heads and from 

pipeline leaks. Mitigation measures such as perimeter fencing, netting, leak detection and spill 

response plans, and periodic wildlife surveys would limit the potential impact, and the GEIS 

concluded the impact to wildlife would be SMALL. 

The potential impact to ecological resources during the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

operations would be consistent with the findings described in the GEIS because the same 

activities described in the GEIS would also be implemented at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project. There would be less noise and less traffic during the operations phase compared to the 

construction phase; therefore, the potential to disrupt wildlife populations would be reduced 

along with a decrease in the probability of vehicular collisions. Only minor impacts to vegetative 

communities would occur because most of the clearing for the ISR facility would have occurred 

during the construction phase. Wildlife use of areas adjacent to ISR operations would be 

expected to increase as animals became habituated to site activities. Invasive and noxious 

weeds could potentially colonize disturbed areas, but would be monitored by the applicant. 

Disturbed areas would be reseeded with a WDEQ- and BLM-approved seed mixture to prevent 

the establishment of competitive weeds and restore habitat to native species. If noxious weeds 

continued to be a concern, other alternatives, such as herbicide application, could be 

considered. 
 Environmental Impacts

4-51 

The applicant’s continued adherence to WGFD (2010) and BLM (2010) seasonal guidelines for 

noise, vehicular traffic, and human proximity for active sage-grouse leks would reduce the 

potential impact to these species. Potential conflicts between active raptor nest sites and 

project-related activities would be mitigated by the applicant’s annual raptor monitoring and 

mitigation plans. 

Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impact on ecological resources (including 

vegetation, big game, upland game birds, raptors, waterfowl and shorebirds, 

nongame/migratory birds, other mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and protected species) 

during the operations phase would be SMALL and less than that experienced during the 

construction phase. Because of the limited occurrence and ephemeral nature of surface water 

located on the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site, there would be no impact to aquatic 

species. 

4.6.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.5.3 describes the potential impacts to ecological resources during the aquifer 

restoration phase. These impacts could include habitat disruption, but because existing 

(in-place) infrastructure would be used during aquifer restoration, little additional ground 

disturbance during aquifer restoration would occur. 

The GEIS also indicated soil and surface water could be contaminated by leaks and spills. 

However, a licensee’s use of detection and response techniques and eventual survey and 

decommissioning of potentially impacted soils and sediments would limit the magnitude of 

impacts to terrestrial and aquatic ecology. The use of mitigation measures such as perimeter 

fencing, netting, and leak detection and spill response plans would reduce the potential impact 

to SMALL. There would be no expected impacts to threatened and endangered species beyond 

those that occurred during the construction phase because the existing infrastructure from the 

operations phase described in Section 4.6.1.2 would continue to be used. 

Impacts to ecological resources during the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project aquifer 

restoration phase would be consistent with the impact conclusions described in the GEIS 

because the site-specific actions fell within the bounds considered in the GEIS. Because the 

existing infrastructure from the operations phase would continue to be used during aquifer 

restoration and the applicant would continue to apply the mitigation measures described 

previously, the potential impact to ecological resources would be similar to that described for the 

operations phase. The potential Impact to ecological resources (including vegetation, big game, 

upland game birds, raptors, waterfowl and shorebirds, nongame/migratory birds, other 

mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and protected species) during aquifer restoration would be 

SMALL. No impact to aquatic species would be expected because of the limited occurrence 

and ephemeral nature of surface water located on the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. 

4.6.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

As described in GEIS Section 4.3.5.4, during decommissioning and reclamation, there would be 

temporary land disturbances to land as soils was excavated, buried piping was recovered and 

removed, and structures were demolished and removed. However, revegetation and 

recontouring would restore habitat previously altered by construction and operations. Wildlife 

would be temporarily displaced, but could be expected to return after decommissioning and 

reclamation were completed and vegetation and habitat had been reestablished. 

Decommissioning and reclamation activities could also result in temporary increases in 
Environmental Impacts 

4-52 

sediment load in local streams from surface water runoff, but aquatic species would recover 

quickly as the sediment load decreased. For these reasons, the GEIS concluded the potential 

impact from decommissioning would be expected to be SMALL. 

As noted in the GEIS, potential impacts to threatened and endangered species could result from 

individual takes from conflicts with decommissioning activities (equipment, traffic). Temporary 

impacts from land disturbance could occur as structures were demolished and removed and 

ground surface recontoured. A threatened or endangered species inventory would be 

developed during the site-specific environmental review of the detailed decommissioning plan to 

identify unique or special habitats, and ESA consultations with the FWS would reduce the 

potential impact to threatened and endangered species. At the completion of decommissioning, 

revegetation, and recontouring, habitat would be reestablished and therefore, the impacts would 

be limited. The GEIS concluded the potential impact to threatened and endangered species 

could range from SMALL to LARGE, depending on site conditions. The activities resulting in 

impacts to ecological resources during the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

decommissioning activities are consistent with the activities described in the GEIS. 

Revegetation of native grasses and plants would occur during the decommissioning stage. 

Sagebrush shrubland, which is the dominant vegetative community on the proposed site, is 

difficult to successfully reestablish, though refined techniques in seeding sagebrush have shown 

significant improvements in successful establishment of the species (Lambert, 2005). These 

improved methods include the use of cased-hole punched seeding with polypropylene casings 

as described by Booth (2005). For areas previously dominated by sagebrush, trained biologists 

could reestablish sagebrush using such techniques which could increase the success rate of 

sagebrush habitat restoration. As required for decommissioning, the applicant would submit an 

updated reclamation plan for review and approval by NRC and the appropriate state agencies. 

Potential impacts to wildlife would be similar to those discussed for the construction phase in 

Section 4.6.1.1. Populations of small mammals and birds that reinhabited the project site after 

cessation of the ISR construction phase could be displaced during the decommissioning phase. 

Noise, lighting, and human proximity could cause wildlife avoidance of the proposed project site 

and adjacent habitat. 

Decommissioning would involve abandoning of the central processing plant at the Nichols 

Ranch Unit and the satellite facility at the Hank Unit, the wellfields, and surface equipment 

including injection and production feed lines and buried wellfield piping. Stockpiled topsoil 

would be used to regrade the land to preconstruction contours. The applicant would conduct 

revegetation practices in accordance with WDEQ-LQD regulations and in accordance with the 

WDEQ mine permit (Uranerz, 2007). Final revegetation of the affected areas would use a final 

reclamation seed mix developed through discussions with the landowner and approved by the 

WDEQ-LQD (Uranerz, 2007). 

The potential impacts to ecological resources (including vegetation, big game, upland game 

birds, raptors, waterfowl and shorebirds, nongame/migratory birds, other mammals, reptiles and 

amphibians, and protected species) during decommissioning would be SMALL and comparable 

to that described for the construction phase. Because of the limited occurrence and ephemeral 

nature of surface water on the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site, there would be no 

impact to aquatic species. 
 Environmental Impacts

4-53 

4.6.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, there would be no ISR facility construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, or decommissioning associated with the proposed project; therefore, there would be 

no land disturbance from the proposed action that could impact either vegetation or wildlife 

populations. The area would continue to sustain vegetation communities and wildlife habitat 

typical of the region, as characterized in Section 3.6 of the SEIS. Land would continue to be 

used for pastureland and extraction activities. CBM and oil and gas operations in the proposed 

project area would continue as well as grazing of existing vegetation, particularly in grassland 

areas. Wildlife within the proposed project area could be affected by ongoing grazing if it 

destroyed wildlife habitat or if species were displaced by cattle populations from a lack of forage 

and cover; however, there would be no impact to ecological resources from the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project under Alternative 2. 

4.6.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) 

Under Alternative 3, the potential impact on ecological resources during all ISR phases of the 

project would be similar in nature to those described for the proposed action, but only about 

60 ha [150 ac] on the Nichols Ranch Unit would be affected because the Hank Unit would not 

be developed. The potential impact on raptor species would be less than under the proposed 

action because 9 of the 10 active raptor nests that have been identified on the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project are located on the Hank Unit. The majority of the black-tailed prairie dog 

colonies are located on the Nichols Ranch Unit, and these could be affected as described for 

the proposed action in Section 4.6.1. No other unique habitats, protected species, or ecological 

resources exist on the Hank Unit. Based on the information above, the NRC staff concludes 

that the l impact on ecological resources for construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning under Alternative 3 would be SMALL. Because no aquatic species exist in 

the project area, there would be no impact. 

4.7 Air Quality Impacts 

Potential environmental impacts to air quality from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

could occur during all phases of the ISR facility lifecycle. Nonradiological air emission impacts 

primarily involve fugitive road dust from vehicles used throughout the facility lifecycle and 

combustion engine emissions from diesel equipment from construction, operation, and 

decommissioning activities. Other air emissions may be associated with the radon releases 

from well system relief valves and resin transfer or elution. Potential radiological air impacts 

including radon release impacts are addressed in the Public and Occupational Health and 

Safety Impacts analyses in Section 4.13 of the SEIS. 

The NRC staff’s review of potential air quality impacts included review and consideration of local 

meteorological data the applicant provided based on existing sampling stations in the region of 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. During the review, the NRC staff concluded local 

topography at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project warrants onsite meteorological measurements as 

documented in SER Section 2.2.3.2. To address this concern, the NRC staff has added a 

license condition requiring the applicant to collect onsite meteorological data for at least 1 year 

prior to operating as described in Section 2.2.4 of the SER. The condition requires the applicant 

to submit the data for NRC review and approval. The following review of air quality impacts 

assumes the applicant’s regional meteorological data are representative of site meteorological 

conditions. When the applicant submits its onsite data for NRC review, the NRC staff will 
Environmental Impacts 

4-54 

evaluate whether the conclusions of the following analysis would change based on the 

additional information and issue a supplement if changes are warranted. 

Factors the NRC staff used in determining the significance of the potential air quality impacts 

are described in GEIS Section 1.7.2 and include (i) whether the air quality for the site region of 

influence (ROI) is in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

(ii) whether the facility can be classified as a major source under the New Source Review or 

operating (Title V of the Clean Air Act) permit programs. An additional concern would be the 

presence of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I areas within the region that 

could be impacted by emissions from the proposed action. As discussed in the following 

paragraphs, the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would not be classified as a major source 

under New Source Review or Title V of the Clean Air Act, would be located within the attainment 

area for all NAAQS primary pollutants, and is not likely to affect the closest PSD Class I area. 

Air emissions from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be expected to comply with 

the conditions of the WDEQ-approved construction air permit (WDEQ, 2009) and the required 

WDEQ minor source operating permit. In addition, all of the nonradiological emissions estimate 

the NRC staff evaluated (Section 2.2.1.6.1 of the SEIS), with the exception of fugitive road dust, 

support the conclusion that the proposed action would not be comparable to, nor considered, a 

major source of emissions. The NRC staff considers such emissions (i.e., well below the major 

source thresholds) in an area with meteorology that is often favorable for dispersion (Section 

3.7.1.2 of the SEIS) would not impact attainment with ambient air quality standards in the region 

surrounding the proposed site areas nor in the nearest Class I or Class II areas closest to the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project areas. The NRC staff expects that emissions at levels well 

below the major source thresholds would not destabilize local air quality, although localized 

short-term and intermittent visible air emissions would be possible in the surrounding area (i.e., 

when vehicles travel on unpaved roads). While the applicant estimates of fugitive road dust 

exceeded 90.7 t/yr [100 T/yr], the estimate assumed no dust controls would be applied. The 

applicant proposed road dust controls, which are also required by the WDEQ-approved 

construction air quality permit (WDEQ, 2009). The application of dust controls is expected to 

reduce the fugitive dust emissions to levels that would not destabilize the air quality of the local 

area nor change the current attainment status of the air quality surrounding the proposed site 

areas. 

As described in Section 3.7.2 of the SEIS, the air quality of Johnson and Campbell Counties, 

where the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site is located, is classified as being in 

attainment for all the NAAQS primary pollutants. The nearest PSD Class I area, Wind Cave 

National Park, is located about 185 km [115 mi] east of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

site. Cloud Peak Wilderness Area, the closest Class II area to the proposed action, is located 

about 109 km [68 mi] northwest of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. Both areas are 

classified as being in attainment. The attainment status of the air quality surrounding the 

proposed site provides a measure of current air quality conditions and affects considerations for 

allowing new sources of emissions. 

The proposed ISR facility is not considered a major source of emissions based on a condition in 

the WDEQ-approved construction air permit (WDEQ, 2009) that requires the applicant to obtain 

a minor source operation permit pursuant to Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations 

Chapter 6, Section 2(a)(iii). In addition, NRC staff calculated mobile nonroad emissions from 

construction equipment (Section 2.2.1.6.1 of the SEIS) that are not addressed by WDEQ air 

permitting, and these emissions were also found to be well below major source threshold levels. 

The low magnitude of emissions directly affects the potential for air quality impacts, and 
 Environmental Impacts

4-55 

therefore the level of detailed NRC review is considered necessary to adequately evaluate 

potential impacts. 

All phases of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would also result in greenhouse gas 

emissions, principally carbon dioxide (CO2); however, the majority of these emissions would be 

from the use of diesel-powered equipment (including well drilling rigs) during the construction 

and decommissioning phases (Section 2.2.1.6.1 and Appendix D). Based on methods 

described in detail in Appendix D, the NRC staff calculated a maximum annual CO2 emission 

from this diesel-powered equipment of 2,810 t/yr [3,100 T/yr] and cumulative CO2 emissions 

(total proposed facility lifecycle emissions) as 5,712 t/yr [6,300 T/yr]. For comparison, these 

calculated emissions from the proposed action are a small fraction of the net total of 

greenhouse gases produced annually in Wyoming at 20 million t [22 million T] (Center for 

Climate Strategies, 2007) and for the United States at 6 billion t [6 billion T] (EPA, 2009). Based 

on its assessment of the relatively small carbon footprint of the proposed facility as compared to 

the annual CO2 emissions in both the State of Wyoming and the United States, the NRC staff 

concluded that the atmospheric impacts of greenhouse gases from the proposed facility lifecycle 

would not be noticeable and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

Air quality during construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning phases of 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is described in the following sections. See Chapter 5 

for a discussion of climate change at the proposed site. 

4.7.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

4.7.1.1 Construction Impacts 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.6.1, fugitive dust and combustion (vehicle and diesel 

equipment) emissions during land-disturbing activities from construction would be short term 

and reduced through BMPs (e.g., wetting of roads and cleared land areas to reduce dust 

emissions). The GEIS also estimated fugitive dust emissions during ISR construction would 

likely be well below the NAAQS for particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10). Additionally, the GEIS 

concluded particulate, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions from ISR 

facilities would be a small percentage (1 to 9 percent) of the PSD Class II allowable increments. 

For NAAQS attainment areas, the GEIS concluded nonradiological air quality impacts would be 

SMALL. 

The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would meet the conditions pertaining to air quality 

specified in the GEIS as discussed in Section 4.7, and therefore, NRC staff concludes that the 

impacts would be SMALL. The applicant proposes to implement BMPs to limit air emissions 

during the construction phase. These BMPs include ensuring the construction air quality control 

equipment would be maintained to mitigate fugitive dust emissions; treating unpaved roads and 

disturbed land to suppress dust generation; and scheduling construction activities to limit the 

amount and duration of exposed earth (Uranerz, 2007). The applicant also proposes to limit 

wind erosion by reclaiming disturbed soil and using a vegetative cover on soil stockpiles 

(Uranerz, 2007). Despite the use of controls, short-term and intermittent visible air emissions 

are possible to the local area surrounding the proposed project site when vehicles travel on 

unpaved roads. Therefore, short-term and intermittent MODERATE impacts from fugitive road 

dust are possible; however, the average air quality is expected to remain in compliance with 

ambient standards and the NRC staff concludes the overall impacts would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts 

4-56 

NRC staff calculated emissions from diesel combustion engines in drilling rigs and construction 

equipment used during the construction phase, as discussed in Section 2.2.1.6.1.1 and 

Appendix D of the SEIS. These calculations addressed emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), 

carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter (PM10), formaldehyde, volatile 

organic compounds (VOC), and carbon dioxide (CO2). The results show that NOx and CO are 

the highest emissions of the criteria pollutants evaluated. Estimated emissions of these 

pollutants are well below major source threshold levels. The calculated annual pollutant 

emissions for NOx are 31 t/yr [34 T/yr], assuming four of the maximum of eight proposed deep 

disposal wells were drilled in the same year as the first wellfield. If the NRC staff assumed all 

eight deep disposal wells were drilled in the same year as the first wellfield, the annual NOx

emission result increases to 53 t/yr [58 T/yr]. This higher level of calculated emissions is still 

less than the 91 t/yr [100 T/yr] major source threshold and is considered by the NRC staff to 

represent a single-year peak because all proposed deep wells would be completed in that year. 

The diesel combustion engine emissions the NRC staff calculated for the proposed action are 

below those reported in the GEIS from a prior NRC Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

(NRC, 1997) for a proposed ISR facility in Crownpoint, New Mexico, and therefore the potential 

impacts to air quality from the proposed action would be less than those reported in the GEIS. 

The NRC staff considered the emissions and associated potential air impacts from constructing 

the Crownpoint facility to bound the emissions from constructing the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project based on the following considerations. First, the Crownpoint facility proposed a 

higher maximum annual production rate than the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The ore 

deposits at the Crownpoint facility are at a much greater depth and therefore would require 

longer drilling times per well during wellfield construction. For example, the Crownpoint ISR 

facility has ore at approximately 561 m [1,840 ft] bgs, whereas the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project has ore occurring at depths that range from 91.5 to 183 m [300 to 600 ft] bgs 

(Uranerz, 2007). 

Second, the meteorology used at the Crownpoint site to estimate average annual air 

concentrations of emitted pollutants is also more stable than at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project site, based on the NRC staff review of available joint frequency data for each site 

(NRC, 1997; Uranerz, 2007), which indicated winds that fall within stability classes E and F 

occur about two times more frequently at the Crownpoint site than in the region surrounding the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The annual average air concentrations for the 

Crownpoint site emissions are also based on a mixing height of 1 km [1.6 mi] (NRC, 1997), 

which is within the range of mixing heights reported for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

facility of 659 m [718 yd] (morning average) and 4,074 m [4,440 yd] (afternoon average) 

(Uranerz, 2007). Based on the information reviewed, the NRC staff expects the dispersion 

conditions at the Crownpoint site would be less favorable than at the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project. Therefore, based on the combination of dispersion conditions and higher 

emissions estimates for the Crownpoint facility, the NRC staff concluded that the calculated 

annual average air concentration values for the emissions reported in the GEIS are 

conservative and therefore applicable to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. As a result, 

the GEIS conclusions that particulate, SO2, and NO2 emissions from ISR facilities would be well 

below the major source threshold for NAAQS attainment areas and account for a small 

percentage (1 to 9 percent) of the PSD Class II allowable increments would also be applicable 

to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

The NRC staff considered the calculated magnitude of construction emissions in an area that 

meets current air quality standards was not sufficient to justify conducting additional detailed 

quantitative air quality modeling analysis of potential consequences. Considering (i) the 
 Environmental Impacts

4-57 

aforementioned analyses provided in the GEIS, (ii) the minor classification of emissions the 

WDEQ construction air quality permit indicated (WDEQ, 2009), and (iii) the conditions of the site 

area and region, the NRC staff concludes that such emissions (i.e., well below the major source 

thresholds) in an area with meteorology favorable for dispersion would not impact attainment 

with ambient air quality standards in the region surrounding the proposed site areas. The Class 

I area, Wind Cave National Park, is located about 185 km [115 mi] east of the Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project site. While the prevailing wind directions of west-southwest and west 

(Section 3.7.1.2 of the SEIS) could transport pollutants in the direction of the Class I area, the 

long distance is expected to be sufficient to adequately disperse the proposed emissions. 

Cloud Peak Wilderness Area is the closest Class II area to the proposed action, located about 

109 km [68 mi] northwest of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. In addition to the low 

magnitude of emissions and distance, the prevailing winds would carry emissions to the 

northeast and east, away from this Class II area. 

The NRC staff concludes that the site-specific conditions at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project are comparable to those described in the GEIS for air quality and incorporates by 

reference the GEIS conclusions that the impacts to air quality during construction would be 

SMALL. The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its 

independent review that would change the expected environmental impact beyond that 

discussed in the GEIS. 

4.7.1.2 Operations Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.6.2 states that operating ISR facilities are not major point source emitters and 

are not expected to be classified as major sources under the operation (Title V) permitting 

program. Additionally, although excess vapor pressure in pipelines could be vented throughout 

the system, such emissions would be rapidly dispersed into the atmosphere and so potential 

impacts would be SMALL, due in part to the expected low volume of effluent produced. The 

GEIS also states that other potential nonradiological emissions during operations include 

fugitive road dust and diesel combustion engine emissions from equipment, transport trucks, 

and other vehicles. For NAAQS attainment areas, the GEIS concludes nonradiological air 

quality impacts would be SMALL. 

During operations of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, the NRC staff concludes 

nonradiological impacts to air quality would be less than the impacts from construction because 

the use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be reduced and therefore criteria 

pollutant levels would remain below the NAAQS; impacts to air quality during operation would 

be SMALL. The mitigation measures described under Section 4.7.1.1 of the SEIS would also 

pertain to the operations phase and would continue to limit potential impacts. 

The NRC staff concludes that the site-specific conditions at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project are comparable to those described in the GEIS for air quality and incorporates by 

reference the GEIS conclusions that the impacts to air quality during operations would be 

SMALL. The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its 

independent review that would change the expected environmental impact beyond that 

described in the GEIS. 

4.7.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.6.3, because the same infrastructure is used during aquifer 

restoration as during operations, air quality impacts from aquifer restoration would be similar to, 
Environmental Impacts 

4-58 

or less than, those during operations. Additionally, fugitive dust and combustion-engine 

emissions from vehicles and equipment during aquifer restoration would be similar to, or less 

than, the dust- and combustion-engine emissions during operations. For NAAQS attainment 

areas, nonradiological air quality impacts would be SMALL. 

This phase of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would use existing infrastructure and 

equipment similar to that employed during the operations phase but would require less vehicular 

traffic since fewer workers would be employed (Uranerz, 2007). The applicant’s proposed 

BMPs described under Section 4.7.1.1 would also pertain to the aquifer restoration phase and 

would continue to limit impacts. Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts would be 

smaller than during the operation phase. The NRC staff concludes that the site-specific 

conditions at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are comparable to those described in the 

GEIS for air quality and incorporates by reference the GEIS conclusions that the impacts to air 

quality during aquifer restoration would be SMALL. The NRC staff has not identified any new 

and significant information during its independent review that would change the expected 

environmental impact beyond that discussed in the GEIS. 

4.7.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.6.4 noted that fugitive dust, vehicle emissions, and diesel emissions during 

land-disturbing activities from decommissioning would come from many of the same sources 

used during construction. In the short-term, emission levels would increase given the activity 

(demolishing of process and administrative buildings, excavating and removing contaminated 

soils, grading of disturbed areas). However, such emissions would decrease as 

decommissioning proceeds, and therefore, overall, impacts would be similar to, or less than, 

those associated with construction, would be short term, and would be reduced through BMPs 

(e.g., dust suppression). Based on the NRC staff calculated emission estimates discussed in 

Section 2.2.1.6.1.1 and Appendix D of this SEIS, the highest emissions from diesel-powered 

construction equipment during the decommissioning phase for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project would be less than diesel emissions generated during the construction phase. As 

discussed in Section 4.7.1.1 of the SEIS, considering the minor source classification of 

emissions the WDEQ construction air quality permit indicated (WDEQ, 2009) and the conditions 

of the proposed site area and region, the NRC staff conclude that such emissions (i.e., well 

below the major source thresholds) in an area with meteorology that is often favorable for 

dispersion would not impact attainment with ambient air quality standards in the region 

surrounding the proposed site areas. Therefore, for NAAQS attainment areas, NRC staff 

conclude that nonradiological air quality impacts of the decommissioning phase would be 

SMALL. The BMPs described under Section 4.7.1.1 of the SEIS would also be implemented 

during the decommissioning phase. 

The NRC staff concludes that the site-specific conditions at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project are comparable to those described in the GEIS for air quality and incorporates by 

reference the GEIS conclusions that the impacts to air quality during decommissioning would be 

SMALL. The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its 

independent review that would change the expected environmental impact beyond that 

disclosed in the GEIS. 

4.7.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, in the next few years, there would be no change in air quality at 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project or at any surrounding receptors. While oil and gas 
 Environmental Impacts

4-59 

extraction activities would continue and perhaps expand in the future (along with CBM 

operations), these activities have been shown to have a small impact—direct, indirect, or 

cumulative—on air quality, regardless of geographic scale (BLM, 2003). The generation of 

fugitive dust is currently limited by the fact that existing roads are shared and maintained by the 

natural resource extraction and ranching operations that occur in the area. Roads are also 

maintained in good repair by these entities and restricted from unpermitted uses. 

This area currently meets the NAAQS for attainment status (Section 3.7.2), and because there 

are no significant air pollution sources at the proposed site, it is expected that this area would 

continue to meet the NAAQS. Current projections of air quality for the broader Powder River 

Basin area and the surrounding region over the next decade are discussed in Section 5.7 of 

this SEIS. 

4.7.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) 

4.7.3.1 Construction Impacts 

For the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3), the NRC staff concludes the 

nonradiological impacts to air quality would be the same as those evaluated for the proposed 

action; however, because the number of wellfields the applicant constructed would be halved 

under this alternative, the NRC staff estimates both annual and facility lifecyle air emissions 

would be reduced compared to the proposed action. Because the applicant would not construct 

the Hank Unit, fugitive dust and diesel emissions from well drilling and construction equipment 

from the Hank Unit would not occur. Considering the applicant’s proposed schedule 

(Uranerz, 2007), the degree of overlap in construction activities for the proposed action would 

occur for only a quarter of a year; therefore, NRC staff estimates the reduction in annual diesel 

emission estimates for NOx, for example, from not constructing the Hank Unit wellfields would 

be only 1.8 t/yr [2 T/yr] relative to the proposed action, resulting in a total of 29 t/yr [32 T/yr] NOx

(for constructing one wellfield and four deep disposal wells) and 51 t/yr [56 T/yr] NOx (for 

constructing one wellfield and eight deep disposal wells) under this alternative. Furthermore, 

the NRC staff estimates overall traffic counts and therefore the magnitude of fugitive road dust 

generation along the main T-Chair Livestock Company ranch road would likely decrease relative 

to the proposed action because fewer construction supply shipments would be required. The 

NRC staff concludes both of these outcomes would reduce the potential for impacts at nearby 

and downwind (easterly) receptors. 

Therefore, because (i) the NRC staff concluded that air quality impacts during the construction 

phase of the proposed action were SMALL (Section 4.7.2.1), (ii) the NRC staff’s review found 

the magnitude of construction activities under the alternative would be less than the proposed 

action, and (iii) the NRC staff assumed the applicant would implement BMPs described for the 

proposed action for Alternative 3 that limit air emissions from proposed construction activities, 

the NRC staff concludes the Nichols Ranch ISR Project under Alternative 3 would be SMALL. 

Based on this analysis, relative to the proposed action, the NRC staff concludes the potential 

impacts to air quality during the construction phase of Alternative 3 would be less than the 

impacts evaluated for the proposed action but would still be characterized as SMALL. 

4.7.3.2 Operations Impacts 

For the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3), the NRC staff concludes the 

nonradiological impacts to air quality during the operations phase would be less than the 

impacts from construction because the use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be 
Environmental Impacts 

4-60 

reduced and therefore criteria pollutant levels would remain below the NAAQS. Impacts to air 

quality during operation would be SMALL. The applicant’s BMPs described under 

Section 4.7.1.1 of the SEIS would also pertain to the operations phase under Alternative 3 and 

would continue to limit potential impacts to air quality during the operation phase. Because the 

applicant would not operate the Hank Unit under this alternative, the NRC staff estimates the 

applicant’s stationary emissions (e.g., generators and compressors) and proposed traffic 

volumes (Section 2.2.1.7) would be reduced during years of overlapping wellfield operations 

relative to the proposed action (Figure 2-1). Therefore, during the overlapping operational 

periods under this alternative where only two wellfields operations overlap, in any year, the NRC 

staff estimates the incoming shipments of process chemicals would be reduced by about half, 

onsite shipments of ion-exchange resins between the Hank Unit satellite facility and the Nichols 

Ranch Unit central processing plant would not occur, and outgoing shipments of yellowcake and 

waste materials would also be reduced by about half. As a result of these expected reductions 

in traffic, the NRC staff estimates the fugitive road dust from these activities would be reduced 

by approximately half of the applicant’s estimates for the proposed action. For those time 

periods where wellfield production operations do not overlap the NRC staff expects the 

emissions would be similar to those previously discussed for the proposed action. Based on 

this analysis, the NRC staff concludes the potential impacts to air quality during the operations 

phase of Alternative 3 would be less than the impacts evaluated for the proposed action and 

would still be characterized as SMALL. 

4.7.3.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

For the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3), during the aquifer restoration phase of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project the NRC staff expects the applicant would use existing 

infrastructure and equipment similar to those employed during the operation phase. However, 

aquifer restoration would require less vehicular traffic and would take less time to complete than 

under the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes impacts would be smaller 

than during the operation phase and thus the impacts would be SMALL. The NRC staff 

considered that the same activities would occur under Alternative 3, but would be limited to the 

Nichols Ranch Unit. Therefore, the magnitude of impacts would be reduced approximately 

75 percent with no aquifer restoration at the Hank Unit wellfields (refer to SEIS Figure 2-1). For 

years where wellfield restoration activities of the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units overlap, the 

reduction in activities would be approximately half that of the proposed action, and NRC staff 

expects annual air emissions associated with these activities to be proportionately reduced. 

The BMPs proposed by the applicant and described in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1 would also apply to 

the aquifer restoration phase and would continue to limit the impact. Except for passing traffic 

along the gravel T-Chair Livestock Company ranch road, emission sources would not be 

present in the vicinity of the Hank Unit. Based on this analysis, the NRC staff concludes the 

impacts to air quality during the aquifer restoration phase under Alternative 3 would be less than 

the impacts evaluated for the proposed action and would be characterized as SMALL. 

4.7.3.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

For the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3), the NRC staff concludes the 

decommissioning phase of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would generate the same 

nonradiological air impacts as those stated for the proposed action; however, the magnitude of 

emissions would be lower because the applicant would need to decommission and reclaim half 

the number of wellfields. The NRC staff estimates this would reduce the operating hours for 

construction equipment and proportionally decrease in emissions from that equipment. Based 

on the NRC staff calculated emission estimates discussed in Section 2.2.1.6.1.1 and Appendix 
 Environmental Impacts

4-61 

D of this SEIS, the highest annual emissions from diesel-powered construction equipment 

during the decommissioning phase would be less than the comparable emissions during the 

construction phase. Because the applicant would not have constructed the Hank Unit, the NRC 

staff concludes fugitive dust and diesel emissions from decommissioning and reclamation 

equipment at the Hank Unit would not occur. Because the degree of overlap in 

decommissioning activities between the two units for the proposed action occurs for only onehalf of a year (Figure 2-1), the NRC staff estimates the reduction in annual diesel emissions 

estimates for NOx, for example, from not decommissioning the Hank Unit wellfields under the 

alternative would reduce the emissions for the proposed action provided in Table D3–7 of 

18.1 t/yr [20 T/yr] by 3.6 to 14.5 t/yr [4 to 16 T/yr] NOx (for decommissioning one wellfield and 

facilities in one year). Because the planned decommissioning of the Nichols Ranch Unit 

wellfields do not overlap in the schedule with the Hank Unit activities (Figure 2-1), the full set of 

estimated annual emissions in Appendix D that would be applicable to Alternative 3 

(i.e., decommissioning one wellfield and facilities in 1 year) is shown in Table D3–6. The NRC 

staff expects the annual fugitive dust emissions during decommissioning would be similarly 

reduced and would occur for a shorter 3-year decommissioning phase under the alternative 

relative to the 5-year decommissioning phase planned for the proposed action (Figure 2-1). 

Therefore, because (i) the NRC staff concluded that air quality impacts during the 

decommissioning phase of the proposed action would be SMALL (Section 4.7.2.1), (ii) the NRC 

staff’s review found the magnitude of decommissioning activities under the alternative would be 

less than the proposed action decommissioning activities, and (iii) the NRC staff assumed the 

applicant would implement BMPs described for the proposed action that limit air emissions from 

proposed construction activities under this alternative, the NRC staff concludes the potential 

impacts on air quality during the decommissioning phase of Alternative 3 would be less than the 

impacts the NRC staff evaluated for the proposed action and would be characterized as SMALL. 

4.8 Noise Impacts 

Potential environmental impacts from noise at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site 

could occur during all phases of the ISR facility lifecycle. The GEIS described these impacts as 

occurring from the operation of equipment such as trucks, bulldozers, and compressors; from 

either commuting worker traffic or material/waste shipments; and from the operation of the 

wellfields, central processing plant, satellite facility, and associated equipment. Noise could 

affect both humans and wildlife in the vicinity of the site (NRC, 2009a). 

As stated in the GEIS, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set 

permissible exposure limits for workplace noise levels (NRC, 2009a). The proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project would be required to limit worker exposure in accordance with these 

regulations; therefore, occupational noise exposure is not described in this section but rather in 

Section 4.13. This section describes the potential propagation of noise to offsite receptors 

described in Section 3.8. 

The following sections evaluated both mobile and stationary noise sources to assess the 

potential to create noise adjacent to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project and to determine 

the site-specific impact. The GEIS concluded the noise impact at an ISR facility could range 

from SMALL to MODERATE during all four phases of an ISR project, depending on the distance 

between the nearest resident and the activities occurring at the ISR facility (NRC, 2009a). The 

potential site-specific environmental impacts from noise during construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning are described in the following sections. 
Environmental Impacts 

4-62 

4.8.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

4.8.1.1 Construction Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.7.1 described the potential noise impacts as being greatest during 

construction of the ISR facility, due to the heavy equipment involved and given the likelihood 

that these facilities would be built in a rural, previously undeveloped area where background 

noise levels are lower. The use of drill rigs, heavy trucks, bulldozers, and other equipment to 

construct and operate the wellfields, drill the wells, develop the necessary access roads, and 

build the production facilities would generate audible noise exceeding undisturbed background 

levels. Noise levels are expected to be higher during daylight hours when construction is more 

likely to occur and more noticeable in proximity to the operating equipment. For individuals 

living in the vicinity of the site, ambient noise levels would return to background at distances 

more than 300 m [1,000 ft] from the construction activities. Wildlife would be expected to avoid 

areas where noise-generating activities were occurring; although for certain wildlife (e.g., sagegrouse) continuous elevated noise levels could reduce their breeding success. Overall, these 

types of noise impacts would be SMALL, given the use of hearing controls for workers and the 

expected distance of nearest residents from the site (NRC, 2009a). 

The GEIS also concluded traffic noise during construction (commuting workers, truck shipments 

to and from the facility; and construction equipment such as trucks, bulldozers, and 

compressors) is expected to be localized and limited to highways in the vicinity of the site, 

access roads within the site, and roads in the wellfields. The relative short-term increase in 

noise levels from passing traffic would be SMALL for the larger roads, but could be MODERATE 

for lightly traveled rural roads through smaller communities (NRC, 2009a). 

The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is located in a rural area, and the closest resident is 

located at Pfister Ranch, about 960 m [0.6 mi] north of the Hank Unit, greater than the 300-m 

[1,000-ft] radius evaluated in the GEIS; therefore, the NRC staff concludes the potential impact 

from noise to a person at the nearest resident location would be SMALL. Noise impacts from 

traffic would be transient and SMALL because of the limited traffic volume associated with the 

proposed project (see SEIS Section 4.3). As described in Section 4.6.1.1.3, the applicant has 

identified nine Greater sage-grouse leks within 3.2 km [2.0 mi] of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project site (Figure 3-8). Although none of these leks occur within the project site, the 

applicant has committed to implement mitigation measures, which include delaying or 

minimizing project activities and vehicle traffic avoidance near active leks during key mating 

periods and following seasonal WGFD guidelines (WGFD, 2010) to reduce the noise impacts on 

the Greater sage-grouse (Uranerz, 2007). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes the potential 

impacts from noise during construction would be SMALL. 

4.8.1.2 Operations Impacts 

As described in GEIS Section 4.3.7.2, noise-generating activities in the central processing plant 

would occur indoors, thus offsite sound levels would be reduced. Wellfield equipment 

(e.g., pumps, compressors) would also be contained within structures (e.g., header houses, 

satellite facilities), thus limiting the propagation of noise to offsite individuals. Traffic noise from 

commuting workers, truck shipments to and from the facility, and facility equipment would be 

localized and limited to highways in the vicinity of the proposed site, access roads on the 

proposed site, and roads in wellfields. Relative short-term increases in noise from traffic would 

be SMALL for the larger roads, but could be MODERATE for lightly traveled rural roads through 
 Environmental Impacts

4-63 

smaller communities. Thus, the potential impact from noise during operations could range from 

SMALL to MODERATE (NRC, 2009a). 

During the operations phase, a variety of mechanical equipment, such as generators; pumps; 

air compressors; and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems at the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project, would generate noise. The potential Impact from noise onsite during the 

operations phase would be less than during the construction phase because fewer pieces of 

heavy machinery would be in use and, therefore the NRC staff concludes the potential impact 

would be SMALL. Impacts from traffic-related noise would be similar to those during 

construction and would be SMALL. The applicant’s implementation of mitigation measures to 

reduce the potential noise impact on the Greater sage-grouse discussed in SEIS Section 4.8.1.1 

also supports the NRC staff conclusion that the potential impact from noise during the 

operations phase would be SMALL. 

4.8.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.7.3 concluded that general noise levels during aquifer restoration would be 

either be similar to, or less than, the noise generated during operations. Workplace noise 

exposure would be managed using the same administrative and engineering controls 

implemented during operations. The noise from pumps and other wellfield equipment contained 

within buildings would reduce the noise impact to offsite receptors. The existing operational 

infrastructure would be used, and the traffic volume would be less than during the construction 

and operation phases. The GEIS concluded the potential impact could range from SMALL 

to MODERATE (NRC, 2009a). 

Noise generated during the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project aquifer restoration phase 

would either be similar to, or less than, noise generated during the operations phase as 

described in SEIS Section 4.7.1.3. Noise from traffic would be limited to delivery of supplies 

and staff traveling to the site; therefore, there would be fewer vehicular trips than during the 

operations phase. Because the amount of equipment used and the volume of traffic would be 

less than during the operations phase, NRC staff concludes that noise impacts during aquifer 

restoration would remain SMALL. The applicant’s adherence to the stipulated noise mitigation 

measures (EO 2010-4) described in Section 4.6.1.1.3 also supports the NRC staff conclusion 

that there would be a SMALL impact on the Greater sage-grouse populations located in the 

vicinity of the proposed project site during the aquifer restoration phase. 

4.8.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.7.4 described the potential noise impacts during decommissioning. General 

noise levels during decommissioning and reclamation would be similar to the noise generated 

during construction. Equipment used to dismantle buildings and milling equipment, remove 

contaminated soils, or grade the surface as part of reclamation activities would generate audible 

noise at above-background levels. This noise would be temporary, and when decommissioning 

and reclamation activities were completed, noise levels would return to baseline, with 

occasional noise from longer term monitoring activities. Like the construction phase, the noise 

level would be greater during daylight hours when decommissioning and reclamation would be 

more likely to occur and most noticeable in proximity to operating equipment. Given the 

distance to nearby residents is greater than 300 m [1,000 ft], the GEIS concluded that noise 

could not be discernable to offsite residents or communities at this distance. Therefore, the 

GEIS concluded that the impact from noise generated during decommissioning could range 

from SMALL to MODERATE (NRC, 2009a). 
Environmental Impacts 

4-64 

The noise generated at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site during the 

decommissioning phase would be similar to or less than that generated during the construction 

phase. The sources of noise would include earthmoving, excavation, and building demolition. 

Fewer shipments to and from the proposed site would occur as decommissioning progressed 

resulting in less noise from traffic. Because the nearest resident is located beyond the 300 m 

[1,000 ft] radius evaluated in the GEIS, the NRC staff concludes the estimated impact on the 

nearest resident during decommissioning would be SMALL. The applicant’s adherence to the 

stipulated noise mitigation measures (EO 2010-4) described in Section 4.6.1.1.3 would result in 

a SMALL impact on Greater sage-grouse populations in the vicinity of the proposed project 

during decommissioning. 

4.8.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, there would be no change in the sound levels within the 

proposed project area or to surrounding receptors. While natural resource exploration activities 

would continue and could potentially expand in the future, they would typically be of short 

duration and would involve few vehicles and no permanent, noise-emitting infrastructure. The 

rural setting of the proposed project area and the continuation of ongoing natural resources 

exploration activities would result in sound levels remaining at ambient levels. 

4.8.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) 

4.8.3.1 Construction Impacts 

Under Alternative 3, no construction activities would occur at the Hank Unit; therefore, no noise 

generated by construction-related activities would occur. Traffic would continue to pass through 

the area on the main T-Chair Livestock Company ranch road en route to the Nichols Ranch 

Unit. The overall traffic volume along this road would decrease relative to the proposed action 

because less construction materials would be required. The lack of construction activities and 

less traffic would reduce the potential noise impact for offsite receptors. In addition, because 

the nearest resident to the Nichols Ranch Unit is located approximately 1.4 km [0.9 mi] north of 

the unit, a location that is greater than the 300-m [1,000-ft] radius evaluated in the GEIS, the 

NRC staff concludes the potential noise impact from the construction activities under Alternative 

3 would be SMALL. The applicant’s adherence to the required mitigation measures described 

in Section 4.6.1.1.3 would result in a SMALL impact on Greater sage-grouse populations in the 

vicinity of the project site during construction. 

4.8.3.2 Operations Impacts 

Because the Hank Unit would not be constructed, stationary noise sources (e.g., generators and 

compressors, idling vehicles) would not be present. In addition, traffic noise along the 13.4 km 

[8.3 mi] gravel ranch road generated from the transfer of ion-exchange resin between the Hank 

Unit satellite facility and the Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant would not occur. The 

absence of wellfields at the Hank Unit would also result in less generated noise. Therefore, the 

NRC staff concludes the potential noise impact from the operation activities under Alternative 3 

would be SMALL. The applicant’s adherence to the required mitigation measures described in 

Section 4.6.1.1.3 would result in a SMALL impact to Greater sage-grouse populations in the 

vicinity of the project site during operations because the eight leks located within the 3.2 km 

[2.0 mi] radius of the Hank Unit boundary would not be affected. 
 Environmental Impacts

4-65 

4.8.3.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

No noise-generating sources would exist in the vicinity of the Hank Unit except for passing 

vehicular traffic along the gravel ranch road. Noise generated during the aquifer restoration 

phase would either be similar to or less than that generated during the operations phase. 

Vehicular traffic would be limited to supply delivery and staff accessing the site. The traffic 

volume would be less than for the proposed action. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes the 

potential noise impact from aquifer restoration activities under Alternative 3 would be SMALL. 

The applicant’s adherence to the required mitigation measures described in Section 4.6.1.1.3 

would result in a SMALL impact to Greater sage-grouse populations in the vicinity of the project 

site during aquifer restoration. 

4.8.3.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

Under Alternative 3, even though soil and road reclamation and infrastructure demolition would 

result in heavy equipment usage that would generate more noise than during the operation and 

aquifer restoration phases, the noise generated during decommissioning would be at a level 

similar to that during the construction phase, but occur only at the Nichols Ranch Unit. There 

would be less noise from vehicular traffic shipments to and from the site as decommissioning 

progressed. Because the nearest resident is located beyond the 300-m [1,000-ft] radius 

evaluated in the GEIS, the NRC staff concludes the potential noise impact from the 

decommissioning phase under Alternative 3 would be SMALL. The applicant’s adherence to 

the required mitigation measures described in Section 4.6.1.1.3 would result in a SMALL impact 

on Greater sage-grouse populations during decommissioning because the eight leks located 

within the 3.2 km [2.0 mi] radius of the Hank Unit boundary would not be affected. 

4.9 Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Impacts 

Potential environmental impacts to historic, cultural, and paleontological resources at the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site may occur during all phases of the facility lifecycle. 

Predominantly, these impacts could result from the loss of or damage to historic, cultural, and 

archaeological resources, as well as temporary restrictions on access to these resources. 

Detailed discussion of the potential environmental impacts to historic, cultural, and 

paleontological resources from construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning is provided in the following sections. 

4.9.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

4.9.1.1 Construction Impacts 

As discussed in Section 4.3.8.1 of the GEIS, the potential impacts during ISR facility 

construction could include loss of or damage to historic and cultural resources due to excavation 

activities as a part of construction. Additionally, access to historic, cultural, and archaeological 

resources could be temporarily restricted during construction. 

As stated in the GEIS, NRC expects the applicant to conduct the appropriate historic and 

cultural resource surveys as part of prelicense application activities. Further, it is anticipated 

that the eligibility evaluation of historic properties for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) or as a traditional cultural property (TCP) under criteria in 36 CFR 60.4(a)–(d) 

would be conducted as part of the site-specific environmental review. Most TCPs are identified 

through consultation. Consultation and mitigation of adverse effects would occur during the 
Environmental Impacts 

4-66 

site-specific environmental review process. To determine whether significant historic and 

cultural resources would be avoided or mitigated, consultations involving NRC, the applicant, 

WY SHPO, other government agencies (e.g., FWS and state environmental departments), and 

Native American tribes would occur as part of the site-specific review. Additionally, as 

discussed in the GEIS, during construction activities, discovery of previously undocumented 

historic or cultural resources would require the licensee to stop work and notify the appropriate 

Federal, Tribal, and State agencies with regard to appropriate mitigation measures. The GEIS 

concluded that potential impacts to historic and cultural resources from construction could be 

SMALL to LARGE, depending on the presence or absence of historic and cultural resources on 

the site. 

For the proposed action, archaeological sites and isolated finds identified within the Nichols 

Ranch and Hank Unit project areas would be directly affected during construction. Activities 

would include the construction of wellfields and access roads. Only one archaeological site at 

the Nichols Ranch Unit is eligible for listing on the NRHP. Site 48CA5391 at the Nichols Ranch 

Unit is located within or near a proposed wellfield. However, the applicant has committed to 

avoid this site through the use of protective fencing (Uranerz, 2010). 

At the Hank Unit, seven archaeological sites are eligible for listing on the NRHP; two 

archaeological sites remain unevaluated for NRHP eligibility pending evaluative testing. Of the 

seven eligible sites at the Hank Unit, there would be an adverse effect to the visual setting of 

five TCPs [Sites 48CA268 (Pumpkin Buttes), 48CA6148, 48CA6748, 48CA6751, and 

48CA6753]. With the exception of the Pumpkin Buttes, all TCPs are within the proposed Hank 

Unit permit area. One TCP (Site 48CA6148) is adjacent to the proposed wellfield. The 

remaining TCPs are located outside of the outer extent of the monitoring well locations. 

Because the Hank Unit falls within the 3.2 km [2 mi] radius of the Pumpkin Buttes, the applicant 

must follow the stipulations listed in BLM’s Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the WY SHPO 

for mitigation of adverse effects for the Pumpkin Buttes TCP (BLM, 2009b). In its license 

application, Uranerz committed to protect all cultural properties that have been determined 

NRHP-eligible or unevaluated sites within the proposed permit area from ground-disturbing 

activities. The NRC staff continues to consult with WY SHPO regarding the development of a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among NRC, BLM, WY SHPO, interested Native American 

tribes, and Uranerz for mitigation of adverse effects to the five TCPs. Sites 48CA6927 

(NRHP-eligible) and 48CA6754 (unevaluated pending justification) could be impacted during 

construction because of its location near proposed monitoring wells. However, the applicant 

has committed to avoid this site and to use protective fencing. Sites 48CA6490 (NRHP-eligible) 

and 48CA6475 (unevaluated pending further evaluative testing) are located outside of the 

proposed construction area and would not be adversely affected by the proposed action. 

(Uranerz, 2010) 

The applicant committed to the following cultural resource mitigation measures in the Mine Plan 

for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project for the NRC and WDEQ/LQD permit applications. These 

commitments are contained in a revision to the license application’s Technical Report 

(Uranerz, 2007). 

• Uranerz (the applicant) would not conduct any ground-disturbing work in areas that have 

not been previously inventoried and cleared for cultural resources. 

• The applicant would protect all NRHP-eligible cultural properties within the proposed 

permit area from ground-disturbing activities. To protect those eligible sites located 

within or near the projected wellfield (specifically, Sites 48CA5391, 48CA6148, and 
 Environmental Impacts

4-67 

48CA6927), the applicant would delineate these sites and would mark them with greencolored plastic snow fence material. The fencing material would not be highly visible 

and no signs would be installed, but the fencing material would protect these sites from 

inadvertent disturbance. The applicant would also provide small openings 1.8 to 2.4 m 

[6 to 8 ft] in the fencing to allow livestock and wildlife to move freely in, out, and through 

the site. 

• If the applicant determined that it must conduct ground-disturbing activities within the 

boundaries of an eligible site, the applicant would notify NRC, WY SHPO, and WDEQLQD and the applicant would prepare an appropriate cultural resource mitigation plan 

and submit the plan to NRC and WY SHPO for review and approval. Once approved, 

the mitigation plan would be implemented before any ground-disturbing activities are 

undertaken. Any approved mitigation plan(s) would be subsequently incorporated into 

the permit document (if issued, the NRC license and WDEQ-LQD permit). 

• If cultural resources are discovered during operations, the applicant would immediately 

stop ground-disturbing activities in the area of the discovery and would immediately 

notify WDEQ-LQD, NRC, and WY SHPO. Within 2 working days of the notification, 

WDEQ-LQD, NRC, and WY SHPO would evaluate or have evaluated any discovered 

cultural resources and would determine whether any action may be required to protect or 

preserve such discoveries. 

• All cultural resources would remain under the jurisdiction of the private landowner or the 

U.S. Government depending on the where the cultural resource(s) were discovered. 

• The applicant would instruct all employees, contractors, subcontractors, and any 

additional parties involved in the project not to search for archaeological materials 

(i.e., arrowhead hunting). 

• If Native American human remains, funerary objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are 

encountered, the applicant would stop all work in the immediate area and would 

immediately notify NRC and WDEQ-LQD. If Native American human remains, funerary 

objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are encountered as a result of an NRC 

undertaking on a private surface, the remains would be evaluated as a historic property 

and procedures relating to identification and effect will be determined in consultation with 

NRC and WY SHPO. Existing state and local laws would be followed pertaining to 

discovery of Native American human remains, funerary objects, or objects of cultural 

patrimony on a private surface. 

The applicant also committed to following the cultural resource mitigation measures identified in 

the PA between BLM and WY SHPO (BLM, 2009a) for the Pumpkin Buttes TCP (Site 48CA268) 

at the Hank Unit. These measures were documented in a revision to the NRC license 

application (Uranerz, 2010). Because the Hank Unit falls within the 3.2 km [2 mi] radius of the 

Pumpkin Buttes, the applicant must follow the stipulations listed in PA (BLM, 2009b). Some of 

these measures are summarized below. 

• The applicant would instruct all employees, contractors, subcontractors, and any 

additional parties involved in the project to avoid the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. 
Environmental Impacts 

4-68 

• No ground-disturbing activities would occur on the tops and sides of the Pumpkin Buttes. 

The tops and bases of the buttes are defined as follows, based on 1:24,000 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangles for the area: 

(1) North Middle Butte: Top = 1,829-m [6,000-ft] contour line; Base = 1,676-m 

[5,500-ft] contour line 

(2) South Middle Butte: Top = 1,804-m [5,920-ft] contour line; Base = 1,676-m 

[5,500-ft] contour line 

• For all activities associated with any future project modification, the applicant would 

obtain NRC and WY SHPO authorization before conducting ground-disturbing activities. 

The applicant and NRC would implement measures to reduce the visual contrast for any 

changes to the project. 

• Prior to the NRC and WDEQ-LQD authorization of additional construction activities, the 

applicant would 

(1) Perform a Class III cultural resource inventory, biological, or other inventories 

as required 

(2) Submit detailed construction plans 

(3) Participate in an onsite evaluation (if necessary) 

• The gravel surface of resource roads and new roads would be a color that does not 

create a visual contrast to the surrounding topography. 

• All gathering pipelines would be corridored next to or within roads, wherever possible. 

Existing disturbed areas would be used for pipeline corridors where practicable. 

• Wherever practicable, areas of existing disturbance would be used. To minimize visual 

contrast, well locations would not be placed in areas of dense sagebrush or other 

vegetation unless absolutely necessary. Brush hogging or other vegetation removal on 

drilling locations within areas of dense sagebrush or other vegetation would be feathered 

to reduce visual contrast and would be limited to 9 m [30 ft] in diameter. All 

aboveground infrastructure related to well production would be painted a color that best 

blends in with the surrounding topography. These colors are typically Covert Green 

(PANTONE for Architecture Color Guide 18-0617 TPX) or Carlsbad Canyon 

(Munsell Soil Color 2.5Y 6/2). Different colors maybe required on a site-specific 

determination based on visual assessment. 

• Wherever practicable, well power lines would be buried and buried power lines would be 

placed inside or within 9 m [5 ft] of the trench utilized for pipelines. Construction of 

overhead power lines within 3.2 km [2 mi] from the base elevation of the Pumpkin Buttes 

would be designed to reduce visual contrast. 

• All permanent aboveground structures (e.g., production equipment, tanks) not subject to 

safety requirements would be painted to blend in with the natural color of the landscape. 

The color would simulate the standard environmental colors BLM established for visual 

resource management. These colors are typically Covert Green (PANTONE for 
 Environmental Impacts

4-69 

Architecture Color Guide 18-0617 TPX) or Carlsbad Canyon (Munsell Soil Color 2.5Y 

6/2). Different colors may be required on a site-specific determination based on visual 

assessment. 

No sites will be directly affected by construction activities, because sites located near proposed 

construction areas will be marked, fenced, and avoided. However, there will be an adverse 

effect to the visual setting of five TCPs. Additionally, the license application contains mitigation 

measures to address adverse effects to the visual setting of the five TCPs. NRC, WY SHPO, 

BLM, Uranerz, and interested Native American tribes are consulting to develop an MOA to 

address the mitigation of adverse effects to the five TCPs. Originally, a draft MOA for the 

impacts to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP was forwarded to consulting parties by letter dated 

July 22, 2010, for review and comment. Because four additional TCPs have been identified 

through consultation with Native American Tribes, a revised draft MOA will be developed with 

consulting parties that addresses impacts to the visual setting of the five identified TCPs. 

Based on the review of archaeological surveys, consultation with WY SHPO and with Native 

American tribes, applicant-committed mitigation measures (see SEIS Section 4.9.1.1), and other 

information, the NRC staff concludes the impacts to historic and cultural resources at the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR project would be MODERATE. NRC staff concludes that most 

impacts would be the result of an adverse effect to the visual setting of five TCPs. This 

MODERATE impact would be mitigated by implementing the applicant-committed measures 

listed in Section 4.9.1.1. If issued, the license would contain license conditions that incorporate 

any mitigation measures in the license application and any agreements that address historic 

and cultural resources. 

Paleontological specimens are present in both proposed project areas. Construction would 

impact both geological units including the surficial Quaternary deposits and near-surface 

Wasatch Formation deposits. However, based on the geology of the site and the poor exposure 

of fossil-bearing sediment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project would not significantly impact any fossil remains. The applicant would have a monitor 

present during construction activities involving depths in excess of a few feet (Uranerz, 2007). If 

fossil remains are discovered during construction, the applicant would stop work and contact the 

appropriate State and Federal agencies. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes the impact from 

construction on paleontological resources would be SMALL. 

4.9.1.2 Operations Impacts 

In GEIS Section 4.3.8.2, potential impacts to historic, cultural, and archaeological resources 

from operations would be less than during construction because less land is disturbed. 

Conditions in the NRC license typically require the licensee to stop work upon discovery of 

previously undocumented historic or cultural resources and to notify the appropriate Federal, 

Tribal, and State agencies with regard to mitigation measures. For these reasons, the GEIS 

concluded that ISR operations impacts to historic and cultural resources would be SMALL. 

There would be minimal impacts from operations on NRHP-eligible sites at the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. No sites will be directly affected by operations, because sites will 

be marked, fenced, and avoided. However, there will be an adverse effect to the visual setting 

of five TCPs. The applicant committed to a number of mitigation measures (Uranerz, 2007, 

2010), which are listed in Section 4.9.1.1 of the SEIS and are specific to reducing impacts. 

These mitigation measures to which the applicant committed would remain in effect. There are 

no historic and cultural resources in the proposed project area that would be affected by facility 
Environmental Impacts 

4-70 

operation or maintenance. Should resources be encountered during routine maintenance 

activities, per site procedures, the applicant would stop work and notify NRC, WY SHPO, and 

other appropriate agencies (Uranerz, 2007). Therefore, NRC staff concludes that impacts to 

historic and cultural resources during operations would be SMALL. 

Regarding the Pumpkin Buttes TCP, the Northern Cheyenne expressed concern that traffic, 

noise, dust, and extraction in general during operations may affect the integrity of the setting of 

Pumpkin Buttes. The applicant committed to a number of mitigation measures specific to 

reducing impacts on the Pumpkin Buttes TCP in its license application. These measures are 

described in SEIS Section 4.9.1.1. 

In the case of paleontological resources, routine maintenance during operations could require 

ground-disturbing activities, which may impact fossil-bearing deposits. However, maintenance 

actions are usually near the surface and would likely be limited to predisturbed areas. Should 

ground-disturbing activities occur at depths in excess of a few feet, the applicant would have a 

monitor in place and its procedures would cover inadvertent discovery (Uranerz, 2007Taking 

into consideration the factors discussed above, NRC staff concludes that any impact from 

operations on paleontological resources would be SMALL. 

4.9.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

In GEIS Section 4.3.8.3, aquifer restoration impacts to historic and cultural resources are 

expected to be similar to, or less than, potential impacts from operations. This is because 

aquifer restoration activities are generally limited to the existing infrastructure and previously 

disturbed areas (e.g., access roads, central processing plant). For these reasons, the GEIS 

concluded the potential impacts from aquifer restoration to historic and cultural resources would 

be SMALL. 

There would be minimal aquifer restoration impacts on NRHP-eligible sites and TCPs at the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. No sites will be directly affected by aquifer restoration 

activities, because sites will be marked, fenced, and avoided. However, there would continue to 

be an adverse effect to the visual setting of five TCPs. As stated in Section 4.9.1.1, applicantcommitted mitigation measures (Uranerz, 2007, 2010) would remain in effect. Should resources 

be encountered during restoration activities, per site procedures, the applicant would stop work 

and notify NRC, WY SHPO, and other appropriate agencies (Uranerz, 2007). Therefore, NRC 

staff concludes that impacts to cultural resources would be SMALL. 

Regarding paleontological resources, should aquifer restoration activities involve ground 

disturbance in excess of a few feet, the applicant would have a monitor in place and its 

procedures would cover any inadvertent discoveries. Therefore, NRC staff concludes that the 

impact from aquifer restoration on paleontological resources would be SMALL. 

4.9.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.8.4 discusses potential impacts from decommissioning to historic and cultural 

resources. It is expected that decommissioning and reclamation activities would focus on 

previously disturbed areas and historic and cultural resources within the potential area of effect 

would already be known. As a result, the GEIS concluded potential impacts to historic, cultural, 

and archaeological resources during decommissioning and reclamation would be SMALL. 

(NRC, 2009a) 
 Environmental Impacts

4-71 

There would be minimal decommissioning impacts on NRHP-eligible sites at the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. No cultural sites would be directly affected during the 

decommissioning phase. No sites would be directly affected by decommissioning activities 

because sites will be marked, fenced, and avoided. If any unidentified cultural resources were 

encountered during decommissioning activities, the applicant would stop work and contact the 

appropriate State and Federal agencies. If ground-disturbing activities occur outside of 

previously surveyed areas during the decommissioning phase, then archaeological surveys 

would be conducted prior to the activity and appropriate mitigation responses would be 

identified at that time. Due to the adverse effect to the visual setting of five TCPs, applicantcommitted mitigation measures identified in SEIS Section 4.9.1.1 would remain in effect during 

decommissioning activities (Uranerz, 2007, 2010). As buildings are dismantled and lands are 

reclaimed, there would be less visual impacts to the TCPs over time. After mining activities are 

completed, the land would be returned to preextraction use of wildlife habitat and grazing 

(Uranerz, 2007), Therefore, NRC staff concludes that the impacts to cultural resources would 

be SMALL. 

With respect to paleontological resources, should decommissioning activities involve ground 

disturbance in excess of a few feet, the applicant would have a monitor in place and its 

procedures would cover any inadvertent discoveries. Therefore, NRC staff concludes that the 

impact from decommissioning on paleontological resources would be SMALL. 

4.9.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, no ISR facility would be constructed or operated at the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. No archaeological sites, isolated cultural resources, 

TCPs, or paleontological resources would be affected by the proposed action. The cultural 

impacts from current land activities, such as CBM extraction, oil and gas extraction, and cattle 

ranching, would continue. 

4.9.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) 

4.9.3.1 Construction Impacts 

Implementation of Alterative 3 would result in the construction of the Nichols Ranch Unit, but no 

construction at the Hank Unit. Selecting this alternative would avoid adverse impacts to the 

seven identified historic properties (including five TCPs) from construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning of the Hank Unit. One NRHP-eligible site (48CA5391) is 

located near a projected wellfield on the Nichols Ranch Unit. This site would be avoided during 

construction and therefore would not be impacted by construction. The applicant would 

delineate the site and mark it with protective fencing to ensure it was not disturbed during 

construction. Fencing would not be visible from a distance and would include 1.8 to 2.4 m [6 to 

8 ft] openings to allow livestock and wildlife movement (Uranerz, 2010). Because the Nichols 

Ranch Unit is located 9.6 km [6 mi] west of Pumpkin Buttes, there would be negligible effects on 

the Pumpkin Buttes TCP from construction of the Nichols Ranch Unit. Additionally, the 

applicant committed to a number of mitigation measures (Uranerz, 2007, 2010), which are listed 

in Section 4.9.1.1 of the SEIS and are specific to reducing impacts; therefore, NRC staff 

concludes that impact to historic and cultural resources would be SMALL. 

Paleontological specimens are present at the Nichols Ranch Unit. Construction would impact 

both surficial Quaternary deposits and near-surface Eocene Wasatch Formation deposits. 

However, based on the geology of the site and the poor exposure of fossil-bearing sediment, 
Environmental Impacts 

4-72 

activities associated with this alternative would not significantly impact identified fossil remains. 

The applicant would have a monitor present during construction activities involving depths in 

excess of a few feet; therefore, NRC staff concludes the impact would be SMALL. If 

paleontological resources are discovered during construction, work would cease and the 

monitor would immediately contact the appropriate State and Federal agencies. 

4.9.3.2 Operations Impacts 

There would be minimal impacts from plant operations on one NRHP-eligible site at the 

Nichols Ranch Unit, because this site would be marked, fenced, and avoided. As stated in 

Section 4.9.1.1, applicant-committed mitigation measures (Uranerz, 2007, 2010) would remain 

in effect. There are no cultural resources known in the proposed project area that would be 

affected by facility operation or maintenance; however, the applicant procedures include 

inadvertent-discovery provisions. Should resources be encountered during routine operation or 

maintenance activities, work would be halted and the appropriate State and Federal agencies 

would be contacted. Therefore, NRC staff concludes the impact on cultural resources would be 

SMALL. 

Because operational activities would occur only at the Nichols Ranch Unit, the impact on the 

five identified TCPs would be less compared to the proposed action. Therefore, NRC staff 

concludes the impact from plant operations on the Pumpkin Buttes and the four associated 

TCPs would be SMALL. 

Paleontological resources could be impacted by routine maintenance during operations. 

However, most impacts would occur during initial plant construction. Should paleontological 

resources be encountered during routine operation or maintenance activities, work would be 

halted and the appropriate State and Federal agencies would be contacted. Therefore, NRC 

staff concludes the impact from operations on paleontological resources would be SMALL. 

4.9.3.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

There would be minimal to no aquifer restoration impacts on the NRHP-eligible site at the 

Nichols Ranch Unit. This site would be marked, fenced, and avoided. As stated in 

Section 4.9.1.1, applicant-committed mitigation measures (Uranerz, 2007, 2010) would remain 

in effect. Applicant procedures include inadvertent-discovery provisions. Should resources be 

encountered during aquifer restoration, work would be halted and the appropriate State and 

Federal agencies would be contacted. Therefore, NRC staff concludes the impacts to cultural 

resources would be SMALL. 

Because activities would be limited to the Nichols Ranch Unit, impacts to the five TCPs would 

be less compared to the proposed action and SMALL. 

With respect to paleontological resources, should aquifer restoration activities involve ground 

disturbance depths in excess of a few feet, the applicant would have a monitor in place and its 

procedures would cover inadvertent discovery. Therefore, the impact from aquifer restoration 

on paleontological resources would be SMALL. 

4.9.3.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

There would be no decommissioning impacts on the NRHP-eligible site at the Nichols Ranch 

Unit. This site would be marked, fenced, and avoided. As stated in Section 4.9.1.1, applicant-
 Environmental Impacts

4-73 

committed mitigation measures (Uranerz, 2007, 2010) would remain in effect. If grounddisturbing activities were to occur outside of previously surveyed areas, then the applicant 

would conduct cultural resource surveys prior to the project activity taking place. 

Because activities would be limited to the Nichols Ranch Unit, impacts to the fiveTCPs would be 

less than for the proposed action and would be SMALL. 

Regarding paleontological resources, should decommissioning activities involve ground 

disturbance depths in excess of a few feet, the applicant would have a monitor in place and its 

procedures would cover inadvertent discovery. Therefore, NRC staff concludes the impact on 

paleontological resources from decommissioning would be SMALL. 

4.10 Visual and Scenic Resources Impacts 

Potential visual and scenic impacts from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project may occur 

during all phases of the ISR facility lifecycle. These impacts would come primarily from the use 

of equipment such as drill rigs; dust and other emissions from such equipment; the construction 

of facility buildings, other structures, and site and wellfield access roads; land clearing and 

grading activities; and lighting for nighttime operations. Such impacts could be mitigated by 

the rolling topography, the use of color considerations for structures, and dustsuppression techniques. 

BLM Visual Resource Management (VRM) classification of landscapes was also considered in 

assessing the significance of these potential visual impacts. Most of the landscape in the 

Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region identified in the GEIS is VRM Class III or Class IV. 

These classes are based on a combination of scenic quality, sensitivity levels, and distance 

zones (BLM, 2007). This classification allows for an activity to contrast with basic elements of 

the characteristic landscape to a limited extent for a Class III designation and to a much greater 

degree for a Class IV designation. 

4.10.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

The Nichols Ranch and Hank Units are separated from one another by about 9.6 km [6 mi], and 

their settings are topographically different (Section 3.10). The effects of construction, 

operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning on the two units may differ because of the 

considerations that must be taken regarding the Pumpkin Buttes TCP, located immediately 

adjacent to and partially overlapped by the Hank Unit. An overall impact assessment for each 

issue is provided next, followed by a separate discussion of the impacts at the Nichols Ranch 

and Hank Units with respect to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. 

The BLM Buffalo Field Office identified the potential for a visual impact from the proposed 

development in the Hank Unit, which could affect the Pumpkin Buttes TCP’s setting, feeling, and 

association (BLM, 2009c). A PA (BLM, 2009a) between WY SHPO and BLM for the Pumpkin 

Buttes TCP requires developers within 3.2 km [2 mi] radius of the Pumpkin Buttes to complete a 

Class III survey of any proposed project within the area, submit detailed construction plans, and 

participate in an onsite evaluation with BLM (BLM, 2009a). In addition to the Pumpkin Buttes, 

four additional TCPs (Sites 48CA6748, 48CA6753, 48CA6751, and 48CA6148) were identified 

through Native American consultation during the NRC’s environmental review. Because the 

Hank Unit falls within the 3.2 km [2 mi] radius of the Pumpkin Buttes, the applicant must follow 

the stipulations listed in BLM’s Programmatic Agreement (PA) with WY SHPO for mitigation of 
Environmental Impacts 

4-74 

adverse effects for the Pumpkin Buttes TCP (BLM, 2009b). This process ensures the effects of 

both units at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project on visual resources would be mitigated. 

4.10.1.1 Construction Impacts 

As described in GEIS Section 4.3.9.1, visual impacts during construction can result from the 

presence of equipment (e.g., drill rig masts, cranes), dust/diesel emissions from construction 

equipment, and hillside and roadside cuts. Depending on the location of an ISR facility relative 

to viewpoints such as highways, process facility construction and the presence of drill rigs could 

be visible. For nighttime operation, the drill rigs would be lighted, thus creating a visual impact 

on elevated areas. Most impacts would be temporary as equipment is moved and would be 

mitigated by BMPs (e.g., dust suppression). Additionally, because these sites are located in 

sparsely populated areas with rolling topography, most visual impacts during construction would 

not be visible from more than about 1 km [0.6 mi]. As previously described, PSD Class I areas 

require more stringent air quality standards that can affect visual impacts. However, there are 

no PSD Class I areas in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region. Finally, because proposed 

ISR facilities are expected to be located more than 16 km [10 mi] from the closest VRM Class II 

area and the visual impacts from ISR construction would be consistent with the predominant 

VRM Class III and IV classification in the region, the visual impact from ISR construction would 

be SMALL (NRC, 2009a). The following is a site-specific discussion of visual impacts from 

construction at both units at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR with respect to the Pumpkin 

Buttes TCP. 

4.10.1.1.1 Nichols Ranch Unit 

Visual impacts from construction of the Nichols Ranch Unit would be consistent with impacts 

described in Section 4.10.1.1. No visual contrast during construction would affect any Class II 

areas. The two closest residences are the Pfister and Dry Fork Ranches (Uranerz, 2007). The 

Pfister Ranch is located approximately 0.9 km [0.6 mi] to the north of the Hank Unit’s 

northernmost boundary, and the Dry Fork Ranch is located 1.4 km [0.9 mi] to the west of the 

Nichols Ranch Unit western boundary. Because there would be little to no visual contrast 

during construction, the NRC concludes that the impact would be SMALL. With respect to the 

Pumpkin Buttes TCP, Nichols Ranch Unit is outside the 3.2-km [2-mi] radius for potential impact 

on a TCP element. As a result, the applicant is not required to comply with mitigative measures 

stipulated in the BLM/SHPO PA for actions within the Nichols Ranch Unit. However, BLM has 

not yet developed mitigation responses for actions outside the 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of a TCP 

within BLM lands. BLM completed a scenic quality field inventory in the summer of 2009, the 

first step in a contrast rating evaluation. Because the Nichols Ranch Unit does not contain any 

BLM lands, the applicant would not be required to comply with any future BLM mitigative 

stipulations that apply beyond the 3.2-km [2 mi] radius of the Pumpkin Buttes TCP identified in 

the PA between BLM and WY SHPO (BLM, 2009a). Therefore, NRC staff concludes that the 

visual impact would be SMALL. Results of Section 106 consultation under the NHPA, which 

could further reduce the SMALL visual impact from the Nichols Ranch Unit, are presented in 

Section 4.9. Documentation related to the Section 106 consultation process is provided in 

Appendix A. 

4.10.1.1.2 Hank Unit 

Since the Hank Unit overlaps with and lies inside the 3.2-km [2.0-mi] radius of the Pumpkin 

Buttes TCP, mitigation measures identified in the BLM/SHPO PA for the Pumpkin Buttes TCP 

would apply to construction activities in the Hank Unit on the 113-ha [280-ac] portion of land the 
 Environmental Impacts

4-75 

BLM administers. In addition to the Pumpkin Buttes, four additional TCPs (Sites 48CA6748, 

48CA6753, 48CA6751, and 48CA6148) were identified through Native American consultation 

during the NRC’s environmental review. The applicant has committed to following a number of 

mitigation measures outlined in the BLM/SHPO PA for the entire portion of the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project within 3.2 km [2.0 mi] of the base elevation of the Pumpkin Buttes TCP 

(Uranerz, 2010). These measures, listed in Section 4.9.1.1 of the SEIS, would apply to all of the 

Hank Unit. 

Additionally, as described in Sections 1.7 and 4.9, NRC staff is consulting with BLM Buffalo 

Field Office, WY SHPO, interested Native American tribes, and the applicant to develop an 

MOA to address mitigation of the adverse effects on the Pumpkin Buttes TCP and the four other 

identified TCPs. However, because of the proximity of the Hank Unit to the Pumpkin Buttes 

TCP and the presence of construction machinery in plain view, some visual and scenic effects 

from construction would occur, and therefore, NRC staff concludes that the impacts would 

be MODERATE. 

Based on the review of the applicant-committed mitigation measures the environmental report; 

the staff’s site visit; meetings with Federal, State, local, and Tribal officials and other 

stakeholders; and the evaluation of other available information, the NRC staff concluded that the 

site-specific conditions at the Hank Unit differ from those described in the GEIS for visual and 

scenic resources. The GEIS concludes that the impacts to visual and scenic resources in the 

Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region during construction of an ISR facility would be SMALL. 

However, the proximity of the Hank Unit to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP is unique to the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. For the reasons described in the previous section, the NRC 

staff concluded that the impacts to visual and scenic resources at the Hank Unit during the 

construction phase would be MODERATE. This MODERATE impact would be mitigated by 

implementing the applicant-committed measures listed in Section 4.9.1.1. 

4.10.1.2 Operations Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.9.2 states visual impacts during operations would be less than those from 

construction because the wellfield surface infrastructure would have a low profile and most 

piping and cables would be buried. The tallest structures would be expected to include the 

central processing plant, 10 m [30 ft] in height, and power lines, 6 m [20 ft] in height. Because 

ISR sites are typically located in sparsely populated areas with generally rolling topography, 

most visual impacts during operations would be limited to a distance of not more than about 

1 km [0.6 mi]. The irregular layout of wellfield surface structures, such as wellhead protection 

and header houses, would further reduce visual contrast. BMPs, design (e.g., painting 

buildings), and landscaping techniques would be used to mitigate potential visual impact. The 

Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region defined in the GEIS is located more than 16 km [10 mi] 

from the closest VRM Class II region, and the visual impacts from ISR construction would be 

consistent with the predominant VRM Classes III and IV of the region. Therefore, the GEIS 

concluded that visual and scenic impacts from operations would be SMALL (NRC, 2009). 

The Nichols Ranch ISR Project operations are proposed for an area where extensive CBM 

development has already occurred and where additional CBM development is planned. CBM 

installations include networks of wells, underground piping, pump structures, and overhead 

power lines, which are much larger and more extensive than ISR facilities. Despite the existing 

visual impacts from CBM development, the applicant intends to implement measures to lessen 

the visual impact from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Buildings and other structures 

would be painted so they blend in to the natural landscape, and power lines and pipelines would 
Environmental Impacts 

4-76 

be buried where appropriate. The Hank Unit, located at the base of the Pumpkin Buttes, would 

be a satellite to the Nichols Ranch Unit, where the central processing plant would be located. 

As a satellite facility, the number and size of structures and supporting facilities would be 

smaller than at the central processing plant (Uranerz, 2007, 2010). 

Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Section 4.9.1.1 of the SEIS would 

reduce visual impacts on the five TCPs, including the Pumpkin Buttes TCP; therefore, NRC 

concludes the operational impacts on visual and scenic resources would be SMALL. 

4.10.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.9.3 addresses visual and scenic impacts from aquifer restoration. The GEIS 

states that aquifer restoration activities would be expected to take place some years after the 

facility had been in operation and restoration activities would use in-place infrastructure. As a 

result, potential visual impacts would be similar to those experienced during operations. 

Mitigation measures (e.g., dust suppression) could be used to further reduce visual and scenic 

impacts. In addition, implementing the mitigation measures described in Section 4.9.1.1 would 

further reduce the potential for visual impacts on all five TCPs, including the Pumpkin Buttes 

TCP; therefore, NRC staff concludes the potential impacts from aquifer restoration would be 

SMALL. 

4.10.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

As described in GEIS Section 4.3.9.4, because similar equipment would be used and activities 

conducted, potential visual impacts during decommissioning would be similar to those 

experienced during construction. The greatest potential for visual impacts during 

decommissioning would only be temporary as equipment is moved from place to place and 

mitigated by BMPs (e.g., dust suppression). Additionally, visual impacts would be low, because 

these sites are expected to be located in sparsely populated areas of the Wyoming East 

Uranium Milling Region, and the impacts would diminish as decommissioning activities 

decrease. By regulation (10 CFR 40.42), NRC licensees are required to conduct final site 

decommissioning and reclamation under an approved site reclamation plan, with the goal of 

returning the landscape to preconstruction conditions. While some roadside cuts and hill slope 

modifications may persist beyond decommissioning and reclamation, the GEIS concluded that 

visual and scenic impacts from decommissioning would be SMALL. Mitigation through BMPs 

(e.g., dust suppression) would further reduce the SMALL visual and scenic impacts from 

decommissioning (NRC, 2009). 

The applicant would implement dust suppression to reduce visual and scenic impacts, a BLM 

and WDEQ requirement (Uranerz, 2007). The GEIS assumptions regarding decommissioning 

are the same as those proposed for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project (e.g., dust suppression). 

Mitigation measures specified in Section 4.9.1.1 of the SEIS for the Hank Unit would further 

minimize the impacts on the five TCPs, including the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. Therefore, NRC 

staff concludes the visual and scenic impacts from decommissioning would be SMALL. 

4.10.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, no ISR facility would be constructed and there would be no 

change to the existing visual and scenic resources. The existing pipelines, wellfields, and utility 

lines within the proposed project area from CBM and gas extraction activities would remain. No 

additional structures or uses associated with the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be 
 Environmental Impacts

4-77 

introduced from the proposed action to affect the existing viewscapes, and the existing scenic 

quality would remain unchanged (BLM Class IV, as defined in Section 3.10). 

Because there would be no ISR facility construction under the No-Action alternative, the other 

phases of the ISR lifecycle would not occur. There would be no impact to visual and scenic 

resources. Natural resource exploration activities and cattle grazing would continue in the area. 

4.10.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) 

Under this alternative, the Hank Unit would not be developed and all proposed activities would 

be confined to the Nichols Ranch Unit. As noted in the discussion of the proposed action, the 

applicant’s coordination with BLM and WY SHPO would determine the extent to which the 

actions at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site would be visible from the five identified 

TCPs, including the Pumpkin Buttes TCP, and would help identify appropriate mitigation 

strategies. Because of the distance between the Nichols Ranch Unit and the five TCPs, 

impacts from this alternative under all phases would be less than the proposed action and 

supports the NRC conclusion of a SMALL impact. 

4.10.3.1 Construction Impacts 

Under this alternative, construction activity at the Hank Unit would not occur. There would be 

no land clearing, wellfield development, road construction, or building construction to impact 

visual and scenic resources at the Hank Unit. Dust and diesel emissions from vehicles and 

construction equipment would not impair visibilities surrounding the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. The 

use of BMPs (Uranerz, 2007, 2010) at the Nichols Ranch Unit would still be implemented under 

this alternative, but the overall impacts on visual and scenic resources from the construction 

phase would be greatly reduced. Therefore, NRC staff concludes the impact from this phase 

would be SMALL. 

4.10.3.2 Operations Impacts 

The operation impacts from this alternative would be similar to those stated for the proposed 

action. However, because the Hank Unit would not be constructed, header houses and well 

covers would not be present. More importantly, diesel emissions and dust from trucks 

transferring ion-exchange resin between the Hank Unit satellite facility and the Nichols Ranch 

Unit central processing plant that could impair visual and scenic resources would not occur. 

BMPs (Uranerz, 2007, 2010) would still be implemented at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project site under this alternative, but NRC staff concludes the overall impacts on visual and 

scenic resources during the operation phase under this alternative would remain SMALL. 

4.10.3.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

The impacts from aquifer restoration for this alternative would be similar to those stated for the 

proposed action, but without the Hank Unit, the potential impacts would be even less. BMPs 

would still be implemented for the Nichols Ranch Unit under this alternative; however, NRC staff 

concludes the impacts on visual and scenic resources during the aquifer restoration phase of 

this alternative would be SMALL. 

 
Environmental Impacts 

4-78 

4.10.3.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

The potential impacts from decommissioning under this alternative would be similar to those 

stated for the proposed action, but less because the Hank Unit would not be constructed. Half 

the number of wellfields would need to be decommissioned and reclaimed, along with header 

houses and other appurtenant structures. Soil and road reclamation and infrastructure 

demolition would not affect scenic resources through visual impairment under this alternative. 

The levels of pollutants generated would be similar to the construction phase of the proposed 

action, but diminished because the Hank Unit would not be present. BMPs (Uranerz, 2007, 

2010) would still be implemented at the Nichols Ranch Unit under this alternative, but NRC staff 

concludes the overall impacts on visual and scenic resources during the decommissioning 

phase of this alternative would be SMALL. 

4.11 Socioeconomic Impacts 

Socioeconomic impacts are defined in terms of changes to the demographic and economic 

characteristics and social conditions of a region. For example, the number of jobs created by 

the proposed action could affect regional employment, income, and expenditures. Job creation 

is characterized by two types: (i) construction-related jobs, which are transient, short in 

duration, and less likely to have a long-term socioeconomic impact on the region, and 

(ii) operation-related jobs in support of facility operations, which have the greater potential for 

permanent, long-term socioeconomic impacts in the region. 

The socioeconomic ROI represents a geographic area where the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project employees and their families would reside, spend their income, and use their benefits, 

thereby affecting the economic conditions of the region. As previously discussed, the focus of 

the analysis in the SEIS is on the impacts of constructing and operating the proposed ISR 

facility in Campbell and Johnson Counties. 

Detailed discussion of the potential environmental impacts to socioeconomics from construction, 

operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning are provided in the following sections. 

The GEIS socioeconomic analysis is based on 2000 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) data. The 

socioeconomic analysis presented in this SEIS for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project ROI 

is based on a combination of 2000 USCB data, USCB 2005–2007 American Community Survey 

3-Year Estimates, and USCB 2009 State and County QuickFacts (USCB, 2009). Though 

specific numbers may differ, the analysis of socioeconomics presented in GEIS Section 4.3.10 

remains valid for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project as explained in the following sections. 

4.11.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

4.11.1.1 Construction Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.10.1 discusses the potential impacts to socioeconomics from construction of 

an ISR facility. These impacts would result predominantly from employment at an ISR facility 

and demands on the existing public and social services, tourism/recreation, housing, 

infrastructure (schools, utilities), and the local workforce. The GEIS estimated total peak 

construction employment to be about 200 people. The GEIS also estimated an additional 

140 jobs could be created from the construction of the ISR facility. During construction of 

surface facilities and wellfields, it is expected that a general practice would be to use local 
 Environmental Impacts

4-79 

contractors (e.g., drillers, construction workers), as available, and local building materials and 

building supplies would be used to the extent practical. 

The GEIS assumed that most construction workers would choose to live in larger communities 

with access to more services. However, the GEIS expected that some construction workers 

would commute from outside the county to the construction site and that skilled employees 

(e.g., engineers, accountants, managers) would come from outside the local workforce. The 

potential also exists that some of these employees would temporarily relocate to the proposed 

project area and contribute to the local economy through purchasing goods and services and 

paying taxes. After review of the applicant’s ER (Uranerz, 2007); the site visit; meeting with 

Federal, State, local, and Tribal officials and other stakeholders; and the evaluation of other 

available information, the NRC staff concludes that the site-specific impacts of constructing the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be bounded by the impacts described in the GEIS, 

based on the smaller number of required workers [200 estimated in the GEIS versus 45 to 55 

estimated by the applicant (Uranerz, 2007)] for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. 

Furthermore, the NRC staff did not identify any new and significant information during its 

independent review that would change the conclusions summarized in the GEIS. 

Because a smaller number of workers would be required to construct the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project, the overall potential for socioeconomic impacts would be SMALL. The 

following subsections describe the effects of ISR facility construction on demographic 

conditions, income, housing, employment rate, local finance, education, and health and 

social services. 

4.11.1.1.1 Demographics 

Because of the short duration of construction (1 year) and small size of the construction 

workforce (45 to 55 workers), the impacts of construction on demographic conditions would be 

limited. It is assumed that the applicant would employ workers from the surrounding area, 

which would reduce demands for public services. Also, due to the short duration of the 

construction phase, workers would not likely relocate their families to the region. Therefore, 

demographic impacts from the proposed action would be SMALL. 

4.11.1.1.2 Income 

No changes to income levels in the region would be anticipated as a result of ISR facility 

construction activities. It is expected workers would be paid the regional rates typical of the 

area. Therefore, impacts from the proposed action would be SMALL. 

4.11.1.1.3 Housing 

Construction workers relocating to the area would cause a short-term increase in the demand 

for temporary (rental) housing units in Campbell and Johnson Counties. However, the number 

of available housing units in Campbell County has kept pace with the population increase in the 

county (see SEIS Sections 3.11.1, Demographics, and 3.11.3, Housing). Any changes in 

employment would have little to no noticeable effect on the availability of housing in Campbell 

and Johnson Counties. Due to the short duration of the construction phase and the availability 

of housing in the region, there would be little or no employment-related housing impacts. In 

addition, it is assumed the applicant would employ workers from the surrounding area, thereby 

reducing some of the need for additional housing. Therefore, housing impacts from the 

proposed action would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts 

4-80 

4.11.1.1.4 Employment Rate 

Construction of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would create employment 

opportunities for 45 to 55 construction workers with the potential of up to 30 to 40 additional jobs 

being generated to support this activity in the local economy. Because of the short duration (1 

year) and small number of jobs generated by the construction of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project, the overall effect on employment in the region would be SMALL. 

4.11.1.1.5 Local Finance 

Construction of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would generate some tax revenue in 

the local economy through the purchase of goods and services as well as contributing to county 

and state tax revenues. Because of the short duration (1 year) and small size of the 

construction workforce (45 to 55 workers), construction of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project would have a SMALL impact on local finances. 

4.11.1.1.6 Education 

Because of the short duration of construction (1 year; the GEIS assumed 12 to 18 months), 

workers would not be expected to bring families and school-aged children with them, and 

therefore, there would be no impact on educational services during construction of the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

4.11.1.1.7 Health and Social Services 

The number of construction workers would cause a short-term increase in the demand for 

health and social services in Campbell and Johnson Counties. However, due to the short 

duration of the ISR construction phase and the small size of the construction workforce 

(45 to 55 workers), there would be little or no impact on health and social services. Therefore, it 

is anticipated that impacts on health and social services would be SMALL. 

4.11.1.2 Operations Impacts 

Operation of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is expected to last 9 years and employ 

from 45 to 55 workers (Uranerz, 2007). GEIS Section 4.3.10.2 discussed employment levels 

during ISR facility operations and assumed 50 to 80 workers would support this phase of the 

ISR lifecycle (NRC, 2009a). The complexity of ISR facility operations would require technically 

skilled workers who would not be available locally. The majority of the operational workforce 

would be staffed from outside the region, particularly during initial operations. 

According to the GEIS, the effects on community services (e.g., education, healthcare, utilities, 

shopping, and recreation) during operation are expected to be similar to effects during 

construction, but longer in duration. 

The operations phase of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is expected to last for 

approximately 9 years. The operations workforce would impact the local economy through the 

creation of jobs, the purchasing of local goods and services, and the increase in county and 

state tax revenues. Severance tax on the uranium extracted would also be collected at the 

state level and would contribute to the State of Wyoming general fund. 
 Environmental Impacts

4-81 

Because of the small relative size of the ISR operational workforce at the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project, the overall potential impacts to socioeconomics from construction would be 

SMALL. The following subsections describe the operation impacts related to demographics, 

income, housing, employment rate, local finance, education, and health and social services. 

4.11.1.2.1 Demographics 

According to the applicant, the number of operations workers would be equal to the number of 

construction workers [45 to 55 workers (Uranerz, 2007)] with the potential of up to 30 to 40 

additional jobs being generated to support this activity in the local economy; however, 

operations workers would stay in the area for approximately 9 years. ISR facility operations 

require a number of specialized workers, such as plant managers, technical professionals, and 

skilled tradespeople who would relocate from outside the area. Assuming the entire direct and 

indirect workforce comes from outside the region of influence, the combined effect of 85 to 95 

new persons in the region would constitute 1 percent or less of the current civilian labor force in 

Campbell and Johnson Counties. Demographic conditions in Campbell and Johnson Counties 

would not likely change. The impact on demographic conditions would be SMALL. 

4.11.1.2.2 Income 

The average annual salary for all full-time employees would be roughly $50,000 

(Uranerz, 2007). This slightly exceeds the Wyoming average of $48,205 (USCB, 2008). The 

impacts on income during operations would be SMALL. 

4.11.1.2.3 Housing 

Demand for permanent housing is anticipated to increase in the communities surrounding the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site leading up to the startup of ISR facility operations. 

The surrounding towns of Wright, Edgerton, and Midwest, as well as larger cities such as 

Gillette and Casper, are within commuting distance to the proposed project area. Although 

there are more than 1,500 vacant units in Campbell and Johnson Counties (see Table 3-16), 

vacancy rates are currently low in some of the nearby towns and cities, and the additional 

demand for housing could have an impact in these communities. Because of the small size of 

the operations workforce (45 to 55 workers) and the potential addition of 30 to 40 (indirect) 

workers in support of facility operations, impacts to housing during ISR facility operations could 

range from SMALL for the region to MODERATE for nearby communities. 

4.11.1.2.4 Employment Rate 

As previously discussed, the proposed ISR facility operations at Nichols Ranch would generate 

45 to 55 new jobs, such as project managers, plant operators, lab technicians, and drill 

contractors. Some skilled positions would likely be filled by people moving into the area rather 

than providing employment opportunities for people living in nearby communities. ISR facility 

operations could provide some jobs in the local economy. However, because it is likely 

that most skilled workers would be drawn from areas outside of the ROI, the proposed ISR 

facility operations at Nichols Ranch would not noticeably affect employment rates in Campbell 

and Johnson Counties. 
Environmental Impacts 

4-82 

4.11.1.2.5 Local Finance 

Campbell and Johnson Counties would receive some tax revenue during ISR facility operations. 

Personal property tax would be applied to the value of all equipment used by the proposed 

project. In addition, a state mineral severance tax would be applied to the extracted uranium; 

however, this tax would not be directly returned to Campbell and Johnson Counties. A county 

ad valorem tax for production would also contribute to local government revenue. Indirectly, the 

counties would benefit from increased sales tax revenue from the increased number of workers 

relocating to the ROI and from increased demand for goods and services. The tax-revenuerelated impact from ISR facility operations on local taxing jurisdictions in Campbell and Johnson 

Counties would be SMALL. 

4.11.1.2.6 Education 

The number of school-aged children could increase because 45 to 55 workers and their families 

could relocate to Campbell and Johnson Counties during ISR facility operations, impacting local 

public schools and education-related services. The average family size in Wyoming is 2.97 

(USCB, 2005–2007); therefore, a conservative estimate for the number of school-aged children 

that could relocate to the ROI would be 45 to 55 children. Comprising various ages and spread 

across schools and classrooms in both counties (kindergarten and grades 1 through 12), this 

small number of children would not likely have a noticeable effect on student-to-teacher ratios. 

County planners indicated schools could accommodate a small increase in the number of 

students. Schools and education-related service impacts during the ISR facility operations 

would be SMALL. 

4.11.1.2.7 Health and Social Services 

There would be a small increase in the demand for health and social services during ISR facility 

operations from workers and their families relocating to the ROI. Operational impacts would not 

be expected to differ significantly from those during the construction phase of the ISR facility. 

Impacts to health and social services during operations would remain SMALL. 

4.11.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.10.3, socioeconomic impacts from aquifer restoration were 

expected to be similar to impacts experienced during facility operations, because the number of 

workers at the ISR facility and demand for services in the region would not change. The 

conclusion in the GEIS was impacts would be SMALL. 

However, aquifer restoration at the Nichols Ranch site would require fewer workers than ISR 

facility operations. According to the applicant, approximately 20 workers would be needed 

(Uranerz, 2009). Because the restoration would be short term and would not require any 

specialized skills, it is expected that some ISR facility operations workers would remain to assist 

in the aquifer restoration with the remainder drawn from the local labor pool. Based on this 

information, overall socioeconomic impacts during aquifer restoration would be less than those 

experienced during ISR facility operations due to the smaller number of workers required during 

this phase. Therefore, overall socioeconomic impacts from aquifer restoration would be 

SMALL. 
 Environmental Impacts

4-83 

4.11.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

NRC has regulations and guidance for decommissioning. These regulations are found in 

10 CFR 40.42. Additional guidance on how to decommission a nuclear facility is provided in the 

Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance, NUREG–1757. Decommissioning of the 

proposed ISR facility would be subject to a separate safety and environmental review. The 

decommissioning process would commence when the licensee informs NRC that it intends to 

decommission the facility or has ceased principal activities at the entire site or in any building or 

outdoor area. The licensee would prepare a decommissioning plan and submit it to NRC for 

review. Upon approval of the decommissioning plan, NRC would amend the license to allow 

decommissioning to proceed. At the completion of decommissioning, the licensee would 

conduct a final status survey to demonstrate compliance with criteria established in the 

decommissioning plan. After NRC had confirmed that the criteria in the decommissioning plan 

to release the site or portion of the site have been met, NRC would either terminate or amend 

the license, depending on the intended use of the site. 

Socioeconomic impacts during the decommissioning of the ISR facility at Nichols Ranch would 

require fewer workers than ISR facility construction and operations. According to the applicant, 

approximately 20 workers would be required to support decommissioning activities 

(Uranerz, 2009). Based on this information, overall socioeconomic impacts during the 

decommissioning of the proposed ISR facility would be SMALL. 

4.11.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, the ISR facility would not be constructed and operated at 

Nichols Ranch. Socioeconomic conditions in Campbell and Johnson Counties would remain 

unchanged. 

4.11.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) 

Under Alternative 3, the Hank Unit would not be constructed and operated. All proposed 

facilities would be located at the Nichols Ranch Unit. A fewer number of workers would be 

required to construct, operate, perform aquifer restoration, and decommission the ISR facility at 

the Nichols Ranch Unit; therefore, the potential impact would be less than described for the 

proposed action. The socioeconomic impact from ISR facility construction would be SMALL, the 

impact from operations could range from regionally SMALL to locally MODERATE, and the 

impact from aquifer restoration and decommissioning would be SMALL. 

4.12 Environmental Justice Impacts 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629), Federal Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, Federal agencies are required to 

identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high or adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low 

income populations. A specific consideration of equity and fairness in resource decisionmaking 

is encompassed in the issue of environmental justice. As required by law and Title VI, all 

federal actions would consider potentially disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low 

income communities. 

In 2004, in response to EO 12898, the Commission issued a Policy Statement on the Treatment 

of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040), 
Environmental Impacts 

4-84 

which states, “The Commission is committed to the general goals set forth in EO 12898, and 

strives to meet those goals as part of its NEPA review process.” 

The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) provided the following information in CEQ (1997): 

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 employed by NEPA) 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 employed by NEPA) refers to an impact or 

risk of an impact on the natural or physical environment in a low-income or minority 

community that appreciably exceeds the environmental impact on the larger community. 

Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social 

impacts. An adverse environmental impact is an impact that is determined to be both 

harmful and significant (as defined by NEPA). In assessing cultural and aesthetic 

environmental impacts, impacts that uniquely affect geographically dislocated or 

dispersed minority or low-income populations or American Indian tribes are considered. 

The environmental justice analysis assesses the potential for disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 

could result from the construction and operation of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. In 

assessing the impacts, the following CEQ (1997) definitions of minority individuals and 

populations and low-income population were used: 

Minority individuals. Individuals who identify themselves as members of the following 

population groups: Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black 

or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races 

meaning individuals who identified themselves on a Census form as being a member of 

two or more races, for example, Hispanic and Asian. 

Minority populations. Minority populations are identified when (1) the minority population 

of an affected area exceeds 50 percent or (2) the minority population percentage of the 

affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the 

general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. 

Low-income population. Low-income populations in an affected area are identified with 

the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau’s Current Population 

Reports, Series PB60, on Income and Poverty. 

4.12.1 Analysis of Impacts 

Methodology 

NRC addresses environmental justice matters for license reviews through (i) identifying of 

minority and low income populations that may be affected by the proposed construction and 
 Environmental Impacts

4-85 

operation of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project and (ii) examining any potential human 

health or environmental effects on these populations to determine whether these effects may be 

disproportionately high and adverse. 

The 2000 Census provides race and poverty characteristics for census tracts and block groups 

in Campbell and Johnson Counties. The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project and a 1.6-km 

[2-mi] perimeter are contained within two block groups that encompass portions of Campbell 

and Johnson Counties. 

Campbell County was selected as the geographic area for comparison of demographic data for 

the affected census tract populations. This comparison was made to determine the 

concentration of minority or low-income populations in the affected census tracts relative to 

the state. 

Census Block Group data are available from the 2000 Census. Table 4-1 shows the 

percentage of people living in poverty and the minority population in the United States, 

Wyoming, Campbell and Johnson Counties, and the block groups closest to the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

Analysis 

According to the 2000 Census, the populations of Campbell and Johnson Counties were 33,698 

and 7,075 (USCB, 2009). Approximately 11 percent of the Wyoming population (493,783) was 

classified as minority (Table 4-1). The minority populations in the Census Block Groups 

containing the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project ranged from 3.3 to 4.0 percent, which are 

both well below the state average of 11 percent (USCB, 2009). 

According to American Community Survey 3-Year Census data estimates (2006–2008), the 

populations in the two counties increased to 40,121 (Campbell) and 8,464 (Johnson). Minority 

populations are estimated to have increased since 2000 by approximately 1,300 and 140 

persons, respectively. The estimated percentage of minorities in Campbell County rose to 8.3 

percent and Johnson County 5.0 percent. Most of this increase was due to an estimated influx 

of Hispanics or Latinos (more than 900 persons), an increase in population of 67.5 percent from 

2000 (USCB, 2009). 

Table 4-1. Percent of Population Living in Poverty and Percent Minority Population in 

2000 

Geographic Unit Percent of Population 

Living in Poverty 

Percent Minority Population 

U.S. 13.0 30.9 

Wyoming 11.4 11.2 

Campbell County 7.6 6.5 

Campbell County Project 

Block Group 1-1 

12.4 3.3 

Johnson County 10.1 3.8 

Johnson County Project Block 

Group 9551-1 

12.5 4.0 

Source: USCB, 2009 
Environmental Impacts 

4-86 

According to the 2000 Census, the U.S. population living below the poverty level was 

determined as 13 percent, and 11.4 percent of the population in Wyoming was determined to be 

living below the poverty level (the 1999 Federal poverty threshold was $17,029 for a family of 

four). The percentage of people living below the poverty level within the Census Block Groups 

surrounding the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project ranged from 7.6 to 12.5 percent. In the 

2000 Census, 8.0 percent of families and 11.4 percent of individuals in Wyoming were living 

below the Federal poverty threshold in 1999 (USCB, 2009). 

According to American Community Survey 3-Year Census data estimates, the median 

household income for Wyoming for the years 2006-2008 was $53,096, with 8.9 percent of the 

state population and 5.5 percent of families living below the Federal poverty threshold. 

Campbell County had a much higher estimated median household income average ($76,666) 

and lower percentages of individuals (5.1 percent) and families (4.2 percent) living below the 

poverty level when compared to the state average. Johnson County had the lowest median 

household income ($51,162) and higher percentages of individuals (8.3 percent) living below 

the poverty level when compared to Campbell County (USCB, 2009). 

The percentage of minority populations living in the affected block groups is similar to the 

Johnson County percentage and very small when compared to the percentage of minority 

populations recorded at the state level and much less than the national level. No minority 

populations were identified as residing near the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. 

Therefore, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact to minority populations 

from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and 

adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 

could result from the construction and operation of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse 

impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur 

when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income 

population is significant and exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for 

another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately high environmental effects refer to 

impacts or risk of impacts on the natural or physical environment in a minority or low-income 

community that are significant and appreciably exceed the environmental impact on the larger 

community. Such effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts 

(CEQ, 1997). Some of these potential effects have been identified in the resource areas 

discussed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. For example, increased demand for rental housing during 

the construction of the ISR facility could disproportionately affect low-income populations. 

Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general public residing around the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site, and all would be exposed to the same health and 

environmental effects generated from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning activities. 

4.12.2 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations due to the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of the proposed ISR facility and aquifer restoration at Nichols Ranch would 

mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, 

employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during construction activities would 

be short-term and limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing 

along site access roads could experience increased commuter vehicle traffic during construction 
 Environmental Impacts

4-87 

and operational shift changes. As construction and operations employment increases at the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site, employment opportunities for minority and lowincome populations may also increase. Increased demand for rental housing during peak 

construction could disproportionately affect low-income populations. However, according to the 

latest census information, there were more than 1,000 vacant housing units in Campbell County 

(see Section 3.11.3 of the SEIS). Based on this information and the analysis of human health 

and environmental impacts presented in Chapter 4, 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 proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

As part of addressing environmental justice associated with license reviews, NRC also analyzed 

the risk of radiological exposure through the consumption patterns of special pathway receptors, 

including subsistence consumption of fish, native vegetation, surface waters, sediments, and 

local produce; absorption of contaminants in sediments through the skin; and inhalation of plant 

materials. The special pathway receptors analysis is important to the environmental justice 

analysis because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or cultural practices of 

minority and low-income populations in the area. 

Subsistence Consumption of Fish and Wildlife 

Section 4-4 of EO 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs Federal agencies, whenever practical and 

appropriate, to collect and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations who 

rely principally on fish and wildlife for subsistence and to communicate the risks of these 

consumption patterns to the public. In this SEIS, NRC considered whether there were any 

means for minority or low-income populations to be disproportionately affected by examining 

impacts to American Indian, Hispanic, and other traditional lifestyle special pathway receptors. 

Special pathways that took into account the potential levels of contaminants in native 

vegetation, crops, soils and sediments, surface water, fish, and game animals on or near the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site were considered. 

Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of radiological 

effects; however, radiation doses from ISR facility operations would be expected to be well 

below regulatory limits as described in Section 4.13. Based on this information and the analysis 

of human health and environmental impacts presented in this SEIS, the proposed construction, 

operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project would not 

have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority 

and low-income populations residing in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

4.12.3 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under Alternative 3, the impact on minority and low-income populations from the construction 

and operation of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning would be the same as described for the proposed action. There would be no 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations from this 

alternative. 

4.12.4 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) 

Under this alternative, impacts to minority and low-income populations during the construction 

and operation of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning would be the same as stated for the proposed action. There would be no 
Environmental Impacts 

4-88 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations from this 

alternative. 

4.13 Public and Occupational Health and Safety Impacts 

Potential radiological and nonradiological impacts to public and occupational health and safety 

from ISR activities at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project could occur during all phases of 

the ISR facility lifecycle. Such impacts could occur from normal operations or from accidents. 

Detailed discussion of the potential environmental impacts to public and occupational health and 

safety from construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project are provided in the following sections. 

4.13.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

4.13.1.1 Construction Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.11.1 discussed construction activities at an ISR facility, which would include 

installation of wellfields (and associated piping) and construction of surface-processing 

structures, access roads, and supporting utilities. Fugitive dust generated from construction and 

vehicle traffic is expected but would likely be of short duration. The construction phase at the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project has been estimated to last 9 months. Radiological 

environmental monitoring data from the one-year monitoring program showed that annualized 

average background gamma exposure rates at the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units are 42.5 and 

45.4 mrem, respectively. These values are within the range of typical background exposure 

rates in the Western United States, and no significantly elevated levels of radioactive materials 

in soils beyond natural background levels have been identified (Uranerz, 2007). Therefore, 

inhalation of fugitive dust with these background levels does not pose a radiological dose 

significantly different than that from natural background exposure (NRC, 2009a). 

Construction equipment would likely be diesel powered and would result in diesel exhaust that 

includes small particles. The impacts and potential human exposures from these emissions 

would be SMALL because the releases are usually of short duration and are readily dispersed 

into the atmosphere (NRC, 2009a). Appendix D of the final SEIS describes the emissions 

inventory evaluated for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

review of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project Environmental Report, the site visit, or 

evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that there 

would be no significant impacts to public and occupational health and safety from construction 

beyond those discussed in the GEIS. The construction phase of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project would have a SMALL impact on workers and the general public. 

4.13.1.2 Operations Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.11.2 discussed potential occupational radiological impacts from normal 

operations that could result from (i) exposure to radon gas from the wellfields, (i) ion-exchange 

resin transfer operations, and (iii) venting during processing activities. Workers could also be 

exposed to airborne uranium particulates from dryer operations and maintenance activities. 

Potential public exposures to radiation could occur from radon releases from the wellfields and 

uranium particulate releases (i.e., from facilities without vacuum dryer technology). Both worker 
 Environmental Impacts

4-89 

and public radiological exposures are addressed in NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 20, which 

requires licensees to implement an NRC-approved radiation protection program. Measured and 

calculated doses for workers and the public are commonly only a fraction of regulated limits. 

For these reasons, the GEIS concluded that potential radiological impacts to workers and the 

public would be SMALL (NRC, 2009a). 

Nonradiological worker safety would be addressed through occupational health and safety 

regulations and practices. 

Radiological accident risks could involve processing equipment failures leading to yellowcake 

slurry spills, or radon gas or uranium particulate releases. The GEIS concluded the 

consequences of these accidents to workers and the public would generally be low, except for a 

dryer explosion, which could result in a worker dose exceeding NRC limits. The likelihood of 

such an accident would be expected to be low, due to design considerations and operational 

monitoring, and therefore the GEIS concluded the risk would also be low. 

The potential impact from nonradiological accidents includes high consequence chemical 

release events (e.g., of ammonia) that could expose workers and nearby populations. However, 

the GEIS concluded that the likelihood of such a release would be low, based on historical 

operating experience at NRC-licensed facilities, primarily because operators follow chemical 

safety and handling protocols. Therefore, the GEIS concluded that radiological and 

nonradiological impacts from accidents during operations could range from SMALL 

to MODERATE. 

4.13.1.2.1 Radiological Impacts From Normal Operations 

As discussed in the GEIS, some amount of radioactive materials would be released to the 

environment during ISR operations. The potential impact for these releases can be evaluated 

by the MILDOS-AREA computer code (MILDOS), which was developed by Argonne National 

Laboratory (Argonne, 1989) for calculating radiation doses to individuals and populations from 

releases that occur at uranium recovery facilities. MILDOS uses a multipathway analysis for 

determining external dose; inhalation dose; and dose from ingestion of soil, plants, meat, milk, 

aquatic foods, and water. The primary radionuclide of interest at an ISR facility is radon-222; 

other key radionuclides that may also be released, which are also in the uranium decay 

scheme, include uranium, thorium-230, radium-226, and lead-210. MILDOS uses a sectoraverage Gaussian plume dispersion model to estimate downwind concentrations. This model 

typically assumes minimal dilution and provides conservative estimates of downwind air 

concentrations and doses to human receptors. 

The GEIS presented historical data for ISR operations, providing a range of estimated offsite 

doses associated with six current or former ISR facilities. For these operations, doses to 

potential offsite exposure (human receptor) locations range between 0.004 mSv [0.4 mrem] 

per year for the Crow Butte facility located in Nebraska and 0.32 mSv [32 mrem] per year for the 

Irigaray facility located in Johnson County, both well below the 10 CFR Part 20 annual radiation 

dose limit of 1 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr] (NRC, 2009a). 

The GEIS also provides a summary of doses to occupationally exposed workers at ISR 

facilities. As stated, doses would be similar regardless of the facility’s location and are well 

within the 10 CFR Part 20 annual occupational dose limit of 0.05 Sv [5 rem] per year. The 

largest annual average dose to a worker at a uranium recovery facility over a 10-year period 
Environmental Impacts 

4-90 

[1994–2006] was 7 mSv [700 mrem]. More recently, the maximum total dose equivalents 

reported for 2005 and 2006 were 6.75 mSv and 7.13 mSv [675 and 713 mrem]. 

The license application for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project addresses several normal 

operations activities that have the potential to expose workers and members of the public to 

sources of radiation. The primary source of exposure would be from the release of radon-222 

during operations, which includes extraction of the uranium onto ion-exchange columns from the 

pregnant lixiviant that is pumped from the wellfield, the elution of the uranium from the ionexchange columns and subsequent precipitation of uranium, followed by the drying and 

packaging of the yellowcake for shipment to an offsite facility for further processing. 

As described in the GEIS and discussed in Section 2.2.1.3.1.7 of this SEIS, the drying and 

packaging of the precipitated uranium would be conducted under vacuum, thereby limiting 

release of airborne radioactive materials (uranium and short-lived particulate progeny) to zero or 

near zero. The applicant has proposed to dispose of radioactive and potentially toxic liquid 

effluent from the operations phase via deep well injection. Therefore, there would be no 

anticipated routine liquid releases or pathways of exposure from routine operations. Leaks and 

spills are evaluated as abnormal conditions in Section 4.13.1.2.2. 

For normal operations, radon-222 would be the only significant radionuclide anticipated to be 

released; the primary sources would be from wellfield venting and releases from within the 

central plant for process operations (predominantly via vent stacks on the IX columns and 

various tanks). As discussed in Section 7.2.4 of the technical report the applicant has proposed 

using pressurized down flow IX columns that are designed to significantly reduce the radon 

emissions from the processing circuit (Uranerz, 2007). 

The NRC staff’s analysis of impacts to public health included review of local meteorological data 

the applicant provided based on existing sampling stations in the region of the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project. During the review, the staff concluded local topography at the Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project warrants onsite meteorological measurements as documented in SER 

Section 2.2.3.2. To address this concern, the staff has added a license condition requiring the 

applicant to collect onsite meteorological data for at least 1 year prior to operating as described 

in Section 2.2.4 of the SER. The following review of public health impacts assumes the 

applicant’s regional meteorological data is representative of site meteorological conditions. 

When the applicant submits its onsite data for NRC review, the NRC staff will evaluate whether 

the conclusions of the following analysis would change based on the additional information. 

The applicant calculated the potential source term (i.e., radiological releases to the atmosphere) 

for normal operations using the NRC, approved methodology of Regulatory Guide 3.59 for 

releases from the production fluids and NUREG–1569 for the processing of resins from satellite 

facilities. The application of this methodology for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project and 

the resultant source term is discussed in Section 4.12 of the applicant’s Environmental Report 

(Uranerz, 2007). Table 4-2 summarizes these releases. 

 
 Environmental Impacts

4-91 

Table 4-2. Estimated Radon-222 Releases 

Location Drilling (Ci/yr) Production (Ci/yr) Restoration (Ci/yr) 

Nichols Ranch Unit 

Production Area #1 

0.045 170 180 

Nichols Ranch Unit 

Production Area #2 

0.045 170 180 

Hank Unit Production 

Area #1 

0.038 260 230 

Hank Unit Production 

Area #2 

0.038 260 230 

Source: Uranerz, 2007 

Based on this source term, radiation doses at the site boundary in each of the 16 meteorological 

sectors (e.g., N, NNE, NE, ENE, and E) and at the locations of nearby residences were 

calculated using the MILDOS-AREA code (Argonne National Laboratory, 1989). The 

MILDOS-AREA code was also used to assess radiation dose in the GEIS. The principal 

exposure pathways modeled include inhalation, ingestion, and direct exposure. The highest 

dose at the site boundary for the Nichols Ranch Unit is 0.04 mSv [4 mrem] per year total 

effective dose equivalent (TEDE) at the west boundary, which is 4 percent of the 1 mSv 

[100-mrem] per year dose limit for a member of the public as specified in 10 CFR 20.1301. For 

the Hank Unit, the highest dose at the site boundary is 0.11 mSv [11 mrem] per year TEDE at 

the east boundary, which is 11 percent of the 1 mSv [100 mrem] per year public dose limit. The 

maximum exposed nearby resident (Pumpkin Butte Ranch) located approximately 2 km [1 mi] 

east of the proposed Hank Unit is calculated to be 0.01 mSv [1 mrem] per year, which is 

1-percent of the 1 mSv (100 mrem) per year regulatory limit. These doses are consistent with 

the doses identified for other ISR facilities considered in the GEIS, where the range was from a 

high of 0.317 mSv [31.7 mrem] per year for the Crow Butte facility to 0.004 mSv [0.4 mrem] per 

year for the Irigaray facility. 

The applicant also calculated the collective dose using MILDOS-AREA for the population 

residing within 80 km [50 mi] of the facility. This dose, which is a measure of the total 

radiological impact from routine operations for the potentially affected communities, was 

estimated at 0.002 person-Sv [0.2 person-rem] per year. 

The applicant also evaluated the deposition of the radon-222 particulate decay products 

(polonium-210, bismuth-214, and lead-210) in soil. The calculated soil concentrations were no 

more than 1.1 pCi/g at the surface, which is a small fraction of that normally present in the soil 

from the natural background levels of uranium and decay products. Therefore, any impact from 

increased soil radioactivity levels from airborne releases of radon during normal operations 

would be SMALL. 

Based on typical occupational injury and illness rates for the Wyoming mining industry, the 

NRC staff estimated that operations at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project could 

potentially result in 3.21 lost time incidents per 200,000 hours of employee hours worked 

(Arch Coal, Inc., 2010). 

In summary, potential radiation doses to occupationally exposed workers and members of the 

public from operation of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be SMALL. Calculated 

radiation doses from the modeling of releases of radioactive materials to the environment are 

small fractions of the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 that have been established for the protection of 
Environmental Impacts 

4-92 

the public health and safety. The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant 

information during its independent review of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project Environmental 

Report, the site visit, or evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff has 

determined that there would be no significant radiological impacts from normal operations to the 

public or occupational exposed workers beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

4.13.1.2.2 Radiological Impacts from Accidents 

The GEIS provides an identification, discussion, and consequence assessment for accident 

conditions that could occur with an ISR operation (NRC, 2009a). As discussed, a radiological 

hazard assessment (Mackin, et al., 2001) considered three types of accidents, representing the 

sources containing the higher levels of radioactivity for all aspects of operation: 

 Thickener failure and spill 

 Pregnant lixiviant and loaded resin spills (radon release) 

 Yellowcake dryer accident release 

An overview of each of these accident scenarios is presented previously. In addition, 

Section 4.3.1.2 of the SEIS evaluates the impacts of shipping ion-loaded exchange resins from 

the Hank Unit satellite facility to the Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant. 

The following discussion presents an overview of the accident scenarios, as evaluated in the 

GEIS, along with a specific application to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Table 4-3 

summarizes the potential dose to workers and the public from the accident scenarios 

described in the following paragraphs. 

Thickener Failure and Spill. Thickeners are used to concentrate the yellowcake slurry before it 

is transferred to the dryer or packaged for offsite shipment. Radionuclides could be 

inadvertently released to the atmosphere through a thickener failure or spill. The accident 

scenario evaluated in the GEIS assumed a tank or pipe leak that releases 20 percent of the 

thickener outside of the processing building. The analyses included a variety of wind speeds, 

stability classes, release durations, and receptor distances. A minimum receptor distance of 

100 m [330 ft] was selected because it was found to be the shortest distance between a 

processing facility and an urban development for current operating ISR facilities. Offsite, 

Table 4-3. Generic Accident Dose Analysis for ISR Operations 

Accident Scenario Maximum Dose to Workers Maximum Dose to Public 

Thickener spill 50 mSv [5,000 mrem] 0.25 mSv [25 mrem] 

Pregnant lixiviant, resin 

spill 

13 mSv [1,300 mrem] <0.13 mSv [<13 mrem] 

Yellowcake dryer release 0.088 Sv [8.8 rem] Generic 

<0.01 Sv [1 rem] 

<1 mSv [<100 mrem] 

Data adapted from GEIS (NRC, 2009a) 
 Environmental Impacts

4-93 

unrestricted doses from such a spill could result in a dose of 25 mrem, or 25 percent of the 

annual public dose limit of 100 mrem y−1

 with negligible external doses based on sufficient 

distance between the facility and receptor (NRC, 2009a). Because the nearest resident to the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is located 1 km [0.6 mi] north of the proposed license area, 

the potential dose would be even less. 

As discussed in the GEIS, doses to unprotected workers inside the facility have the potential to 

exceed the annual dose limit of 0.05 Sv (5 rem) per year if timely corrective measures were not 

taken for protecting workers and remediating the spill. Typical protection measures, such as 

monitoring, respiratory protection, and material control, which would be a part of the applicant’s 

Radiation Protection Program, would reduce worker exposures and the resulting doses to a 

small fraction of those evaluated. 

Pregnant Lixiviant and Loaded Resin Spills. Process equipment (IX columns, drying and 

packing facilities) would be located on curbed concrete pads, as discussed in Section 7.3.1.1, to 

prevent any liquids from exiting the building via spills or leaks and contaminating the outside 

environment. Therefore, except for wellfield leaks, as further evaluated, the potential for an 

accidental liquid release with exposure from a liquid pathway was not considered realistic. The 

primary radiation source for liquid releases within the facility would be the resulting airborne 

radon-222 as released from the liquid or resin tank spill. 

The radon accident release scenario assumes a pipe or valve of the IX system, containing 

pregnant lixiviant, develops a leak and releases (almost instantaneously) all present radon-222 

at a high activity level (8 × 105

 pCi L−1). For a 30-minute exposure, the dose to a worker located 

inside the central plant performing light activities without respiratory protection was calculated to 

be 13 mSv [1,300 mrem], which is below the 10 CFR Part 20 occupational annual dose limit. 

The analysis did not evaluate public dose; however, because atmospheric transport offsite 

would reduce the airborne levels by several orders of magnitude, any dose to a member of the 

public would be less than the 1 mSv [100 mrem] public dose limit of 10 CFR Part 20. The 

applicant’s Radiation Protection Program controls and monitoring measures would be expected 

to minimize the magnitude of any such release and further reduce the consequences of this 

type accident. 

Yellowcake Dryer Accident Release. Dryers used to produce yellowcake powder from 

yellowcake slurry are another source for accidental release of radionuclides. A multiple-hearth 

dryer is capable of releasing yellowcake powder inside the processing building as a result of an 

explosion and was evaluated in the GEIS as a bounding condition for this type of accidental 

scenario. The analysis assumes about 4,300 kg [9,500 lb] of uranium yellowcake is released 

within the building area housing the dryer, and of this, 1 kg [2.2 lb] is subsequently released as 

an airborne effluent to the outside atmosphere as a 100 percent respirable powder. Due to the 

nature of the material, most of the yellowcake would rapidly fall out of airborne suspension. For 

the occupationally exposed worker using respiratory protection, which is the normal mode 

during dryer access and drum-filling operations, the dose was calculated to be 0.088 Sv 

[8.8 rem], which exceeds the annual occupational dose limit of 0.05 Sv [5 rem]. The amount 

assumed to remain airborne and to be transported outside the building for atmospheric 

dispersion to an offsite location would be 1 kg [2.2 lb] of yellowcake. The rapid fallout within the 

building and the atmospheric dispersion to an offsite location would significantly reduce the 

exposure to members of the public, where the calculated dose was less than 100 mrem. 

The applicant proposes to use a rotary vacuum dryer with heat-transfer fluid that circulates 

through the dryer shell. This configuration separates the heater combustion source from the 
Environmental Impacts 

4-94 

dryer itself, thereby mostly eliminating the possibility of an explosion, which is the initiating event 

for the assumed catastrophic failure and significant release of dryer radioactive content. The 

removal of the driving force for the resuspension of the yellowcake greatly reduces 

consequences. Additionally, the applicant would have emergency response procedures in 

place to provide proper directions for mitigating worker exposures; emergency training drills, 

dosimetry, respiratory protection, and contamination control and decontamination are required 

as part of the applicant’s Radiation Protection Program. Both of these would further reduce the 

consequences of this type accident. 

Accident Analysis Conclusions. With the addition of site-specific consideration for the 

yellowcake dryer accident, the GEIS evaluations appropriately encompass the type of accidents 

and consequences for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The NRC Staff has not 

identified any new and significant information during its independent review of the Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project Environmental Report, the site visit, or evaluation of other available 

information. Therefore, there would be no significant radiological impacts from potential 

accidents to the public or occupationally exposed workers beyond those considered in the 

GEIS. The impacts to workers would be SMALL, if radiation safety and incident response 

procedures in the applicant’s NRC-approved Radiation Protection Plan were followed; the 

impacts to the general public would also be SMALL 

4.13.1.2.3 Nonradiological Impacts from Normal Operations 

The GEIS identified the various chemicals, hazardous and nonhazardous, along with typical 

quantities that are generally used at ISR facilities. The use of hazardous chemicals at ISR 

facilities is controlled under several regulations that are designed to provide adequate protection 

to workers and the public. The primary regulations applicable to the use and storage include 

 40 CFR Part 68, Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions. This regulation 

includes a list of regulated toxic substances and threshold quantities for 

accidental release prevention. 

 29 CFR 1910.119, OSHA Standards [which includes Process Safety 

Management (PSM)]. This regulation provides a list of highly hazardous 

chemicals, including toxic and reactive materials that have the potential for a 

catastrophic event at or above the threshold quantity. 

 40 CFR Part 355, Emergency Planning and Notification. This regulation contains 

a list of extremely hazardous substances and their threshold planning quantities 

(TPQs) for the development and implementation of ERPs. A list of reportable 

quantity (RQ) values is also provided for reporting releases. 

 40 CFR 302.4, Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification–Designation 

of Hazardous Substances. This regulation provides a list of Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous 

substances compiled from the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Toxic Substances and Control Act. 

The following lists the hazardous chemicals and their associated protective provisions expected 

to be used at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (Uranerz, 2007): 
 Environmental Impacts

4-95 

 Sodium chloride (NaCl) and sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3)–Systems utilizing 

these chemicals would be designed to industry standards. 

 Sodium hydroxide (NaOH)–Systems utilizing these chemicals would be designed 

to industry standards. 

 Hydrochloric acid (HCl)–Due to the quantities that would be used, reporting 

quantities would be required per 40 CFR Part 302.4. The hydrochloric acid 

storage tank would be located away from other process tanks to preclude 

accidental mixing with other chemicals. 

 Hydrogen peroxide–50 percent (H2O2)–Because the concentration would be less 

than 52 percent, no additional regulatory protective measures would be required. 

 Carbon dioxide (CO2)–Carbon dioxide would be stored adjacent to the central 

plant. Floor-level ventilation and low-point carbon dioxide monitors would be 

installed to preclude a buildup of carbon dioxide in occupied areas. 

 Oxygen (O2)–Oxygen would be stored near, but a safe distance from, the central 

plant or within wellfield areas. The oxygen storage facility would be 

designed to meet industry standards contained in National Fire Protection 

Association 50–Standards for Bulk Oxygen Systems at Consumer Sites. 

(National Fire Protection Association, 2001). Procedures would be developed for 

spills or fires in the oxygen system. 

 Anhydrous ammonia (NH3)–Systems utilizing these chemicals would be designed 

to industry standards. 

 Diesel, gasoline, and bottled gases–Systems utilizing these chemicals would be 

designed to industry standards. 

The 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. Compliance with applicable 

regulations reduces the likelihood of a release. Offsite impacts would be SMALL and do not 

typically pose a significant risk to the public, while workers involved in a response and cleanup 

could experience MODERATE impacts if the proper emergency and cleanup procedures and 

worker training were not available or were inadequate. 

In general, the handling and storage of chemicals at the facility would follow standard industrial 

safety standards and practices. Industrial safety aspects associated with the use of hazardous 

chemicals are regulated by the Wyoming Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 

Uranerz (2007) Section 3.3.1 of the applicant technical report provides an overview of storage 

practices. Chemical storage facilities would include hazardous and nonhazardous material 

storage areas. Bulk hazardous materials would be stored outside and segregated from areas 

where licensed materials are processed and stored to minimize potential impact on radiation 

safety. Bulk storage of hazardous chemicals would be separated to avoid mixing of 

incompatible materials; outside storage areas would be located at a sufficient distance from 

facilities to minimize hazards to people during an accidental release. Other nonhazardous bulk 

process chemicals (e.g., sodium carbonate) that do not have the potential to impact radiological 

safety could be stored within the central plant facilities. The applicant plans to use chemicals to 
Environmental Impacts 

4-96 

extract uranium, process wastewater, and restore groundwater. Material Safety Data Sheets 

(MSDSs) for each of the chemicals would be reviewed for facility safety and for radiological 

effects, and the sheets would be located at the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units. 

The applicant identifies anhydrous ammonia as the most hazardous chemical to be used onsite 

and has proposed an overall chemical safety program that includes 

 Risk Management Planning, as required in 40 CFR Part 68, which would include 

accidental release modeling, safety information, hazards reviews, operating 

procedures, safety training, and emergency preparedness 

 Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals standard contained 

in 29 CFR 1910.119 

 Threshold Planning Quantities as contained in 40 CFR Part 355 

 Reportable quantities for spills from CERCLA in 40 CFR 302.4 

The types and quantities of chemicals (hazardous and nonhazardous) for proposed use at the 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project do not differ from those evaluated in the GEIS. Information provided 

for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project does not contain any new or significant information 

that is either contrary to or varies from the information in the GEIS conclusions regarding 

potential impacts to the public or occupational health and safety. Therefore, the nonradiological 

impacts during normal operations at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be SMALL. 

4.13.1.2.4 Nonradiological Impacts from Accidents 

The risks from accidents associated with the use of the typical hazardous and nonhazardous 

chemicals for ISR operations are not different from those for other typical industrial applications. 

In general, these risks are deemed acceptable as long as design and safety policies and 

practices meet industry and regulatory standards. Past history at current and former ISR 

facilities has shown they can be designed and operated with appropriate measures to ensure 

proper safety for workers and the public (Uranerz, 2007). 

GEIS Appendix E, Hazardous Chemicals, provides an accident analysis for the more hazardous 

chemicals (NRC, 2009a). That analysis indicates chemicals commonly used at ISR facilities 

can pose a serious safety hazard if not properly handled. The GEIS does not evaluate potential 

hazards to workers or the public due to specific types of high-consequence, low-probability 

accidents (e.g., a fire or large magnitude sudden release of chemicals from a major tank or 

piping system rupture). The application of common safety practices for handling and use of 

chemicals is expected to decrease the likelihood of these high-consequence events. 

Spills of reportable quantities from chemical bulk storage areas are to be reported to WDEQ in 

accordance with [WDEQ-Water Quality Division (WQD) Rules and Regulations, Chapter 17, 

Part E] and 40 CFR Part 302 (CERCLA). 

The types and quantities of chemicals (hazardous and nonhazardous) for proposed use at the 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project do not differ from those evaluated in the GEIS. Information provided 

for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project does not contain any new or significant information 

that is either contrary to or varies from the information and conclusions in the GEIS regarding 

potential nonradiological impacts on public and occupational health and safety from chemical 

accidents. Offsite impacts would be SMALL and do not typically pose a significant risk to the 

public, while workers involved in a response and cleanup could experience MODERATE 
 Environmental Impacts

4-97 

impacts that would be mitigated by establishing procedures and training requirements. Based 

on this finding and the GEIS conclusions, the impacts from potential accidents for both 

occupationally exposed workers and members of the public would be SMALL. 

4.13.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.11.3 discussed potential radiological and nonradiological impacts from aquifer 

restoration. Activities occurring during aquifer restoration would overlap similar activities 

occurring during operations (e.g., operation of wellfields, wastewater treatment and disposal). 

Therefore, the potential impact on public and occupational health and safety would be bound by 

the operational impacts. The GEIS also stated that the reduction of some operational activities 

(e.g., yellowcake production and drying, remote IX) as aquifer restoration proceeded would be 

expected to limit the relative magnitude of potential worker and public health and safety 

hazards. The GEIS concluded that the overall impacts from aquifer restoration would 

be SMALL. 

Aquifer restoration activities for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project involve activities 

similar to those during operations (e.g., operation of wellfields, wastewater treatment and 

disposal); therefore, the potential impact on public and occupational health and safety would be 

expected to be similar to the operational impacts. The reduction or elimination of some 

operational activities (e.g., yellowcake production and drying, remote IX) would further limit the 

relative magnitude of potential worker and public health and safety hazards. The radiation 

doses associated with restoration are included in the operations assessment in 

Section 4.13.1.2.1. Similarly, nonradiological hazards during aquifer restoration are assessed in 

Section 4.13.1.2.3. Accident consequences would be expected to be smaller than those 

evaluated in Sections 4.13.1.2.2 and 4.13.1.2.4. Therefore, aquifer restoration would be 

expected to have a very localized SMALL occupational impact to workers (primarily from radon 

gas) and to the general public for the duration of the aquifer restoration phase, which is 

estimated to last for 5.5 years (Uranerz, 2007). 

4.13.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.11.4 discussed potential radiological and nonradiological impacts to public 

and worker health and safety during the decommissioning phase of an ISR facility. Worker and 

public health and safety would be addressed in an NRC-required and approved 

decommissioning plan. This plan would be prepared in compliance with 10 CFR 40.42 and 

discusses implementation of the safety program to ensure worker safety and protection of the 

public during decommissioning and compliance with applicable safety regulations. An ISR 

licensee would conduct decommissioning activities in accordance with the approved plan, and 

compliance would be enforced through NRC inspections. 

The GEIS also assumed that as decommissioning proceeded, the potential environmental 

impact would be expected to decrease because the hazard would be removed, soils and 

structures would be decontaminated, and disturbed lands would be reclaimed. 

As discussed in the GEIS, the environmental impact from decommissioning an ISR facility 

would be SMALL. The degree of potential impact would decrease as the hazards were either 

reduced or removed, soils and facility structures were decontaminated, and lands were restored 

to preoperational conditions. Typically, the initial decommissioning steps would include removal 

of hazardous chemicals. As such, the majority of safety issues to be addressed during the 

decommissioning phase would involve radiological hazards at the facility. 
Environmental Impacts 

4-98 

To ensure the safety of the workers and the public during decommissioning, NRC requires 

licensed facilities to submit a decommissioning plan for review. The plan would include details 

of the radiation safety program that would be implemented during decommissioning to ensure 

that the workers and public would be adequately protected and that their doses are compliant 

with 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts C and D limits. An approved plan would also provide ALARA 

provisions to further ensure best safety practices are being use to minimize radiation exposures. 

Finally, adequate protection of workers and the public during decommissioning is further 

ensured through NRC plan approval, license conditions, and inspection and enforcement. 

The decommissioning of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project and any subsequent NRC 

approval for release of the site for unrestricted access would have to be in conformance with the 

NRC radiation protection standards for decommissioning of uranium recovery facilities. 

Therefore, any potential radiation dose to members of the public would also be in conformance 

with standards established for protecting public health and safety. 

The applicant’s proposal does not contain any new or significant information that is contrary to 

or varies significantly from the GEIS information and conclusions regarding the potential impact 

to public and occupational health and safety. Therefore, the potential impact from and following 

decommissioning would be short term and SMALL. 

4.13.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, there would be no occupational exposure. There would be no 

additional radiological exposures to the general public from project related effluent releases, and 

there would be no impact on long-term environmental radiological conditions. Radiation 

exposure and risk to the general public would continue to be determined by exposure from 

natural background, medical-related exposures, consumer products, and exposures from 

existing residual contamination. Under the No-Action alternative, the existing residual 

radioactivity would remain in these areas and would not be remediated. 

4.13.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) 

4.13.3.1 Construction Impacts 

Issuing a license to conduct ISR operations solely at the Nichols Ranch Unit without permitting 

activities at the adjacent Hank Unit would reduce the scope of construction activities to 

approximately one half. Although the Hank Unit is physically twice the size of the Nichols 

Ranch Unit, the ore bodies on the two units are approximately the same size. No satellite 

facility would be constructed at the Hank Unit and fewer total wells would be drilled. Therefore, 

low potential construction impacts from human interaction with background concentrations of 

radioactive material in soil would decrease by about 50 percent by eliminating the Hank Unit. 

NRC staff concluded in Section 4.13.1.1, that the combined public and occupational health 

impacts from construction of the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units would be SMALL. Therefore, 

eliminating the impacts from construction of the Hank Unit would also result in SMALL impacts 

to public and occupational health and safety. 

4.13.3.2 Operations Impacts 

Issuing a license to conduct ISR operations at the Nichols Ranch Unit without permitting 

activities at the adjacent Hank Unit would reduce ISR operation to approximately one-half of that 

of the proposed action. There would be no change in the types of activities conducted, though 
 Environmental Impacts

4-99 

approximately 50 percent fewer wells would be needed. Also, there would be no shipments of 

resin or chemicals to or from a satellite facility, thus reducing the number of shipments by 

approximately 50 percent. Based on the information in Table 4-2, the estimated radon-222 

emissions from the Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be reduced by 58 percent compared to the 

proposed action. Eliminating the Hank Unit would further reduce the proposed action’s SMALL 

impacts to public and occupational health and safety in the proposed action. Therefore, NRC 

staff concluded the impacts would be SMALL under Alternative 3. 

4.13.3.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

Issuing a license to conduct ISR operations at the Nichols Ranch Unit without permitting 

activities at the adjacent Hank Unit would reduce the scope of aquifer restoration activities by 

approximately 50 percent. There would be no change in the types of activities conducted. 

However, because no wellfield development would occur at the Hank Unit and approximately 

50 percent fewer aquifer restoration activities would be required, this alternative would further 

reduce the proposed action’s SMALL impacts to public and occupational health and safety from 

aquifer restoration. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes the impacts would be SMALL under 

Alternative 3. 

4.13.3.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

Issuing a license to conduct ISR operations at the Nichols Ranch Unit without permitting 

activities at the adjacent Hank Unit would result in a reduction of decommissioning activities by 

approximately 67 percent because the Hank Unit is approximately twice the size of the Nichols 

Ranch Unit. In addition, a 67 percent smaller area would be required to be released for 

unrestricted use. There would be no change in the types of activities conducted. As with the 

proposed action, the construction of access roads would make the released site easier to 

access than it was prior to operations, which would result in an increase in public usage and, 

likewise, an increase in potential public exposure to any remaining, residual radioactivity. 

However, under this alternative, the site would be 67 percent smaller and there would be a 

67 percent decrease in the amount of road development, potentially limiting future public access 

and exposure. Choosing this alternative would further reduce the proposed action’s SMALL 

impacts to public and occupational health and safety from decommissioning. Therefore, the 

NRC staff concludes the impacts would be SMALL under Alternative 3. 

4.14 Waste Management Impacts 

Potential environmental impacts from waste management at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project site could occur during all phases of the ISR lifecycle. ISR facilities generate 

radiological and nonradiological liquid and solid wastes that must be handled and disposed of 

properly. The types of waste streams to be disposed of by the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project are discussed in Section 2.2.1.6 of this SEIS. See the text box in Section 2.2.1.6 for a 

list of liquid and solid waste types. The primary radiological wastes to be disposed of by the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are process-related liquid wastes and processcontaminated structures and soils, all of which are classified as byproduct material. Before 

operations could begin, NRC requires an ISR facility to have an agreement in place with a 

licensed disposal facility to accept byproduct material. The applicant has committed to 

disposing of byproduct material at a licensed disposal site. The disposal agreement would both 

be submitted to NRC and be in place prior to the start of operations as required by license 

condition. 
Environmental Impacts 

4-100 

Discussion of the estimated environmental impacts from waste management actions during the 

construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning phases of the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project are presented in the following paragraphs. Discharges of storm 

water and wastewater runoff to surface waters are discussed in Section 4.5.1. 

4.14.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

Under the proposed action, the applicant would dispose of liquid effluent via Class I injection 

wells discussed in Section 4.14.1.1 of the SEIS. Alternative wastewater disposal options, 

including evaporation ponds, surface water discharge, land application, and disposal via Class 

V injection wells, are discussed in Section 4.14.1.2. 

4.14.1.1 Disposal Via Class I Injection Well 

4.14.1.1.1 Construction Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.12.1 concluded that waste management impacts from the construction phase 

of an ISR facility would be SMALL. Because construction activities would be on a relatively 

small-scale, a low volume of construction waste would be generated. The primary wastes to be 

disposed of during this phase of the ISR facility lifecycle would be nonhazardous solid waste, 

such as building materials and piping. As discussed in Section 3.13.2, the applicant has 

proposed to dispose of nonhazardous solid wastes at the Campbell County Landfill in Gillette, 

Wyoming, which is approximately 74 km [46 mi] north-northeast of the proposed project site. 

The municipal waste or construction and demolition waste cells at the Campbell County Landfill 

in Gillette are not at or near capacity. 

Based on the available disposal capacity and the proposed small-scale development and 

resulting low volumes of waste that would be generated, the NRC staff concludes that the 

site-specific conditions at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are comparable to the 

generic conditions described in the GEIS for waste management. Therefore, this SEIS supports 

the GEIS conclusions that the impacts to waste management during construction are expected 

to be SMALL. Furthermore, the NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information 

during its independent review that would change the environmental impacts beyond those 

evaluated in the GEIS. 

4.14.1.1.2 Operations Impacts 

GEIS Section 2.7 indicated that radiological wastes generated during the operations phase 

would primarily be liquid waste streams consisting of process bleed (1 to 3 percent of the 

process flow rate). Wastes would also be generated from flushing of eluant to limit impurities, 

resin transfer wash, filter washing, uranium precipitation process wastes, and plant washdown 

water. The method used to handle and process these wastes (disposal by deep well injection) 

reduces the solid waste volume that must be disposed of at an approved facility. State 

permitting actions, NRC license conditions, and NRC inspections ensure proper practices would 

be used to comply with safety requirements to protect workers and the public and protect the 

environment; therefore, the waste management impact would be SMALL (NRC, 2009a). 

At the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, liquid wastes from operations (Section 2.2.1.6.2) 

are classified as byproduct material and would be disposed of via deep well injection, which is 

regulated by WDEQ. The applicant plans to have a maximum of eight Class I deep disposal 

wells, up to four at the Nichols Ranch Unit and up to four at the Hank Unit, for disposal of liquid 
 Environmental Impacts

4-101 

byproduct materials generated during operations. The applicant has submitted an application 

for a UIC permit from WDEQ. This method of waste disposal would isolate the waste 

constituents from the accessible environment while protecting potential drinking water sources. 

WDEQ has EPA-delegated authority for this program in Wyoming. WDEQ analyzes proposed 

deep disposal wells as part of its permitting process, and the applicant would have to operate its 

ISR project in accordance with both the provisions of the WDEQ permit and NRC license. As 

part of the NRC staff’s review, the staff considered the WDEQ permitting process and examined 

a recently approved deep disposal permit for another ISR project (WDEQ, 2010). That permit 

specified well construction, testing, and operating conditions the applicant must follow to ensure 

adequate protection of the public and environmental health and safety. Because the WDEQ 

permit application review evaluates whether potential underground sources of drinking water 

would be affected by proposed deep disposal wells and this is the primary concern for potential 

environmental impacts in the NRC review, the NRC staff concludes that an additional NRC 

detailed technical review of the proposed deep disposal wells is not needed to adequately 

evaluate the potential impacts. The NRC would, however, impose two license conditions 

governing aspects of the operation and monitoring of these wells. One license condition 

specifies the liquid waste streams that can be disposed in the deep disposal wells and 

establishes specific recordkeeping and reporting practices that the applicant must follow should 

a license be granted. The other license condition requires specific actions the applicant would 

have to take to ensure liquid effluent disposal capacity is adequate to support operations. This 

condition specifies the minimum number of deep disposal wells that the applicant would have to 

construct prior to operations; notification requirements the applicant would have to follow if or 

when a disposal well became inoperable; and contingency actions the applicant would have to 

take to provide capacity in the event of well shutdown. Considering the applicant would have to 

satisfactorily complete the WDEQ permitting process prior to starting operations and comply 

with all NRC license conditions, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed deep disposal wells 

would not impact underground sources of drinking water and would provide the necessary 

waste isolation capacity to support the proposed operations. Therefore, the NRC staff 

concludes the waste management impacts from the disposal of process-related liquid effluents 

at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site would be SMALL. 

Solid byproduct material that would be generated during operations (i.e., material that does not 

meet NRC criteria for unrestricted release) would likely include maintenance and housekeeping 

rags and trash, packing materials, replacement components, filters, protective clothing, and 

solids removed from process pumps and vessels. As discussed in Section 2.2.1.6.3 in this 

SEIS, the proposed action would annually generate approximately 46 to 69 m3

 [60 to 90 yd3] of 

solid byproduct material (that does not meet NRC criteria for unrestricted release) from facility 

operations. This solid byproduct material would be stored onsite within a restricted area until 

sufficient volume was generated for disposal. As mentioned earlier, the applicant does not 

presently have an agreement in place with a licensed site to accept its solid byproduct material 

for disposal; however, the applicant has committed to disposing of byproduct material at a 

licensed disposal site. Prior to the start of operations, as required by license condition, the 

applicant would need to enter into a written agreement with a disposal site, which would ensure 

there was available capacity for byproduct material disposal. Options the applicant considered 

include disposal at Pathfinder-Shirley Basin in Mills, Wyoming; Energy Solutions in Clive, Utah; 

or White Mesa in Blanding, Utah. Based on the disposal options currently available and the 

disposal agreement that NRC requires prior to operations, the staff concludes that the waste 

management impacts associated with the generation of byproduct material would be SMALL. 

GEIS Section 4.3.12.2 concluded that the impacts of nonhazardous waste management during 

the ISR operational phase would be SMALL. Nonhazardous solid wastes generated during 
Environmental Impacts 

4-102 

Nichols Ranch ISR operations would include facility trash, septic solids, and other 

uncontaminated solid wastes (e.g., piping, valves, instrumentation, and equipment). As 

appropriate, solid wastes would be reused, recycled, or disposed of at the Gillette landfill, as 

discussed in Section 3.13.2. The NRC staff concluded that the impact would be SMALL 

because a small volume of material would be disposed of in comparison to the size of the 

Campbell County landfill located in Gillette. The Campbell County landfill’s Recycling Center 

can accept small quantities of hazardous waste and is the likely destination for disposal of small 

quantities of hazardous waste from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

Based on the type and quantity of expected waste generation and the availability of disposal 

options, the NRC staff concludes that the operations phase waste management activities at the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would have a SMALL impact on the environment. The 

NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review 

that would change the estimated environmental impacts beyond those evaluated in the GEIS. 

4.14.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.3.12.3 discussed waste management activities that would occur during the 

aquifer restoration phase of an ISR project and noted that the same treatment and disposal 

options would be implemented during aquifer restoration as are used during operations. The 

GEIS concluded that the waste management impacts would be similar to those occurring during 

the operations phase of an ISR project. Some increase in wastewater volumes could be 

experienced, but the increase in volume would be offset by the decrease in production capacity. 

The impact on waste management from aquifer restoration would be SMALL. 

At the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, produced water from aquifer restoration 

(described in Sections 2.2.1.4.3 and 2.2.1.6.2) would be treated through the combination of ionexchange and reverse-osmosis processes and injected back into the production aquifer. The 

proposed water treatment and reinjection into the aquifer would help limit the amount of water 

that is permanently withdrawn from the production aquifer. The concentrated waste solutions 

resulting from this treatment would be classified as byproduct material and would be disposed of 

in the deep disposal wells. The impacts associated with the use of the deep disposal wells 

during aquifer restoration would be the same as previously discussed for the operations phase 

in Section 4.14.1.1.2. No additional volume of byproduct materials and associated treatment 

wastes beyond those estimated for the operations phase is expected for the aquifer restoration 

phase. Other waste management activities during aquifer restoration would also be similar to 

those for the operations phase, and therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts would 

be SMALL. 

4.14.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

GEIS Section 2.6 estimates that wastes generated from decommissioning an ISR facility would 

be predominantly byproduct material and nonhazardous solid waste (NRC, 2009a). GEIS 

Section 4.3.12.4 stated that decommissioning byproduct material (including contaminated 

facility demolition materials, process and wellfield equipment, and contaminated soils) would be 

disposed of at a licensed facility (NRC, 2009a). Safe handling, storage, and disposal of 

decommissioning wastes would be addressed in a decommissioning plan required for NRC 

review prior to the initiation of decommissioning. The decommissioning plan would describe 

how a 10 CFR Part 20-compliant radiation safety program would be implemented to ensure the 

safety of workers and the public. The GEIS concluded that volumes of radioactive, chemical, 
 Environmental Impacts

4-103 

and solid wastes generated during decommissioning would be SMALL and the waste 

management impacts from decommissioning would be SMALL (NRC, 2009a). 

For decommissioning the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, the applicant proposes to 

survey process equipment and materials for residual radioactivity as part of the waste 

management process. Materials that are not radiologically contaminated or that meet NRC 

release limits would be removed for reuse, recycling, or disposal. Contaminated materials 

would be decontaminated, transferred to another licensed facility for use, or disposed of as 

byproduct material. The NRC staff expects the applicant-proposed use of wellfield monitoring 

instrumentation and wellfield visual inspection to support timely identification and remediation of 

potential leaks and spills would reduce the potential for generating large volumes of 

contaminated soil that would need to be excavated and disposed of as byproduct material at a 

licensed facility. Any hazardous wastes generated during decommissioning would be stored, in 

accordance with WDEQ regulations, and transported to a nearby hazardous waste facility for 

disposal. 

As discussed in Section 2.2.1.6.3, the NRC staff’s estimate of byproduct material from 

decommissioning the plant facilities and all well fields (over a planned 5 year period) is 8,731 m3

[11,410 yd3

] plus 245 t [270 T] of concrete. This estimate exceeds the decommissioning 

byproduct material volume {4,593 m3

 [6,000 yd3]} evaluated in the GEIS, but the GEIS did note 

that the disposal of these volumes of material of this type did not present any unique problems 

regarding available disposal capacity. As discussed in Section 3.13.2 of the SEIS, the applicant 

does not presently have an agreement in place with a licensed site to accept its solid byproduct 

material for disposal; however, the applicant has committed to having an agreement for disposal 

of byproduct materials in place before commencing construction on the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project. Options the applicant is considering include disposal at Pathfinder-Shirley Basin in 

Mills, Wyoming; Energy Solutions in Clive, Utah; or White Mesa in Blanding, Utah. Additionally, 

another site licensed by NRC to accept byproduct material for disposal is the Waste Controls 

Specialists site in Andrews, Texas. Based on the disposal options currently available and the 

disposal agreement that NRC requires prior to operations, NRC concludes that the potential 

waste management impacts associated with the disposal of byproduct material from Nichols 

Ranch ISR decommissioning would be SMALL. 

The staff’s cumulative estimate of nonhazardous solid waste that would be generated from 

decommissioning is 941 m3

 [1,230 yd3] plus 2,074 t [2,288 T] of concrete (Sections 2.2.1.6.3 

and 3.13.2). This material would be generated within a 5-year period as the plant facilities are 

decommissioned. Assuming 1.96 T/yd3

 for the concrete waste, the total solid waste volume 

would be approximately 1,834 m3

 [2,397 yd3]. This estimated volume of solid waste is lower 

than what was analyzed in the GEIS, and therefore the NRC staff concludes the GEIS analysis 

and conclusions are applicable. The staff also considered potential local limitations of disposal 

capacity. As discussed in Section 3.13.2, the landfill in Gillette, Wyoming, where the applicant 

expects to dispose of its nonhazardous solid waste, plans to ensure available capacity for 

approximately the next 30 years. The total decommissioning nonhazardous solid waste volume 

is approximately 3 percent of the annual volume of waste disposed at the Gillette landfill, which 

is 25,956 t [33,924 T] or 64,889 m3

 [84,810 yd3] (Wyoming Office of State Lands and 

Investments, 2007). Based on this comparison and the information on the future capacity of the 

landfill, the staff concludes the region has sufficient capacity to dispose of the nonhazardous 

solid waste generated from the proposed action. Therefore, because (i) the volume of waste is 

within the bounds evaluated in the GEIS, (ii) the volume of waste is a small percentage of the 

annual waste disposed locally, and (iii) the local landfill has available capacity currently and 
Environmental Impacts 

4-104 

planned capacity for the next three decades, the NRC staff concludes that waste management 

impacts for disposal of decommissioning nonhazardous solid waste would be SMALL. 

4.14.1.2 Alternative Wastewater Disposal Options 

If the NRC granted the applicant’s licensing request and they are unable to obtain a UIC Class I 

injection well permit, they would have to submit a license amendment request to obtain approval 

for another wastewater disposal option prior to the initiation of operations at the facility. This 

section discusses the environmental impacts for the alternate wastewater disposal options 

identified in Section 2.2.2. All of these alternative wastewater disposal options would involve 

treatment of the wastewater that would generate solid waste, which also must be managed. 

In most of the alternative wastewater disposal options considered in the following sections, the 

footprint of the disposal system would increase as compared to disposal via a UIC Class I 

injection well (Section 4.14.1.1). Increasing the size of the proposed facility with other 

wastewater disposal options would lead to more land disturbance and a heavier use of 

construction equipment, with an anticipated increase in potential impacts to resource areas such 

as ecological and wetland systems, cultural and historical resources, and nonradiological air 

quality. The applicant would have to amend its license application to select one of these 

alternative wastewater disposal options. NRC would perform an additional environmental and 

safety review prior to deciding whether to grant or deny the licensing application with the new 

wastewater disposal option. The applicant would survey the areas to be affected prior to 

construction, and the applicant and NRC would consult with agencies such as WY SHPO, 

WGFD, and FWS. In addition, the licensee would have to apply for a license amendment. NRC 

would then conduct another environmental and safety review before deciding whether to grant 

or deny the request for the license amendment to use another wastewater disposal option. 

Mitigation measures, such as avoidance of sensitive areas or documentation of cultural 

resources, would be established as part of these consultations, as necessary. 

4.14.1.2.1 Evaporation Ponds 

The types of waste streams and the infrastructure necessary for using evaporation ponds as a 

wastewater disposal option are described in Section 2.2.2. The types and amounts of 

wastewater that would be disposed in an evaporation pond would be the same as described in 

the previous section for disposal by deep injection into a Class I UIC well. Before the applicant 

could begin disposing wastewater into an evaporation pond system, the NRC staff would review 

the design and construction of the ponds and monitoring system against the criteria in 10 CFR 

Part 40, Appendix A (NRC, 2003b, 2008a), taking into consideration EPA criteria in 40 CFR Part 

61, Subpart W. The applicant would be required to demonstrate that the evaporation ponds 

could be designed, operated, and decommissioned to prevent migration of wastewater to 

subsurface soil, surface water, or groundwater. Applicants would also be required to 

demonstrate that monitoring requirements would be established to detect any migration of 

contaminants to the groundwater. The NRC staff would establish any license conditions needed 

to ensure that the applicant meets the necessary requirements. 

Individual evaporation ponds could have a surface area of up to 2.5 ha [6.25 ac], and the total 

pond system could be as much as 40 ha [100 ac]. During the period of operations for the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, this area would be fenced to exclude wildlife and 

livestock. This would provide a footprint that is less than about 3 percent of the total permitted 

area {1,365 ha [3,370 ac]} for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (including both the 

Nichols Ranch and Hank Units), but it would be much larger than the footprint for a central 
 Environmental Impacts

4-105 

processing plant without evaporation ponds (Uranerz, 2007). The additional land disturbance 

required to install an evaporation pond for wastewater disposal would be similar in scale to the 

current proposed action {120 ha [300 ac]} for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. It is also 

anticipated that the applicant would need to have at least one other wastewater disposal option 

or additional storage capacity during the winter months in Wyoming when evaporation rates 

would be low. 

Although a wastewater disposal option that uses an evaporation pond system would roughly 

double the facility footprint relative to UIC Class I injection wells, the total amount of disturbed 

and fenced land would be small compared to the permitted area and comparable to the generic 

conditions evaluated in the GEIS with respect to land use. For these reasons, NRC staff 

concludes that the overall impacts to land use associated with an evaporation pond system 

would be SMALL. 

Construction of an evaporation pond system would require earthmoving equipment, such as 

bulldozers, backhoes, and trucks, to prepare the site and construct the impoundment. The 

equipment would produce diesel emissions and fugitive dust emissions during construction that 

could have a temporary and adverse effect on nonradiological air quality. Depending on how 

the applicant elected to phase in the pond system, these effects could extend into the 

operational phase of the facility as well. BMPs such as wetting unpaved roads would minimize 

fugitive dust, and the anticipated impacts to nonradiological air quality would be SMALL. The 

applicant may also need to obtain an NESHAP review to evaluate whether the anticipated 

radiological releases to air from the evaporation ponds would meet the criteria in 40 CFR Part 

61, Subpart W. The applicant would be required to have an NRC-approved air monitoring 

system for the wastewater disposal system. Keeping the pond wet to reduce dust and radon 

emissions would effectively reduce potential air emissions, and the anticipated impacts to 

radiological air quality would be SMALL. 

As described in NRC (2008a), the evaporation ponds would be designed and constructed with 

clay or geotextile liners to reduce the potential for infiltration into the subsurface. An 

NRC-approved monitoring system would be installed to detect leaks from the ponds, and the 

applicant would also implement an NRC-approved inspection plan for the ponds (NRC, 2008). 

Based on these measures, it is anticipated that impacts to surface water and groundwater 

resources would be SMALL. 

The evaporation ponds would be constructed at the same time and with the same mitigation 

measures described in Section 4.6 (Ecological Resources) for the construction of the rest of the 

facility. For these reasons, the potential impact on ecological resources from an evaporation 

pond disposal system would be the same as identified in Section 4.6 and could be reduced 

to SMALL. 

At the end of the operational phase of the facility, all of the pond liners and berms, as well as 

accumulated precipitates and sludges, would be classified as solid byproduct material. For 

example, the GEIS indicates that about 52 m3

 [68 yd3] of byproduct material would be generated 

during evaporation pond decommissioning. These solids would need to be transported to a 

licensed facility for disposal as part of the decommissioning program. This would increase the 

total amount of decommissioning byproduct material, increasing the number of truck trips 

needed to transport the materials to a disposal facility. Given the potential limitations on 

available byproduct waste disposal capacity, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from an 

evaporation pond wastewater disposal system to waste management would be SMALL to 

MODERATE during the decommissioning phase of the facility. Note that at the conclusion of 
Environmental Impacts 

4-106 

operations, the licensee would be required to provide a decommissioning plan for NRC review 

that demonstrates it has a disposal path for any decommissioning wastes, including those 

related to the wastewater disposal system. The NRC staff would conduct detailed technical and 

environmental reviews of the proposed decommissioning program for the facility at that time. 

4.14.1.2.2 Land Application 

For the land application of process wastewater, the applicant would be required to meet the 

regulatory provisions in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and Appendix B (NRC, 2003b). The 

applicant would also be required to analyze the chemical toxicity of radioactive and 

nonradioactive constituents, including an assessment of projected concentrations of radioactive 

contaminants in the soil and projected impacts on groundwater and surface-water quality and on 

land uses, especially crops and vegetation. The applicant would also be required to obtain NRC 

approval of a monitoring program that would include (i) periodic soil surveys to verify that 

contaminant levels in the soil would not exceed those projected and (ii) a remediation plan that 

can be implemented if projected levels are exceeded. The applicant would also need to treat 

the wastewater to quality requirements for surface discharge under a WYPDES permit from 

WDEQ. Finally, the applicant would need to demonstrate that the soils in the land application 

area would meet the criteria in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, at the time of decommissioning. 

Practices would be subject to NRC license conditions and enforced through the NRC inspection 

program to ensure protection of public health and safety and the environment. 

Land application typically requires large areas to ensure that soil concentrations do not exceed 

regulatory levels. Typical land application areas are on the order of about 40 ha [100 ac]. 

During the period of operations for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, this area would be 

fenced to exclude wildlife and livestock. Like a wastewater disposal system using evaporation 

ponds, land application would have a footprint that is less than about 3 percent of the total 

permitted area {1,365 ha [3,370 ac]} for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (including both 

the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units), but it would be much larger than the footprint for a central 

processing plant without land application (Uranerz, 2007). The additional land disturbance 

required to install a land application system for wastewater disposal would be similar in scale to 

the current proposed action {120 ha [300 ac]} for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

(Section 4.2.1). It is also anticipated that the applicant would need to have at least one other 

wastewater disposal option or additional storage capacity during the winter months in Wyoming 

when evaporation rates would be low and the ground would be covered by snow. Like the 

evaporation pond system discussed in the previous section, a wastewater disposal option that 

uses land application would roughly double the facility footprint relative to the proposed action 

using UIC Class I injection wells. The amount of disturbed and fenced land, however, would be 

small compared to the permitted area and comparable to the generic conditions evaluated in the 

GEIS with respect to land use. For these reasons, the NRC staff concludes that the overall 

impacts to land use associated with wastewater disposal by land application would be SMALL. 

Establishing the land application area would not require extensive use of earthmoving 

equipment other than to install pipelines, small berms, access roads, and fencing, and the 

potential impacts to land use would be anticipated to be SMALL. The wastewater, however, 

would likely require additional treatment to meet WYPDES standards, including facilities 

providing an ion-exchange circuit, reverse osmosis, one or more radium-settling basins 

{0.1 to 1.6 ha [0.25 to 4 ac]}, and purge storage reservoirs {4 ha [10 ac] or more}. Constructing 

wastewater treatment facilities, including basins and storage reservoirs, would require 

earthmoving equipment, such as bulldozers, scrapers, backhoes, and trucks, to prepare the site 

and construct the impoundments. The equipment would produce diesel emissions and fugitive 
 Environmental Impacts

4-107 

dust emissions during construction that could have a temporary and adverse effect on 

nonradiological air quality. BMPs such as wetting unpaved roads would minimize fugitive dust, 

and the anticipated impacts to nonradiological air quality would be SMALL. The applicant would 

also need to manage radiological releases to air from the land application area(s). Given the 

low radionuclide content anticipated for the wastewater and low calculated radon fluxes for 

similar application areas (NRC, 1997, 2003b), it is anticipated that the impacts to radiological air 

quality would be SMALL. 

As described previously, the applicant would be required to demonstrate that the soil in a land 

application area would meet 10 CFR Part 20 requirements. In addition, during operations the 

applicant would be required to routinely monitor the soil to ensure that allowable concentrations 

were not exceeded. It is not anticipated that decommissioning the land application area would 

produce any additional solid byproduct material for disposal, and the potential impacts on waste 

management would be SMALL during the decommissioning phase of the facility. For 

decommissioning the wastewater treatment facility, all pond liners and berms associated with 

radium-settling basin(s), as well as accumulated precipitates and sludges generated at an 

estimated annual rate of about 22.4 m3

/yr [29.3 yd3/yr] (Section 2.2.2.2), would be classified as 

solid byproduct material. These solids, as well as any other solid byproduct material generated 

by the wastewater treatment process (e.g., spent resins, contaminated building debris), would 

need to be transported to a licensed facility for disposal as part of the decommissioning 

program. This would increase the total amount of decommissioning byproduct materials, 

increasing the number of truck trips needed to transport the materials to a disposal facility. 

Given the potential limitations on available byproduct material disposal capacity, the potential 

impacts to waste management from decommissioning the radium-settling basin(s) and other 

storage facilities associated with treating wastewater for disposal by land application would be 

SMALL to MODERATE. 

Note that at the conclusion of proposed operations, the licensee would be required to provide a 

plan for decommissioning any wastewater treatment facilities for NRC review (NRC, 2003b). 

The decommissioning plan would include final radiological surveys to identify whether there 

were any areas of soil contamination that would require disposal as byproduct material. The 

NRC staff would conduct detailed technical and environmental reviews of the proposed 

decommissioning program for the facility at that time. 

4.14.1.2.3 Surface Water Discharge 

For surface discharge of wastewater, the applicant would be required to meet the regulatory 

provisions in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and Appendix B. The applicant would also be 

required to obtain a zero-release WYPDES permit from WDEQ. The applicant would be 

required to distinguish between process wastewater generated during uranium recovery 

operations and mine wastewater generated during aquifer restoration (NRC, 2003b). In 

accordance with EPA regulations, the applicant would not be allowed to discharge process 

wastewater to navigable waters of the United States (NRC, 2003b). The applicant would either 

need to develop storage capabilities, depending on whether it intended to maintain separate 

wastewater streams, or comingle (mix) process and mine wastewater prior to treatment to 

10 CFR Part 20 standards. In addition, the applicant would need to address any radioactivity at 

the discharge point or from storage facilities (tanks, impoundments), radium-settling basins, and 

related liners and sludges as part of the decommissioning of the facility (NRC, 2003b; Cohen 

and Associates, 2008). 
Environmental Impacts 

4-108 

Establishing the discharge point for the treated effluent would likely require short-term use of 

earthmoving equipment to install pipelines, small berms, access roads, and fencing to exclude 

livestock and wildlife. The amount of land to be fenced for the discharge point alone would be 

limited (see Section 2.2.2), and the potential impacts to land use would be anticipated to be 

SMALL. As is the case with land application, however, the wastewater would likely require 

additional treatment to meet WYPDES zero-release permit requirements, including facilities 

providing an ion-exchange circuit, reverse osmosis, one or more radium-settling basins {0.1 to 

1.6 ha [0.25 to 4 ac]}, or purge storage reservoirs {4 ha [10 ac] or more}. These treatment 

facilities would be also be fenced to exclude wildlife and livestock and limit public access. The 

amount of land needed for the wastewater treatment facilities would be similar to that for land 

application, but if the applicant chose to segregate process and mine wastewaters to meet the 

WYPDES permit requirements, the involved land area would be greater to provide separate 

storage facilities. As with evaporation ponds and land application, the increased footprint of the 

additional wastewater treatment facilities needed to meet WYPDES requirements would be 

small relative to the entire permitted area {1,365 ha [3,370 ac]}, but large relative to the central 

processing plant as described in the proposed action (Section 4.2.1) (Uranerz, 2007). The 

current proposed action identifies about 120 ha [300 ac] of disturbed land for the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Overall, the increase in the amount of disturbed land to 

accommodate the addition of a wastewater treatment facility would be about 3 to 5 percent and 

would have a SMALL impact on land use. 

Constructing the wastewater treatment facilities (e.g., radium-settling basins) would require 

earthmoving equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, and trucks, to prepare the site and 

construct the impoundment(s). The equipment would produce diesel emissions and fugitive 

dust emissions during construction that could have a temporary and adverse effect on 

nonradiological air quality. BMPs such as wetting unpaved roads would minimize fugitive dust. 

Taking into consideration the likely short-term duration of the construction period, the 

anticipated impacts to nonradiological air quality would be SMALL. The applicant may also 

need to consider emissions of radionuclides such as radon from the surface discharge points. 

Given that the WYPDES permit would require the applicant to monitor and maintain low 

radionuclide concentrations for the treated wastewater, the anticipated impacts to radiological 

air quality would be SMALL. 

The proposed Nichols Ranch Unit would be developed in the Cottonwood Creek drainage basin, 

while the Hank Unit would lie within the Willow Creek and Dry Willow Creek drainages 

(Section 3.5.1.1). Most of the drainages are ephemeral, but a surface water discharge disposal 

option would create more reliable water flow and could lead to the development of aquatic 

habitat; surface discharge could lead to an increase in erosion and suspended sediments in 

existing stream channels. The applicant indicated it will avoid development in ephemeral 

drainages to minimize erosional impacts (Section 4.5.1.1) and will also avoid these drainages in 

a wastewater disposal system based on surface discharge. Sediment loads would be expected 

to taper off quickly both in time and distance; therefore, long-term impacts would be SMALL. 

The applicant would use WGFD standard management practices to limit impacts to aquatic life. 

As noted previously, the applicant would not be allowed to discharge treated wastewater into 

navigable waters of the United States. A recent wetlands delineation survey identified four 

potential jurisdictional emergent wetlands in the southeastern portion of the Nichols Ranch Unit, 

and no potential jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the Hank Unit (Section 3.5.1.5 of 

the SEIS). A Nationwide Permit 44 under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would be required 

for discharges of dredged or fill material into a wetland or WUS exceeding 0.2 ha [0.5 ac]. The 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would likely avoid surface discharge points that might 
 Environmental Impacts

4-109 

disturb any of these wetlands areas, and potential impacts to these wetlands from surface 

discharge of treated wastewater would be SMALL. 

The applicant would be required to demonstrate that any soil affected by the surface discharge 

of treated wastewater would meet 10 CFR Part 20 requirements. In addition, during operations 

the applicant would be required to routinely monitor the soils and discharged water to ensure 

predicted concentrations were not exceeded. For these reasons, it is not anticipated that 

decommissioning the surface discharge point would produce any additional solid byproduct 

material for disposal. As with the land application wastewater disposal option, however, 

decommissioning wastewater treatment facilities may produce solid byproduct material such as 

spent resins, sludges, and liners from radium settling basin(s), or contaminated building debris. 

These solids would need to be transported to a licensed facility for disposal as part of the 

decommissioning program. This would increase the total amount of decommissioning 

byproduct materials, increasing the number of truck trips needed to transport the materials to a 

disposal facility. Given the potential limitations on available byproduct material disposal 

capacity, it is anticipated that the potential impacts to waste management from 

decommissioning the radium-settling basin(s) and other storage facilities associated with 

treating wastewater for surface water discharge would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

Note that at the conclusion of operations, the licensee would be required to provide a 

decommissioning plan for NRC review. The decommissioning plan would include final 

radiological surveys to identify whether there were any areas of soil contamination that would 

require disposal as byproduct material. The NRC staff would conduct detailed technical and 

environmental reviews of the proposed decommissioning program for the facility at that time. 

4.14.1.2.4 Class V Injection Well 

The potential impacts associated with wastewater disposal through a UIC Class V deep 

injection well would be similar to those associated with the proposed action (disposal via a UIC 

Class I deep injection well). Under the terms of a UIC Class V permit issued by WDEQ, 

however, the wastewater would require additional treatment to meet class of use or federal 

drinking water standards (whichever is more stringent) prior to injection. 

The potential impacts associated with constructing, operating, and decommissioning the 

necessary wastewater treatment facilities would be similar to those described in the previous 

sections for land application (Section 4.14.1.2.2) and surface water discharge 

(Section 4.14.1.2.3) disposal options. For example, although the footprint of the Class V well 

itself would be small {0.1 ha [0.25 ac]}, the wastewater would likely require additional treatment 

to meet the necessary discharge requirements (Class of Use or federal drinking water 

standards). This treatment would require facilities providing an ion-exchange circuit, reverse 

osmosis, one or more radium-settling basins {0.1 to 1.6 ha [0.25 to 4 ac]}, and purge storage 

reservoirs {4 ha [10 ac] or more}. These treatment facilities would be fenced to exclude wildlife 

and livestock and would limit public access. The amount of land needed for the wastewater 

treatment facilities would be similar to that for land application or surface discharge. The 

increased footprint of the additional wastewater treatment facilities would be small relative to the 

entire permitted area {1,365 ha [3,370 ac]}, but large relative to the footprint of a central 

processing plant as described in the proposed action (Section 4.2.1). The current proposed 

action identifies as much as 120 ha [300 ac] of disturbed land for the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project. Overall, the increase in the amount of disturbed land to accommodate addition of a 

wastewater treatment facility would be about 3 to 5 percent and would have a SMALL impact on 

land use. 
Environmental Impacts 

4-110 

Constructing the wastewater treatment facilities (e.g., radium-settling basins) would require 

earthmoving equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, and trucks, to prepare the site and 

construct the impoundment(s). The equipment would produce diesel emissions and fugitive 

dust emissions during construction that could have a temporary and adverse effect on 

nonradiological air quality. BMPs such as wetting unpaved roads would minimize fugitive dust. 

Taking into consideration the likely short-term duration of the construction period, the 

anticipated impacts to nonradiological air quality would be SMALL. The applicant may also 

need to consider emissions of radionuclides such as radon during the wastewater treatment 

process. These emissions would be included as part of the NRC-approved monitoring plan for 

the facility, and the anticipated impacts to radiological air quality would be SMALL. 

As with the land application and surface discharge wastewater disposal options, the solid 

wastes generated by decommissioning wastewater treatment facilities associated with a UIC 

Class V injection well, such as piping, spent resins, sludges, and liners from radium-settling 

basin(s), or contaminated building debris would need to be disposed as byproduct material. 

These solids would need to be transported to a licensed facility for disposal as part of the 

decommissioning program. This would increase the total amount of byproduct 

decommissioning wastes, increasing the number of truck trips needed to transport the materials 

to a disposal facility. Given the potential limitations on available byproduct disposal capacity, it 

is anticipated that the potential impacts to waste management from decommissioning the 

radium-settling basin(s) and other storage facilities associated with treating wastewater for 

surface water discharge would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

Note that at the conclusion of operations, the licensee would be required to provide a plan for 

decommissioning any wastewater treatment facilities for NRC review (NRC, 2003b). The 

decommissioning plan would include final radiological surveys to identify whether there were 

any areas of soil contamination that would require disposal as byproduct material. The NRC 

staff would conduct detailed technical and environmental reviews of the proposed 

decommissioning program for the facility at that time. 

4.14.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative the Nichols Ranch ISR Project would not proceed and the 

associated construction, operating, aquifer restoration, or decommissioning actions that would 

produce environmental impacts would not occur. No radioactive or nonradioactive liquid or solid 

waste would be generated because the facility would not be licensed. No earthmoving activities 

that could result in the generation of nonhazardous solid waste would occur, no buildings would 

be constructed, no wellfields would be developed, and no wastewater would be injected into the 

subsurface. No arrangements would need to be made for waste management. 

4.14.3 Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) 

For the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3), the impact on waste management would 

be the same as evaluated for the proposed action; however, under the modfied action 

alternative the smaller scope of activities during all phases of the proposed project would 

generate less waste compared to the proposed action would therefore reduce the overall 

impacts to waste management. Only a central processing plant would be constructed, and 

fewer wells would be drilled, reducing the quantity of construction-related nonradioactive wastes 

generated. The lower production rate would result in lower volumes of operational wastes 

including process bleed and nonhazardous solid waste. In addition, only one septic system and 

up to four deep disposal wells would be constructed due to the reduced quantity of liquid 
 Environmental Impacts

4-111 

byproduct the process materials generated. During decommissioning, the smaller facility 

footprint would reduce the volume of byproduct material and nonhazardous solid waste that 

would need to be sent offsite for disposal at an approved facility. Based on information in the 

applicant’s surety estimate (Uranerz, 2007), almost all of the byproduct material generated 

during decommissioning would be from wellfields and almost all of the wellfield waste would be 

byproduct material. The 50 percent reduction in the number of wellfields under the Modified 

Action Alternative 3 would result in an approximately 50 percent reduction in byproduct material 

from decommissioning that would need to be disposed at a licensed facility. The 

decommissioning nonhazardous solid waste generated under the modified alternative would be 

about 96 percent of the amount estimated for the proposed action because the majority of 

decommissioning nonhazardous solid waste would be from demolition of plant facilities and 

buildings (i.e., associated with both the proposed action and modified alternative). Because the 

overall impacts were found to be SMALL for the proposed action, the overall impacts for a 

smaller facility under the modified alternative would also be SMALL. Based on this analysis, the 

NRC staff concludes the modified alternative project would have a SMALL incremental impact 

on waste management. 

4.15 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

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

10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40 Appendix A, “Criteria 

Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and to the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes 

Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores Processed Primarily 

from Their Source Material Content.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, “Occupational 

Safety and Health Standards.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

36 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

Part 60, “National Register of Historic Places.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 

40 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 61, 

“National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 68. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 68, 

“Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 146. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 146 

“Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 302. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 302, 

“Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 
Environmental Impacts 

4-112 

40 CFR Part 355. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 355, 

“Emergency Planning and Notification.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

59 FR 7629. Executive Order 12898. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register Volume. 59, No. 32, 

p. 7,629. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. February 16, 1994. 

69 FR 52040. “Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing 

Actions.” Federal Register. Volume. 69, No. 163, pp. 52,040–52,048. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. August 24, 2004. 

74 FR 4683. “Eagle Permits; Take Necessary To Protect Interests in Particular Localities.” 

Federal Register: Volume 74, No. 175, pp. 46,836–46,879. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. September 11, 2009. 

Andres, B.A., and K.L. Stone. Conservation Plan for the Mountain Plover (Charadrius 

montanus), Version 1.0. Manomet, Massachusetts: Manomet Center for Conservation 

Sciences. 2009. 

APLIC. “Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 

2006.” Edison Electric Institute. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, California: Avian Power 

Line Interaction Committee and the California Energy Commission. 2006. 

<http://www.aplic.org/SuggestedPractices2006(LR-2watermark).pdf> (13 October 2009). 

Arch Coal, Inc. “Safety.” <http://www.archcoal.com/aboutus/safety.aspx> (17 

September 2010). 

Argonne. “MILDOS-AREA: An Enhanced Version of MILDOS for Large-Area Sources.” 

ANL/ES-161. Argonne, IL: Argonne National Laboratory. <http://www.osti.gov/ 

bridge/servlets/purl/5950391-j48alp/5950391.pdf> (13 October 2009). June 1989. 

BLM. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications.” 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management. 

< http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/HighPlains/Wright-Coal.html> (17 August 2010). 

2010a. 

BLM. “Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-71. Subject: Gunnison and Greater Sage-Grouse 

Management Considerations for Energy Development (Supplement to National Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Conservation Strategy).” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). March 5, 2010b. 

BLM. “Programmatic Agreement Between Bureau of Land Management and Wyoming State 

Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Mitigation of Adverse Effects on the Pumpkin Buttes 

TCP from Anticipated Federal Minerals Development.” ML092640122. Washington, DC: 

BLM. 2009a. 

BLM. “Environmental Assessment for Yates Petroleum Corporation All Day Plan of 

Development. Buffalo Field Office.” Washington, DC: BLM. <http://www.blm.gov/ 

pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/bfodocs/pods/yates.Par.84132.File.dat/All%20Da

y_EA.pdf> (28 April 2010). 2009b. 
 Environmental Impacts

4-113 

BLM. E-mail from C. Crago, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, to I. Yu, Project Manager, 

Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. 

ML091100225. Washington, DC: BLM. 2009c. 

BLM. “Proposed Resource Management and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Public 

Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins Field Office.” Rawlins, 

Wyoming: U.S. Department of Interior, BLM, Rawlins Field Office. January 2008. 

BLM. “Final Report, Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) Biological Evaluation.” Cheyenne, 

Wyoming: U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management. 

<http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/wildlife/mtnplover.Par.18192.File.dat/finalMtnPl

overBE.pdf>. March 2007a. 

BLM. “Visual Resource Management.” Manual 8400. Washington, DC: BLM. 

<http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/8410.html> (19 October 2010). 2007b. 

BLM. “Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the Powder 

River Basin Oil and Gas Project.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land 

Management. <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/bfodocs/prb_eis.html> (5 October 

2009). January 2003. 

Booth, D.T. “Establishing Wyoming Big Sagebrush Seed Orchards on Reclaimed Mine Land.” 

Native Plant Journal. Vol. 6, No. 3. pp. 247–253. 2005. 

Center for Climate Strategies. “Wyoming Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case 

Projections 1990-2020.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Center for Climate Strategies. 2007. 

CEQ. “Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act.” 

Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality. 

<http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf> (8 July 2010). December 10, 1997. 

Sanford Cohen and Associates. “Final Report Review of Existing and Proposed Tailings 

Impoundment Technologies.” Vienna, Virginia: S. Cohen & 

Associates<http://www.epa.gov/radiation/ docs/neshaps/subpart-w/tailings-impoundmenttech.pdf> (25 May 2010). 2008. 

EPA. “Global Greenhouse Gas Data.” <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ 

globalghg.html> (15 December 2009). ADAMS No. ML100221499. 

FWS. “Black-Footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes)—Five-Year Review: Summary and Status 

Evaluation.” South Dakota Field Office. Pierre, South Dakota. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

<http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2364.pdf> (30 September 2009). 

Washington, DC: November 2008. 

FWS. Letter to Interested Party from B.T. Kelly, Field Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Block Clearance for Black-Footed Ferret Surveys.” 

ML092780370. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. February 2, 2004. 

Gillette Department of Traffic Safety. “Traffic Counts—2009 List by Streets.” Gillette, Wyoming: 

City of Gillette Department of Traffic Safety. 

<http://www.ci.gillette.wy.us/index.aspx?page=1042010> (December 10, 2010). 2010. 
Environmental Impacts 

4-114 

Lambert, S.M. “Seeding Considerations in Restoring Big Sagebrush Habitat.” Shaw, 

N.L., Pellant, M., and Monsen, S.B., comps. 2005. Sage-grouse Habitat Restoration Symposium 

Proceedings, Boise, Idaho. June 4, 2001. Proc. RMRS-P-38. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

pp. 75-80. 2005. 

Mackin, P.C., D. Daruwalla, J. Winterle, M. Smith, and D.A. Pickett. NUREG/CR–6733. “A 

Baseline Risk-Informed Performance-Based Approach for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction 

Licensees.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). September 2001. 

NRC. Memorandum from B. Balsam, Project Manager, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 

File. “Summary of Teleconference with Pedro Ramirez, Wyoming Field Office, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Regarding Eagle Take Rule for the Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

(Docket No. 040-09067) and the Proposed Moore Ranch ISR Project (Docket No. 040-09073).” 

ML100760621. Washington, DC: NRC. March 25, 2010. 

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

Milling Facilities.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). May 2009a. 

NRC. “Staff Assessment of Groundwater Impacts from Previously Licensed In-Situ Uranium 

Recovery Facilities.” Memorandum from C. Miller to Chairman Jaczko, et al. ML091770402. 

Washington, DC: NRC. July 10, 2009b. 

NRC. Memorandum to File from B. Balsam and I. Yu, Project Managers, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. “Summary of teleconference with Pedro Ramirez, Wyoming Field 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding Endangered Species Act informal consultation 

for the Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (Docket No. 040-09067).” ML093130107. 

Washington, DC: NRC. 2009c. 

NRC. Regulatory Guide 3.11. “Design, Construction, and Inspection of Embankment Retention 

Systems at Uranium Recovery Facilities. Revision 3.” Washington, DC: NRC. November 2008. 

NRC. NUREG–1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with 

NMSS Programs.” Washington, DC: NRC. August 2003a. 

NRC. NUREG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications.” Final Report. Washington, DC: NRC. June 2003b. 

NRC. NUREG–1508, “Final Environmental Impact Statement To Construct and Operate the 

Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mining Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico.” Washington, DC: 

NRC. February 1997. 

NRC. NUREG–0706, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling, 

Project M-25.” Washington, DC: NRC. September 1980. 

Uranerz. Letter from M. Thomas, Environmental, Safety, and Health Manager, Uranerz Energy 

Corporation, to R. Linton, Project Manager, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Responses 

to the Open Issues to the Safety Evaluation Report for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project License 

Application.” ML100740143. Casper, Wyoming: Uranerz Energy Corporation. 

February 24, 2010. 
 Environmental Impacts

4-115 

Uranerz. Letter from M. Thomas, Environmental, Safety, and Health Manager, Uranerz Energy 

Corporation, to R. Linton, Project Manager, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “RE: 

Responses to the Environmental Report Request for Additional Information for the Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project License Application (TAC J00553, Docket No 040-09067).” ML091610140. 

Casper, Wyoming: Uranerz Energy Corporation. May 8, 2009. 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. Casper, 

Wyoming: 2007. 

USCB. “State and County QuickFacts” for Campbell, Johnson, and Natrona Counties, 

Wyoming. ML092940038. Washington, DC: USCB. <http://quickfacts.census.gov> 

(10 September 2009). 2009. 

USCB. “Income of Households by State Using 3-Year-Average Medians.” ML092940055. 

Washington, DC: USCB. <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incomestats.html> (09 

September 2009). 2008. 

USCB. “American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Data Profile Highlights for Campbell, 

Johnson, and Natrona Counties, Wyoming.” ML092940047. USCB. 

<http://factfinder.census.gov> (10 September 2009). Washington, DC. 2005-2007. 

WDEQ. “ State of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Underground Injection Control 

Permit Issued Under Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations Chapter 13”. Permit No. 

09-586. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WDEQ, Water Quality Division. May 28, 2010. 

WDEQ. Letter from D. Finley, Administrator, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, to 

M. Thomas, Uranerz Energy Corporation. “Re: Permit No. CT-8644.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. October 2, 2009. 

WDEQ. “Guideline No. 4 – In-Situ Mining, Attachment III Topsoil and Subsoil Management and 

the Associated Erosion Control at Uranium In-Situ Leaching Operations.” March 2000. 

WGFD. “Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources Within Important 

Wildlife Habitats.” Version 6.0. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

(WGFD). April, 2010. 

WGFD. “Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)” in Final Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy.” WGFD. <http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/ CompConvStrategy/Species/Birds/ 

PDFS/Bald%20Eagle.pdf> (30 September 2009). Cheyenne, Wyoming: July 12, 2005a. 

WGFD. “Black-Tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)” in Final Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy.” WGFD. 

<http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/CompConvStrategy/Species/Mammals/PDFS/Blacktailed%20Prairie%20Dog.pdf> (7 October 2009). Cheyenne, Wyoming: July 12, 2005b. 

 
Environmental Impacts 

4-116 

WGFD. “Swift Fox (Vulpes velox)” in Final Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.” 

WGFD. 

<http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/CompConvStrategy/Species/Mammals/PDFS/Swift%20Fox.pdf> 

(7 October 2009). Cheyenne, Wyoming: July 12, 2005c. 

Whitehead, R.L. Groundwater Atlas of the United States, Montana, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey Report HA 730–I. Denver, Colorado: 

<http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_i/> (29 January 2009). U.S. Geological Survey. 1996. 

WYNDD. “Mountain Plover in Wyoming.” Laramie, Wyoming: University of Wyoming. 2010. 

<http://www.uwyo.edu/wynddsupport/docs/MTNPLVR/OCCURRENCE_DATA_MAP_v2.PDF> 

(29 November 2010). 

Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments. “Wyoming Biomass Inventory: Animal Waste, 

Crop Residue, Wood Residue, and Municipal Solid Waste.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Office of 

State Lands and Investments, Wyoming State Forestry Division. March 2007. 
5-1 

5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

5.1 Introduction 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

regulations, as amended (40 CFR Parts 1500 to 1508) define cumulative effects as “...the 

impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects or 

impacts1

 can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a 

period of time.” Thus, the proposed Nichols Ranch In-Situ Recovery (ISR) Project could 

contribute to cumulative impacts when its impacts overlap with those of other past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. For this supplemental environmental impact statement 

(SEIS), other past, present, and future actions in the proposed project area include, but are not 

limited to, coal mining, oil and gas production, coal bed methane (CBM) operations, other 

mining (i.e., sand, gravel, bentonite, clinker), ISR operations, conventional uranium mining, and 

wind farms. 

The analysis of the cumulative impacts of the proposed action was based on publicly available 

information on existing and proposed projects, information in the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement (GEIS) (NRC, 2009a), general knowledge of the conditions in Wyoming and in the 

nearby communities, and reasonably foreseeable actions that could occur. The primary activity 

in the area is a resurgence, within the last few years, of mineral mining and oil and gas 

development, although this interest has not necessarily translated into active projects. Within 

8 km [5 mi] of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project and within the proposed project area, 

CBM and oil and gas operations are occurring. No long-term changes from the proposed action 

within the project area are anticipated because the applicant plans to return the proposed 

project area to its preextraction use following restoration and reclamation activities 

(Uranerz, 2007). There are several ISR and conventional uranium projects within the vicinity of 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project that are either in the decommissioning or prelicensing 

stages. Oil and gas operations are ongoing throughout the area. At distances beyond 8 km 

[5 mi], the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) assumed that the resurgence in 

extractive industries would continue, along with government and industry support, to 

develop infrastructure. 

The GEIS (NRC, 2009a) provides an example methodology for conducting a cumulative impacts 

assessment. SEIS Section 5.1.1 describes other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions considered in the cumulative impact analysis. The methodology to conduct the 

cumulative impact analysis for this SEIS is provided in Section 5.1.2. 

5.1.1 Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

The proposed project area is located in the middle of the Powder River Basin, which covers an 

approximately 26,000-km2

 [10,000-mi2] area and spans large portions of northeastern Wyoming 

and southeast Montana. In comparison, the proposed activities at the Nichols Ranch ISR 

 

1

For the purposes of this analysis “cumulative impacts” is synonymous with “cumulative effects.” 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-2 

Project would affect approximately 0.05 percent of the area within the Powder River Basin. This 

area holds the largest deposits of coal in the United States, as well as significant reserves of 

uranium and other natural resources such as oil and gas. As such, there has been, and 

continues to be, substantial extraction activities throughout the Powder River Basin. CBM 

extraction continues to be the most prolific mining activity in the region and is a form of natural 

gas extraction from coal beds. Several Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) issued by the 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and studies by environmental groups in the Powder 

River Basin dating back to the 1970s have evaluated the various effects coal-related mining 

activities have on the affected environment. 

The various past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the vicinity of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are discussed separately, as follows. 

5.1.1.1 Uranium Recovery Sites

Along with the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, there are other ISR and conventional 

uranium (underground and pit) operations in various stages of the licensing process within the 

Powder River Basin. Uranium-related exploration in the area includes the Smith RanchHighland Uranium Project, an ISR project operated by Power Resources, Inc. (PRI), and the 

Irigaray/Christensen Ranch Project, operated by Cogema Mining, Inc., which are located 

approximately 78 km [48.5 mi] south-southeast and 12 km [7.5 mi] northwest of the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project, respectively (Table 5-1). 

As indicated in Table 5-1, there are two conventional uranium milling sites that are in the 

decommissioning process, Bear Creek and Highlands, and a Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 

Control Act (UMTRCA) Title I (reclamation work at inactive tailings site) site, the Spook site. 

The Bear Creek Uranium Recovery Project (Bear Creek) is owned by Bear Creek Uranium 

Company and is located approximately 53 km [35 mi] south-southeast of the proposed facility in 

Rock Springs, Wyoming. Highlands (Highlands) Uranium Recovery Facility is owned by Exxon 

Mobil Corporation and is located in Converse, Wyoming, approximately 82 km [51 mi] 

south-southeast of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. Both the Bear Creek and 

Highlands site decommissioning activities are being performed under NRC license. 

The UMTRCA Title I program established a joint Federal/State-funded program for remedial 

action at abandoned mill tailings sites where tailings resulted largely from production of uranium 

for the weapons program. Under Title I, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible 

for cleanup and remediation of these abandoned sites. NRC is required to evaluate DOE's 

design and implementation and, after remediation, concur that the sites meet the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. In 1993, DOE became a licensee of NRC 

under the general license provisions of 10 CFR 40.27. This occurred after NRC concurred in 

the completion of construction and surface cleanup at the Spook, Wyoming, inactive tailings site 

and accepted DOE's plan for long-term surveillance at the Spook site. The Spook facility is 

located in Johnson, Wyoming, and is approximately 63 km [39 mi] south-southeast of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR facility. 

The NRC staff is aware that several companies are actively investigating the potential for ISR 

extraction, as well as other types of mining and milling, in areas near the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project. These projects are in various stages of development, will be monitored by 

the NRC staff and other local government agencies, and will be discussed within the context of 

cumulative impacts in this SEIS based on the available information. Currently, four NRClicensed ISR facilities are located within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 
5-3 

Table 5-1. Uranium Recovery Sites Near the Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

Site Name Company/Owner Type* County, State Status† 

Approx

Distance i

Reno Creek 1 Rocky Mountain Energy 

Co. 

ISR1 Converse, WY License terminated 35.5 [22] 

Reno Creek 2 International Uranium 

Corp. 

ISR3 Converse, WY Not licensed—applicant 

withdraws 3.5 [2] 

Ruby Ranch Conoco ISR1 Converse, WY Not licensed—applicant 

withdraws 21 [13] 

Ruby Ranch Power Resources, Inc. 

(PRI) 

ISR Converse, WY Potential site 21 [13] 

Reno Creek AUC, LLC ISR Campbell, WY Potential site 3.5 [2] Moore Ranch Uranium One ISR3 Campbell, WY Licensed 19 [12] North Butte & Ruth 

PRI ISR2,3 Campbell and 

Johnson, WY 

Licensed—on standby 24 [15] 

Collins Draw Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co. ISR1 Johnson, WY License terminated 8 [5] Shirley Basin South 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

Conv. Johnson, WY UMTRCA Title II disposal 

site 157 [97.5] 

Peterson Ranch Arizona Public Service 

Co. Malapai Resources 

ISR1 Johnson, WY Not pursued 

98 [61] 

Ludeman Uranium One ISR Converse, WY Potential site—license 

application withdrawn by applicant 69 [43] 

Highland 1 Exxon Minerals ISR3 Converse, WY Licensed, but not pursued 81 [50.5] Reynolds Ranch PRI ISR2 Converse, WY Licensed, but not 

operational 70 [43.5] 

Highland 2 Everest Minerals ISR3 Converse, WY Licensed—later combined 

with Smith Ranch facility license 

78 [48.5] 

Smith Ranch–Highland 

PRI ISR3 Converse, WY Operating 78 [48.5] 
5-4 

Table 5-1. Uranium Recovery Sites Near the Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (contin

Site Name Company/Owner Type* County, State Status† Approxim

Distance in 

Bear Creek Bear Creek Uranium Co. Conv. Converse, WY Decommissioning 56 [35] Highlands Exxon Mobile Corp. Conv. Converse, WY Decommissioning 82 [51] Leuenberger Teton Exploration 

Drilling 

ISR1,3 Converse, 

WY 

License terminated 91 [56.5] 

South Powder River Basin 

Kerr–McGee ISR1 Converse, 

WY 

License terminated with approval of Smith Ranch license 

78 [48.5] 

Spook DOE Conv. Johnson, 

WY 

UMTRCA Title I disposal site 63 [39] 

Allemand–Ross Uranium One ISR Johnson, 

WY 

Potential site 33 [20.5] 

Irigaray/ Christensen Ranch 

Cogema Malapai Resources 

ISR2,3 Johnson, 

WY 

Licensed for operations 

12 [7.5] 

Willow Creek J&P Corp. Western 

Nuclear 

ISR1 Johnson, 

WY 

License terminated with approval of Irigaray license 12 [7.5] 

Shirley Basin Pathfinder Mines 

Corp. 

Conv. Platte, WY Decommissioning 154. [96] 

North Platte Uranium Resources ISR1 License terminated 94 [58.5] Source: NRC, 2009b *Type: 1 = Research and Development/Pilot, 2 = Satellite, 3 = Commercial scale, Conv. = Conventional uranium mill

†UMTRCA Title I and Title II sites are uranium mill processing or tailings sites that have been decommissioned. DOE or the state is the lo

these sites.
 Cumulative Impacts

5-5 

Project. The Uranium One, Inc. Irigaray/Christensen Ranch ISR facility is located approximately 

12 km [7.5 mi] northwest of the proposed project site. Power Resources, Inc.-licensed North 

Butte amendment area is located approximately 24 km [15 mi] to the southwest. The PRI Smith 

Ranch-Highland ISR facility is located approximately 78 km [48.5 mi] southeast of the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The Uranium One Moore Ranch site is approximately 19 km [12 mi] 

to the southeast. Two of the licensed facilities, Irigaray/Christensen Ranch and Smith RanchHighland, currently have existing yellowcake processing plants with the latter in operation. 

Table 5-1 lists 25 past, existing, and potential uranium recovery sites near the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project. 

5.1.1.2 Coal Mining

The Powder River Regional Coal Team (PRRCT) decertified the Powder River Federal Coal 

Region as a Federal coal production region 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 1.03 billion tons [1.14 billion T] in 1990 to 1.15 billion tons [1.27 billion T] in 2007 

(BLM, 2009e). Between 1990 and 2008, the BLM Wyoming State Office held 25 competitive 

lease sales and issued 19 new Federal coal leases containing more than 5.17 billion metric tons 

[5.7 billion short tons] of coal using the “lease by application” process (BLM, 2005a,b,c). In 

2003, Powder River Basin coal mines produced 329 million metric tons [363 million short tons] 

of coal (BLM, 2005a,b,c). These mines make up more than 96 percent of the coal produced in 

Wyoming each year (BLM, 2005a,b,c). In 2003, the cumulative disturbed land area of the 

Powder River Basin attributable to coal mines totaled nearly 28,000 ha [70,000 ac]. Reasonably 

foreseeable future development projects for cumulative disturbed land area range from 47,400 

to 50,600 ha [117,000 to 125,000 ac] in the year 2015, under estimated low and high production 

scenarios, respectively. Other development related to coal includes 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]. 

Table 5-2 lists coal mines near the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project in Wyoming. The 

Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region has 16 surface mines. Surface mining of coal can cause 

adverse impacts to land use, geology and soils, water resources, ecology, air quality, noise, 

historic and cultural resources, visual and scenic resources, socioeconomics, and waste 

management. 

5.1.1.3 Oil and Gas Production

There are approximately 472 oil and gas production units in the Powder River Basin in 

various stages of production. These are evenly dispersed throughout the entire Powder River 

Basin. The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission reported that in 2003, oil and gas 

wells in the Powder River Basin produced approximately 13 million barrels of oil and 1.1 billion 

m3

 [40 billion ft3] of conventional gas (BLM, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c). 

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 (BLM, 2008a). From 1992 to 

2002, oil production from conventional oil and gas wells in Campbell and Converse Counties 

within the Powder River Basin decreased approximately 60.4 percent. Oil- and gas-related 

development includes major transportation pipelines and refineries. 
5-6 

Table 5-2 Coal Mines Near the Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project Site Name Company/Owner Type County, State Production in 2008 metric tons [short tons] Distance in km [mi] 

Buckskin Buckskin Mining Company Surface Campbell, WY 23,656, 072 [26,076,356] 83.5 [52] NRawhide Powder River Coal Company Surface Campbell, WY 16,700,642 [18,409,307] 82 [51] NDry Fork Western Fuels of 

Wyoming, Inc. 

Surface Campbell, 

WY 

4,772,918 [5,261,242] 79 [49] N

Eagle Butte Foundation Coal 

West 

Surface Campbell, 

WY 

18,545,952 [20,443,413] 79 [49] N

KFx Plant Evergreen Energy Surface Campbell, 

WY 

0 (was in production 2006, 2007) 

80.5 [50] N

Wyodak Wyodak 

Resources Development Corp. 

Surface Campbell, 

WY 

5,458,812 [6,017,311] 75.5 [47] N

Caballo Powder River Coal 

Company 

Surface Campbell, 

WY 

28,309,045 [31,205,381] 63.5 [39.5] N

Belle Ayr Foundation Coal 

West 

Surface Campbell, 

WY 

26,043,443 [28,707,982] 59.5 [37] N

Cordero/Rojo Complex 

Rio Tinto Energy America 

Surface Campbell, 

WY 

36,317,583 [40,033,283] 57 [35.5] N

Coal Creek Thunder Basin 

Coal Company, LLC 

Surface Campbell, 

WY 

10,390,483 [11,453,547] (not in production from 2001 to 2005) 

56 [35] E

Jacobs Ranch Rio Tinto Energy 

America 

Surface Campbell, 

WY 

38,233,940 [42,145,705] 54 [33.5] E

Black Thunder Thunder Basin 

Coal Company, LLC 

Surface Campbell, 

WY 

80,365,056 [88,587,310] 50.5 [31.5] E
5-7 

Table 5-2 Coal Mines Near the Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (continued) Site Name Company/Owner Type County, State Production in 2008 metric tons [short tons] Distance in km [mi] 

North Antelope/ Rochelle Complex Powder River Coal Company Surface Campbell & Converse, WY 88,521,725 [97,578,499] 55.5 [34.5] ENorth Rochelle Triton Coal Company Surface Campbell, WY no data 54.5 [34] EAntelope Rio Tinto Energy America Surface Campbell & Converse, WY 32,473,123 [35,795,491] 55 [34.5] SDave Johnston Glenrock Coal Company Surface Converse, WY Reclaimed—no production since 2000 76 [47] S Source: WMA, 2008 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-8 

In 2003, the cumulative disturbed land area in the Powder River Basin from oil and gas, CBM, 

and related development was nearly 76,100 ha [188,000 ac]. Increasing development 

associated with extraction of these energy resources will result in a total of 123,000 ha 

[305,000 ac] under development by 2015 (BLM, 2005a,b,c). The depth to producing gas and 

oil-bearing horizons generally ranges from 1,220 to 4,120 m [4,000 to 13,500 ft], but some wells 

are as shallow as 76 m [250 ft] (BLM, 2005a, b, c). 

5.1.1.4 Coal Bed Methane Development 

Natural gas production has been increasing in Wyoming. In the Powder River Basin, this is 

from the development of shallow CBM resources (BLM, 2005a,b,c). Annual CBM production 

in the Powder River Basin increased rapidly between 1999 and 2003, with nearly 15,000 

producing CBM wells in the Powder River Basin in 2003 and a total production volume of 

10.3 billion m3

 [364 billion ft3] (BLM, 2005a,b,c). In 2007, CBM production within Campbell 

County was 4.7 million m3

 [167,000 million ft3] (BLM, 2009i). The BLM Buffalo Field Office, 

which administers the area where the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is located, has 

processed approximately 3,000 applications for permits to drill since 2003; more than 

98 percent of these applications are for CBM recovery (BLM, 2009i). 

The recovery of CBM involves the installation of facilities that include access roads; pipelines for 

gathering gas and produced water; electrical utilities; facilities for measuring and compressing 

recovered gas; facilities for treating, discharging, disposing of, containing, or injecting produced 

water; and pipelines to transport gas high-pressure transmission pipelines. The wells are 

collocated on a well pad installed in a 32-ha [80-ac] spacing pattern (eight pads per square 

mile). The overall life of each well is approximately 7 to 10 years after which pipes are 

abandoned in place and well sites are reclaimed (NRC, 2010). 

Currently, there are 24 permitted and completed CBM wells located in or adjacent to the Nichols 

Ranch Unit while 33 permitted and completed CBM wells are found in and adjacent to the Hank 

Unit. As shown in Table 3-1, there are numerous permitted or completed CBM wells within 

4.8 km [3 m] of the Nichols Ranch (200 wells) and Hank Units (180 wells). Three CBM 

operators began working in or near the Nichols Ranch and Hank license areas in 2007. The 

target coal seam occurs approximately 554 m [1,474 ft] below ground surface (bgs) at the 

Nichols Ranch Unit and 450 m [1,820 ft] bgs at the Hank Unit. The formation is vertically 

separated from the Nichols Ranch site by 230 m [756 ft] and the Hank site by 353 m [1,160 ft] 

(Uranez, 2008). 

5.1.1.5 Other Mining

Sand, gravel, bentonite, and clinker (or scoria) have been and are being mined in the Powder 

River Basin. Bentonite is weathered volcanic ash that is used in a variety of products, including 

drilling mud and cat litter, because of its absorbent properties. There are three major 

bentonite-producing districts in and around the Powder River Basin. Aggregate, which consists 

of sand, gravel, and stone, is used in the construction purposes. In the Powder River Basin, the 

largest identified aggregate operation is located in northern Converse County. It has an 

associated total disturbance area of approximately 27 ha [67 ac], of which 1.6 ha [4 ac] have 

been reclaimed. Scoria, or clinker, is used as aggregate where alluvial terrace gravel or 

in-place granite/igneous rock is not available. Scoria generally is mined in Converse and 

Campbell Counties in the Powder River Basin (BLM, 2005a,b,c). 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-9 

5.1.1.6 Environmental Impact Statements as Indicators of Past, Present, and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Another indicator of present and reasonably foreseeable future actions is the number of draft 

and final EISs Federal agencies prepared within a recent time period. Using information in 

NUREG–1910 (NRC, 2009a, Section 5.2.2) and other publicly available information, several 

EISs were identified for the Powder River Basin in addition to draft and final programmatic EISs 

for large-scale actions related to several states, including Wyoming (see GEIS Tables 5.2-3 and 

5.2-4). These projects could contribute to both local and regional cumulative impacts on air 

quality, land usage, terrestrial plants and animals, and groundwater and surface water 

resources. 

5.1.2 Methodology 

In determining potential cumulative impacts, the following methodology was developed based 

on the GEIS recommendation to follow CEQ guidance (CEQ, 1997): 

 Identify for each resource area the potential environmental impacts that would be of 

concern from a cumulative impacts perspective. These impacts are discussed and 

analyzed in Chapter 4. 

 Identify the geographic scope for the analysis for each resource area. This scope is 

expected to vary from resource area to resource area, depending on the geographic 

extent to which the potential impacts could be an issue. 

 Identify the timeframe over which cumulative impacts would be assessed. The 

timeframe selected begins in 2007 when the applicant submitted a license application to 

NRC for a new source material license for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The 

cumulative impact analysis timeframe would terminate in 2020, which represents the 

license termination at the end of the decommissioning period. 

 Identify existing and anticipated future projects and activities in and surrounding the 

project site. These projects and activities are identified in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 of 

this chapter. 

 Assess the cumulative impacts for each resource area from the proposed action and 

reasonable alternatives and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. This analysis would take into account the environmental impacts of concern 

identified in Step 1 and the resource-area-specific geographic scope identified in Step 2. 

The following terminology was used to define the level of cumulative impact: 

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

neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource 

considered. 

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

important attributes of the resource considered. 

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

important attributes of the resource considered. 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-10 

In conducting this assessment, NRC recognized that for many aspects of the applicantproposed activities, there would be SMALL impacts on the affected resources. However, an 

impact that may be SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or LARGE cumulative impact 

when considered in combination with the impacts of other actions on the affected resource. 

Likewise, if a resource is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact 

could be important if it contributes to or accelerates the overall resource decline. The NRC staff 

determined the appropriate level of analysis 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 that resource, as described in Chapter 4, as well as the 

likelihood that the quality, quantity, or stability of the given resource could be affected. 

Table 5-3 summarizes the cumulative impacts from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project on 

environmental resources, based on analyses the NRC staff conducted and considering the 

other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities identified in Section 5.1.1. 

5.2 Land Use 

Cumulative impacts to land use were assessed using two different study areas. The first study 

area is land within the planning area administered by the BLM Buffalo Field Office (hereinafter 

referred to as the “Buffalo Planning Area”). The second study area is defined in the BLM 

Powder River Basin (PRB) Coal Review Cumulative Effects Report (2009d). The second study 

area encompasses part of the Buffalo Planning Area and a portion of northern Converse 

County. These areas delineate the geographic boundary utilized for the cumulative analysis of 

land use resources and will be collectively referred to as the “land use study area.” The land use 

study area was selected as the cumulative analysis geographic boundary because this study 

area incorporates the four counties surrounding the proposed project. Additionally, the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is centrally located within the study area. Within the land 

use study area, activities on both public and private lands, including oil, gas, CBM, and coal 

development, are ongoing and projected to expand in the future. Note that throughout the 

analysis of the land use section, data on geographic area will refer to uses specifically occurring 

within the Buffalo Planning Area, the PRB Coal Review Cumulative Effects study area, or the 

combined land use study area. 

Potential land use impacts could result from interruption to, reduction of, or impedance of 

livestock grazing areas, open wildlife areas, and land access. Recent BLM reports provide 

valuable information on past, present, and future development activities that could result in 

cumulative effects on land use when added to impacts associated with the proposed Nichols 

ISR project. The cumulative effects analysis timeframe begins in 2007 and terminates in 2020. 

The year 2007 is when the applicant submitted a license application to NRC for a new source 

material license for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The cumulative impact analysis 

timeframe would terminate in 2020, which is the year that NRC estimates license termination 

would occur at the end of the decommissioning period. At the completion of decommissioning, 

the applicant would restore the land to pre-extraction conditions and uses, including all roads, 

except those the landowner has requested to remain (Uranerz, 2007). Data from a BLM draft 

report were used as part of this analysis to forecast the projected magnitude of development 

activities to the year 2028 (BLM 2009a). 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-11 

Table 5-3. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources 

Resource Category Cumulative Impacts Comment 

Land Use MODERATE 

The proposed project is projected to 

have a SMALL incremental effect 

when added to the MODERATE 

cumulative impacts to land use. 

Transportation MODERATE 

The proposed project is likely to have 

a SMALL incremental effect when 

added to the MODERATE cumulative 

impacts to transportation. 

Geology and Soils MODERATE 

The proposed project would have a 

SMALL incremental effect when 

added to the MODERATE cumulative 

impacts to geology and soils. 

Water Resources 

Surface Waters and Wetlands MODERATE 

The proposed project may have a 

SMALL incremental impact when 

added to the MODERATE cumulative 

impacts to surface waters and 

wetlands. 

Groundwater SMALL to 

MODERATE 

The proposed project may have a 

SMALL incremental impact when 

added to the SMALL to MODERATE 

cumulative impacts on groundwater 

resources. 

Ecological Resources 

Terrestrial Ecology MODERATE 

The proposed project may have a 

SMALL incremental impact when 

added to the MODERATE cumulative 

impacts on terrestrial ecological 

resources. 

Aquatic Ecology SMALL 

The proposed project would have a 

SMALL impact when added to the 

SMALL cumulative impacts on 

aquatic ecological resources. 

Protected Species SMALL to 

MODERATE 

The proposed project would have a 

SMALL impact on threatened and 

endangered species when added to 

the MODERATE cumulative impacts. 

Meteorology 

Air Quality MODERATE 

The proposed project would have a 

SMALL impact on air quality when 

added to the MODERATE cumulative 

impacts. 

Noise SMALL 

The proposed project would have a 

SMALL incremental impact on noise 

when added to the SMALL 

cumulative impacts. 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-12 

Table 5-3. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources (continued) 

Resource Category Cumulative Impacts Comment 

Historical and Cultural 

Resources MODERATE 

The proposed project would have a 

SMALL incremental impact on 

historical and cultural resources 

when added to the MODERATE 

cumulative impacts. 

Visual and Scenic Resources MODERATE 

The proposed project would have a 

SMALL to MODERATE incremental 

impact on visual and scenic 

resources when added to the 

MODERATE cumulative impacts to 

the viewshed. 

Socioeconomics MODERATE 

The proposed project would have a 

SMALL incremental impact on 

socioeconomic resources when 

added to the MODERATE cumulative 

impacts. 

Environmental Justice SMALL 

The proposed project would have a 

SMALL incremental impact on 

environmental justice when added to 

the SMALL cumulative impacts. 

Public and Occupational 

Health and Safety SMALL 

The proposed project would have a 

SMALL incremental impact on public 

and occupational health and safety 

when added to the SMALL 

cumulative impacts. 

Waste Management SMALL 

The proposed project would have a 

SMALL incremental impact on waste 

management when added to the 

SMALL cumulative impacts. 

The Buffalo Planning Area includes part of Campbell, Johnson, and Sheridan Counties and 

covers approximately 2.9 million ha [7.3 million ac]. The size of the PRB Coal Review 

Cumulative Effects study area is 1.9 million ha [4.6 million ac]. The total size of the land use 

study area is 3.3 million ha [8.1 million ac]. Land use within the land use study area is 

diversified and cooperative, with CBM and oil and gas extraction activities sharing land with 

livestock grazing. Although federal grasslands and forests cover approximately 21 percent of 

the Powder River Basin area, most rangeland is privately owned (68 percent) and is primarily 

used for grazing cattle and sheep. Figure 5-1 shows the extent of BLM pasture allotments in 

the region. 

Ranching in the area stretches back to the Civil War when Texas cattlemen moved their herds 

of Longhorn cattle north looking for open range. Coal and mineral mining and oil and gas 

production are other important land uses. The first commercial oil field discovery was made in 

1948. Oil discoveries in 1956 touched off the first oil boom in the area. Other major oil and gas 

discoveries were made in the 1960s and 1970s. Conventional mining, oil and gas, and CBM 

production are expected to continue into the future. 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-13 

Figure 5-1. Conventional and ISR Uranium Recovery Facilities, BLM Pasture Allotments and Croplands near the Proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Sources: BLM, 2010a; EIA, 2007; WOGCC, 2010; WyGISC, 1990 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-14 

Livestock grazing is one of the primary land uses within the land use study area. The majority of 

the area consists of rangeland, most of which is privately owned. Livestock grazing also occurs 

on lands administered by BLM, USFS, and State of Wyoming. Potential short-term cumulative 

impacts associated with loss of rangeland include decreased foraging opportunities, temporary 

loss of animal unit months (AUMs), and temporary loss of water-related range improvements 

(e.g., improved springs, water pipelines, stock ponds). Impacts would be minimized after 

successful reclamation had been achieved. Potential cumulative long-term impacts consist of 

permanent loss of forage and forage/cropland productivity in areas that would not be reclaimed 

in the near term. Impacts may also include dispersal of noxious and invasive weed species 

within and beyond the surface disturbance boundaries, which decreases the amount of 

desirable forage available for livestock (BLM, 2009d). 

A total of approximately 90,070 ha [222,568 ac] of vegetation has been disturbed by 

development in the PRB Coal Review Cumulative Effects study area as of 2007. Of the 

222,568 acres of total cumulative disturbance, approximately 45,884 ha [113,382 ac] 

(51 percent) have been reclaimed. The remaining 53,680 ha [132,645 ac] of disturbance would 

be reclaimed incrementally or following a project’s completion, depending on the type of 

development activity and permit requirements. Projections out to 2020 forecast that between 

58,483 ha and 63,197 ha [144,515 ac and 156,165 ac] of additional rangeland will be lost. 

However, most of this will be regained as part of reclamation activities. (BLM, 2009d) 

As of 2009, there were a total of 6,421 conventional oil and gas wells in the Buffalo Planning 

Area, of which 3,090 were active. An additional 1,359 conventional wells are projected to be 

drilled between 2009 and 2028. An estimated 4,857 ha [12,003 ac] of short-term surface 

disturbance related to well pad and access road construction would occur in the study area 

through 2028, which encompasses less than 0.16 percent of all the land in the Planning Area. 

Of the 4,857 ha [12,003 ac], 2,868 ha [7,087 ac] would remain un-reclaimed at the end of 2028, 

equal to 0.09 percent of the land administered by the Buffalo Planning Area. (BLM, 2009a) 

Through the year 2008, 28,776 CBM wells were drilled, while an additional 13,800 are forecast 

to be developed between 2009 and 2028. A total of 25,958 ha [64,144 ac] are projected to be 

disturbed by well pads and access roads associated with CBM activity through the year 2028. 

This represents 0.9 percent of the land included in the Buffalo Planning Area. Unreclaimed 

surface disturbance is estimated at 5,542 ha [13,696 ac], which is equivalent to 0.2 percent of 

Planning Area surface lands. (BLM, 2009a) 

Coal mining activity in the Powder River Basin began during 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 coal field, 

is approximately 24.1 km [15 mi] wide and extends from approximately 35.4 km [22 mi] north 

of Gillette, Wyoming, to approximately 40.3 km [25 mi] south of Wright, Wyoming. It is located 

approximately 34 km [21 mi eas]t of the proposed Nichols ISR facility. A second coal field area 

is approximately 32.2 km [20 mi] wide and extends from Sheridan, Wyoming, north to the 

Wyoming/Montana State line, which is approximately 130 km [80 mi] northeast of the proposed 

ISR facility. In 2007, the Powder River Basin was the single most productive coal basin in the 

United States, producing nearly 40 percent of the nation’s coal. The Powder River Basin 

accounts for approximately 97 percent of Wyoming's production and boasts all of the 10 largest 

coal mines in the United States by 2007 production. Figures 5-2 and 5-3 show the location of 

coal mining activities near and within an 80 km [50 mi] radius of the proposed project. 

Wyoming’s Powder River Basin coal production is expected to grow at an annual rate of 2 to 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-15 

Figure 5-2. Oilfields, Coalfields, CBM Project Areas, Uranium Occurrences, and Uranium Facilities near the 

Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Sources: BLM, 2010a; EIA, 2007; WOGCC, 2010; WyGISC, 1990 

 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-16 

Figure 5-3. Energy Developments Within a 50-Mile Radius of Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

Sources: EIA, 2007; USGS, 2003; WOGCC, 2010; WyGISC, 1990. 

 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-17 

3 percent per year. Additional coal leases and associated lands may be required to keep up 

with demand (BLM, 2009b). 

Within the PRB Coal Review Cumulative Effects study area (BLM, 2009d), a total of 

approximately 90,070 ha [222,568 ac] (5 percent) had been disturbed by development activities 

in the land use study area by the end of 2007. Of this total, approximately 33,828 ha [83,593 ac] 

(37 percent of the total) were disturbed by coal mining activities. The PRB report forecast 

minimum (lower) and maximum (upper) coal production expected in 2020. According to the 

estimated lower coal production scenario, an estimated 171,071 ha [422,727 ac] or 

approximately 9.4 percent of the land use study area would be disturbed by various reasonably 

foreseeable future activities. It is projected that 55,621 ha [137,443 ac] (33 percent of the total) 

would be associated with coal mining activities. Approximately 117,333 ha [289,937 ac] 

(39 percent of the total disturbance) would be reclaimed by 2020, leaving 53,737 ha 

[132,789 ac] of unreclaimed disturbance. This would result in about 3 percent of the total study 

area remaining unreclaimed. Under the 2020 upper production scenario, approximately 

175,784 ha [434,374 ac] (9.7 percent of the land use study area) would be disturbed by coal 

mining activities accounting for 60,334 ha [149,089 ac] or 34 percent of the disturbance. 

Approximately 68 percent of the total disturbance or 160,405 ha [396,370 ac] would be 

reclaimed by 2020. The unreclaimed acreage of 55,726 ha [137,702 ac] again represents about 

3 percent of the total study area. Anticipated impacts related to this development would include 

degradation of the dispersed recreation experience and of the hunting experience, in particular. 

A reduction in land available for hunting also makes herd management more difficult for the 

Wyoming Fish and Game Department and reduces its hunting-derived revenues. Additionally, 

un-reclaimed disturbance areas would result in increased conflicts with existing land uses, 

which would be primarily grazing and agricultural uses (BLM, 2009d). 

In the United States, the total uranium mine production in 2007 was 2,059,763 kg [4,541,000 lb] 

almost half of which came from the southernmost Powder River Basin. Uranium deposits in 

Wyoming are concentrated in southeastern Johnson and southwestern Campbell Counties. 

Uranium was first mined in Wyoming in 1920. Continued exploration for uranium resulted in 

discovery of additional sedimentary uranium deposits in the major basins of central and 

southern Wyoming. Most uranium production in the Buffalo Planning Area occurred during the 

years 1955 to 1959. Uranium production declined in the mid-1960s, but increased again in the 

late 1960s and 1970s with the discovery of major uranium deposits in the Powder River Basin, 

including Christensen Ranch, Smith Ranch, Morton Ranch, and the Highland sites. 

Conventional mine production peaked in 1980 and then decreased in the early 1980s through 

the early 1990s when ISR facilities were developed (BLM, 2009c). 

During the 1980s, ISR replaced conventional mines as the preferred means for extracting 

uranium ores in the United States. Currently, only ISR facilities are producing uranium in 

Wyoming. There is an active ISR operation in the Wyoming portion of the Powder River Basin, 

which is Power Resources’ Highland/Smith Ranch ISR facility located in Converse County. 

In addition to this ISR facility, there are two permitted uranium Plans of Operations within the 

Buffalo Planning Area (Ruth and Christensen Ranch) and three licensed but presently 

nonoperational satellite properties of the Power Resources’ Highland/Smith Ranch ISR facility 

including: North Butte located approximately 3.2 km [2.0 mi] to the north of the Hank Unit and 

8.1 km [5.0 mi] to the northeast of the Nichols Ranch Unit; Reynolds Ranch located 70km 

[43.5 mi] to the southeast of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project; and Ruth located 24 km [15 mi] to 

the southwest. The Moore Ranch ISR Project has also recently been licensed and is located 

32 km [20 mi] southeast of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Figure 5-2 shows the 

location of uranium facilities as well as other energy’ development projects in the area. 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-18 

According to BLM, the potential impacts on land use from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project would be SMALL through all stages of the ISR process as discussed in SEIS 

Section 4.2. The proposed license area encompasses 1,365 ha [3,371 ac], which represents 

less than 0.05 percent of the Buffalo Planning Area and an even smaller portion of the entire 

land use study area (0.04 percent). Furthermore, of the licensed area, only 121 ha [300 ac] 

would be used for facility operation. Even less surface, approximately 37 ha [92 ac], would be 

disturbed by earthmoving activities and other activities as described in SEIS Section 4.2.1.1 

(Uranerz, 2007). Except for roads that would remain in use after decommissioning, the impact 

would be short term (for the life of the facility) because the applicant has stated in its 

environmental report that the land would be returned to its preoperational condition. The access 

roads built to connect existing T-Chair Livestock Company ranch roads with both the Hank Unit 

satellite facility and the Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant would remain in use for 

some period after decommissioning to facilitate site monitoring. 

The NRC staff has determined that the cumulative impact on land use within the land use study 

area resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is MODERATE. 

Based upon the BLM reports identified in this section, the primary types of actions leading to 

this moderate finding are energy development activities, namely: (i) coal mining, which includes 

an expected annual 2 percent to 3 percent growth rate in coal production as of yearend 2007 

with approximately 33,791 ha [83,500 ac] in the land use study area disturbed by coal mining 

activities; (ii) CBM, with 28,776 wells in the Buffalo Planning area as of yearend 2008 with an 

additional 13,800 CBM wells projected to be drilled by year end 2028; (iii) oil and gas 

production, with 3,090 active wells in operation in the Buffalo Planning area as of 2009 with an 

additional 1,359 wells projected to be drilled between 2009 and 2028; and (iv) uranium ISR 

facilities, including one operating ISR facility, the Power Resources’ Highland/Smith Ranch ISR 

facility located in Converse County along with their licensed but unconstructed satellite facilities 

Ruth and North Butte, the recently licensed Moore Ranch ISR facility, (expected to commence 

operation in 2012) and the Irigaray/Christensen Ranch which is expected to resume operations 

in 2011 (Mills, 2010). 

The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (the proposed 

action) would have a SMALL incremental effect on land use when considered with all other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the land use study area. This conclusion is 

based on the fact that the proposed action would only disturb approximately 120 ha [300 ac], 

with an additional 24 ha to 32 ha [60 to 80 ac] fenced off from grazing activities over the life of 

the project. 

For the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3), NRC staff concludes that the cumulative 

land use impacts would be similar to, but less than those described above for the proposed 

action. Section 4.2.3 describes impacts associated with Alternative 3. Only 60 ha [120 ac] 

would be affected under Alternative 3 compared to 121 ha [300 ac] for the proposed action. 

There would be less land restricted under Alternative 3 since only 12 to 16 ha [30 to 40 ac] 

would be fenced off from grazing activities compared to the 24 to 32 ha [60 to 80 ac] that would 

be fenced under the proposed action over the life of the project. Impacts from decommissioning 

and land reclamation would also be less since the Hank Unit site would not be developed. The 

NRC staff determined that the SMALL impacts from the proposed action would be further 

reduced for Alternative 3 and would have a SMALL incremental effect on land use when added 

to the MODERATE cumulative impact on land use from other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions within the land use study area. 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-19 

5.3 Transportation 

Potential cumulative impacts on transportation were assessed that could result from past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable development activities. Campbell, Johnson, and Natrona 

Counties served as the geographic boundary area (hereinafter referred to as the cumulative 

effects study area). This geographic area was selected because major transportation routes 

within the region (both Interstate and U.S. Highways) occur within these three counties. The 

cumulative effects analysis timeframe begins in 2007 and terminates in 2020, as discussed in 

Section 5.1.2. The year 2007 is when the applicant submitted a license application to NRC for a 

new source material license for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Upon completion of 

decommissioning activities, transportation impacts associated with the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR project would cease. 

Potential environmental impacts from transportation associated with the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project are described in Section 4.3 of this SEIS. Impacts would be from worker 

commuting to and from the site and from the shipment of materials and chemicals on and off the 

site. Impacts could occur from fugitive dust, noise, incidental wildlife or livestock kills, increased 

traffic on local roads, and accidents. During the ISR phases of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project, the annual average daily traffic count was estimated by NRC staff to increase 0.6 to 

2 percent along State Route (SR) 387, the main entrance to the proposed facility. For State 

Route 50, the proposed project-related traffic would increase annual average daily traffic count 

(AADT) counts on SR50 by roughly 3 percent. The NRC staff evaluated the potential traffic 

increases to the same roads if no carpooling were assumed, and the estimates for SR387 

increased by 4.5 to 16 percent depending on the location, while the estimates for SR50 

increased by 28 percent at a location with relatively low existing traffic. These potential changes 

to traffic were compared with another regional traffic impact analysis and were found to be 

small. Based on the low volume of operational traffic, the low radiological risks from 

transportation accidents, and the implementation of the applicant’s additional safety practices as 

discussed in Section 4.3.1.2, the the NRC staff concluded the potential impacts from accidents 

were SMALL. The NRC staff also concluded road dust impacts would be SMALL based on the 

low volume of traffic generated and required road dust mitigation. Furthermore, NRC staff 

considered that the transportation system constructed to support the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project would be reclaimed and, therefore, the project-related road construction impacts 

would be SMALL. 

Therefore, the NRC staff concluded the overall transportation impact would be SMALL, as 

discussed in Section 4.3.1. Fugitive dust emissions are also evaluated as air quality impacts in 

Section 5.7, noise impacts are evaluated in Section 5.8, and the impact from wildlife kills is 

considered in ecological impacts in Section 5.6 in this SEIS. 

As noted in Section 5.1.1 of the SEIS, there are other ongoing or planned activities occurring 

within the Powder River Basin and within the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

that contribute to the analysis of cumulative impacts. These activities, which include CBM 

development, oil and gas extraction activities, and large surface mining operations that may 

have railways and roadways to support the transport of coal among others, all have associated 

transportation impacts. BLM recently completed cumulative impact assessment of activities 

occurring within the Powder River Basin, including coal development, power generation, oil and 

gas, coal bed natural gas, and other mining activities, evaluated the potential transportation 

impacts to Campbell County roads, including the region surrounding the towns of Wright and 

Gillette (BLM, 2010b). That study concluded potential regional direct effects to roads and 

highways would include increased vehicular traffic and risk of traffic accidents on existing 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-20 

roadways in the BLM cumulative effects study area from daily travel by workers and their 

families. Indirect effects would include increased wear and tear on existing roads, additional air 

emissions, fugitive dust from roads, noise, increased potential access to remote areas, and an 

increased risk of vehicle collisions with livestock and wildlife. A lower and upper coal production 

model was used to forecast potential cumulative effects through 2020. The study projected 

increases in future traffic by assuming cumulative transportation impacts are largely tied to 

population increases (BLM, 2009d). BLM evaluated the impact of an estimated 48 percent 

increase in population (and therefore traffic) for Campbell County roads from year 2003 to 2020 

based on high coal production population projections and concluded highways along major 

routes would not be affected but urban areas such as Gillette could experience additional traffic 

delays (BLM, 2010b). 

In addition to the aforementioned ongoing or planned activities, there are six ISR sites either 

operating or planned within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

(Table 5-2), each with transportation requirements comparable to the Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project. Considering the trip frequency information evaluated in Section 4.3 of this SEIS, the 

additional number of daily vehicle trips for 6 additional sites would range from approximately 

110 to 910 (i.e., 8 to 75 additional commuting vehicles plus 1 truck, 2 trips per day, for 

6 facilities) depending on the degree of carpooling or employer provided transportation. The 

increases in projected traffic from the operating or planned ISR facilities combined with the other 

ongoing or planned activities in the region, and projected increases in population over time, 

could lead to regional traffic impacts that are similar to those evaluated by the aforementioned 

BLM study (that concluded no impacts to highways along major routes but an increased 

potential for traffic delays in urban areas such as Gillette). The staff considered, for 

comparison, a recent traffic study of the coal mining operations near the city of Wright that 

calculated the capacity of local two-lane highways to be approximately 1,375 vehicle trips per 

hour (both directions) based on an ideal capacity of 3,200 vehicles per hour (Kadrmas, et al., 

2010). Considering these levels of hourly capacity, the existing annual average daily traffic 

counts on the roads evaluated in this SEIS (ranging from 550 to 3,930) suggest additional 

capacity is available that could accommodate the increases in traffic (because the daily traffic 

figures apply to a longer period than the hourly peak capacity). In addition to potential traffic 

impacts, the existing or planned ISR facilities would require construction of new road surfaces or 

improvement of existing roads within the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

Therefore, the number of roads and road networks would grow concurrently with the natural 

resource exploration and extraction activities with a concomitant increase in traffic and the 

potential for accidents. Based on this information, the NRC staff concludes the cumulative 

impacts to transportation resulting from past, ongoing, and future ISR projects, CBM projects, oil 

and gas operations, surface coal mining activities, and other development with transportation 

requirements identified in Section 5.1.1 would be MODERATE. 

The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would have a SMALL incremental effect on the 

MODERATE cumulative impacts to transportation resulting from past, ongoing, and future ISR 

projects, CBM projects, oil and gas operations, surface coal mining activities, and other 

development with transportation requirements identified in Section 5.1.1. 

For the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3), the cumulative transportation impacts 

would be the same types of impacts as evaluated for the proposed action; however, the impacts 

would be generated by activities associated with the operation of only the Nichols Ranch Unit. 

For this alternative the number of wellfields developed would be halved, and therefore wellfield 

construction activities would be substantially reduced. 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-21 

The number of commuting construction workers and equipment and supply shipments would be 

reduced along with the fugitive dust that the construction activities would generate 

(Section 4.3.3.1). During operations (Section 4.3.3.2) there would be no ion exchange 

shipments from the Hank wellfields to the central processing plant. Because the proposed 

operations periods for the Nichols and Hank sites overlap, Alternative 3 would produce less 

yellowcake annually, and that would result in fewer commuting workers and shipments of 

supplies, yellowcake, and waste materials each year compared to the proposed action. 

Therefore, operational traffic impacts and accident risks would be reduced under Alternative 3. 

Aquifer restoration (Section 4.3.3.3) would also involve fewer workers and a reduction in 

shipping activities resulting in lower traffic and accident impacts. During the decommissioning 

phase (Section 4.3.3.4), the total duration and number of wellfields to reclaim would be halved 

and based on the proposed phased scheduling, would have the same magnitude of annual 

transportation impacts (e.g., equipment, waste shipments). Based on this analysis, Alternative 

3 of the Nichols Ranch ISR Therefore, Alternative 3 would have a SMALL incremental effect on 

transportation when added to the MODERATE cumulative impact on transportation from other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the transportation study area. 

5.4 Geology and Soils 

Cumulative impacts on soils and geology were assessed within the planning area administered 

by the BLM Buffalo Field Office (herein referred to as the “Buffalo Planning Area”). This area 

was chosen as the geographic boundary for the analysis of cumulative impacts on soils and 

geology because the Nichols Ranch ISR Project is centrally located within the area 

administered by this office, the BLM owns 118 ha [280 ac] and some of the mineral rights within 

the proposed license area, and the BLM’s mission is to manage and conserve resources on 

public lands. Within the Buffalo Planning Area, which encompasses Johnson, Campbell, and 

Sheridan Counties, the BLM administers 315,907 ha [780,291 ac] of public land and 1.9 million 

ha [4.7 million ac] of the mineral rights in these counties. Within the Buffalo Planning area, 

energy extraction activities affecting the geology and soils include oil and gas and CBM 

development, coal mining, and uranium extraction. Impacts to soils result from earthmoving 

activities associated with these energy extraction activities, and the subsurface geology is 

affected by the removal of a resource (e.g., oil) or by the injection of fluids to recover a resource 

(e.g., in-situ recovery of uranium). Recent BLM reports, discussed in the following paragraphs, 

provide valuable information on past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development 

activities within the Buffalo Planning Area. These reports were used to assess the cumulative 

impact on geology and soils. The timeframe for the analysis of cumulative impacts begins in 

2007 and terminates in the year 2020 as discussed in SEIS Section 5.1.2 and is based on the 

estimated operating life of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

The past, ongoing, and reasonably future foreseeable actions to explore for and extract 

minerals within the region contribute to the cumulative impact on geology and soils 

(BLM, 2008a). As of 2009, there was a total of 6,421 conventional oil and gas wells in the 

Buffalo Planning Area. An additional 1,359 conventional wells are projected to be drilled 

between 2009 and 2028, resulting in the potential disturbance of soils covering an area of 

approximately 7,728 ha [19,090 ac] (BLM, 2009). BLM has estimated the potential surface 

disturbance of soils from the development of coal bed methane within the same area as 

25,969 ha [64,144 ac] (BLM, 2009). BLM (2005) reported that coal mining across the Powder 

River Basin, which comprises all of Campbell, Johnson, and Sheridan Counties less the land 

comprising the Bighorn National Forest, had disturbed 20,691 ha [51,107 ac]; however, none of 

that disturbance occurred within the watershed in which the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project is located. 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-22 

BLM (2005c) evaluated the cumulative impact on geology and soils from past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Powder River Basin under two different coal 

production scenarios. Under the upper coal production scenario, a total of 60,360 ha 

[149,089 ac] of disturbed land are projected for the year 2020, versus the 2003 baseline total 

of 27,852 ha [68,794 ac]. 

There are12 other ISR projects either licensed or planned within an 80 km [50 mi] radius of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, as shown in Table 5-1, that could impact geology and 

soils at an intensity comparable to that which would occur at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project. 

Increased vehicle traffic, clearing of vegetated areas, salvaging and redistributing soils, 

discharging CBM- and ISR-produced groundwater, and constructing and maintaining projectspecific components (e.g., roads, well pads, industrial sites, and associated ancillary facilities) 

all contribute to the cumulative impacts on soils from both energy-related projects (BLM, 2008a). 

As stated in SEIS Section 4.4.1.2, the removal of uranium from the target sandstones during 

ISR operations would result in a permanent change to the composition of uranium-bearing rock 

formations. However, the uranium mobilization and recovery process in the target sandstones 

does not result in the removal of rock matrix or structure, and therefore no significant matrix 

compression or ground subsidence is expected. 

The main soil resource concerns within the Buffalo Planning Area are wind erosion and water 

erosion that occur where the ground cover has deteriorated (BLM, 2009i). Long-term and 

short-term impacts on soils include accelerated wind or water erosion; declining soil-quality 

factors; declining microbial populations, fertility, and organic matter; compaction; and the 

permanent removal of soil (BLM, 2005c). Some degree of soil reclamation is possible, although 

not all overburden materials can be used to reestablish vegetation. Potential impacts on soils 

can also include a change in alkalinity due to discharge of CBM-produced water. The principal 

impact on soils from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would result from earthmoving 

activities. Earthmoving activities that could impact soils include clearing of ground or topsoil and 

preparing surfaces for the Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant, Hank Unit satellite 

facility, header houses, and access roads, and from drilling sites, laying pipeline, and building 

associated structures. As discussed in SEIS Section 4.4.1.1, soil covering approximately 40 ha 

[100 ac] would be affected by the proposed action resulting in a SMALL impact on soils. These 

potential impacts would be further reduced by the applicant’s implementation of best 

management practices. The potential impacts on the subsurface geology are described in 

Section 5.5.2, which assesses the cumulative impact on groundwater. 

The 40 ha [100 ac] of temporary soil disturbance over the life of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project accounts for less than 0.06 percent of the soil disturbance occurring in the Buffalo 

Planning Area as described previously. Furthermore, the ways in which soils would be impacted 

during the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are also far less damaging or adverse than soil 

impacts that result from surface coal mining, which is more invasive and removes much more 

soil. 

The NRC staff has determined that the cumulative impact on geology and soils within the 

Buffalo Planning Area resulting from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is 

MODERATE. The activities contributing to this moderate finding are oil and gas exploration and 

development, CBM development, coal mining, and other ISR activities occurring or projected to 

occur within the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, which collectively will result 

in the disturbance of soil covering an area of approximately 76,393 ha [168,000 ac]. 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-23 

The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (the proposed 

action) would have a SMALL incremental effect on geology and soils because the soil 

disturbance for an ISR project is approximately 40 ha [100 ac]. The potential impact from soil 

disturbance at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would have a SMALL incremental effect 

when added to the MODERATE cumulative impact on geology and soils from other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Buffalo Planning Area. 

For the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3), NRC staff concludes that the cumulative 

impact on geology and soils would be similar to, but less than, that described for the proposed 

action because Alternative 3 would have a smaller footprint. Ground-disturbing activities during 

construction and decommissioning, such as trenching and digging and associated impacts, 

would affect an area of approximately 60 ha [150 ac] for the Nichols Ranch Unit compared to 

approximately twice the land area if the Hank Unit were involved. These impacts would be short 

term, because areas disturbed by the proposed project would be restored and reclaimed after 

the project concluded. Similar to the proposed action, the applicant would strip and stockpile 

excavated topsoil, use the same procedure for excavating mud pits as outlined for the proposed 

action, apply the same monitoring program and spill procedures outlined for the proposed 

action, and submit a decommissioning plan for NRC review and approval prior to 

decommissioning. Based on this analysis, NRC staff concluded that implementation of 

Alternative 3 would have a SMALL incremental effect on geology and soils when added to the 

MODERATE cumulative impact on geology and soils expected from other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buffalo Planning Area. 

5.5 Water Resources 

5.5.1 Surface Waters and Wetlands 

Cumulative impacts on surface water and wetlands were assessed within the Dry Fork Basin of 

the Upper Powder River because the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is located within this 

drainage basin and could potentially be affected by other activities that discharged surface 

water to drainages within this basin. The Dry Fork Basin was used as the geographic boundary 

for the surface water study area, in addition the impacts from other activities occurring within an 

80-km [50-mi] radius of the site were consolidated because they could potentially drain into the 

surface water study area. Within this study area, the principal activities contributing to potential 

surface water impacts are discharges from CBM operations. The cumulative effects analysis 

timeframe begins in 2007 and terminates in 2020 as discussed in Section 5.1.2 and is based on 

the estimated operating life of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

BLM estimated that 9 to 52 percent of CBM-produced water would contribute to surface water 

flows and perennial flows would be likely to develop in former ephemeral channels (BLM, 2003). 

CBM-produced water would increase the availability of surface waters for irrigation and other 

purposes for downstream users. BLM noted that noticeable changes in water quality would 

occur in the main channel drainages during periods of low flow and that sodicity and salinity are 

key water quality parameters because of their impact on water used for irrigation. BLM 

projected that the concentrations of suspended sediments in surface water would likely rise 

above baseline levels from increased flow and surface water runoff from disturbed areas. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) adopted the Most Restrictive Proposed 

Limit for sodicity and salinity into its Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(WYPDES) permitting process to mitigate potential water quality impacts to downstream users. 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-24 

A review of the CBM permits in the surface water study area on the Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission website indicated that in the year 2009, 163 million L [42.95 million 

gal] of CBM water was produced. According to Greystone Environmental Consultants et al., 

(2003), who conducted surface water modeling of water quality impacts associated with coal 

bed methane development in the Powder River Basin in support of the Final EIS for the Powder 

River Basin Oil and Gas Project (BLM 2003), 20 percent of CBM discharges infiltrate the 

surface, indicating that 33 million L [8.6 million gal] infiltrated the surface in 2009. The balance 

is either totally contained or discharged via WYPDES permits. 

Other activities occurring within the proposed license area, as well as within 80 km [50 mi] of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, also have the potential to impact surface water. In its 

license application, the applicant indicated that CBM production has occurred and continues to 

occur within the proposed project area from coal seams within the Fort Union Formation; these 

occur at a depth greater than 300 m [1,000 ft] bgs in the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units 

(Uranerz, 2007). Furthermore, the applicant also stated that all the CBM impoundments are total 

containment (meaning no discharge) except one permit that expired in March 2009 

(Uranerz, 2007). Those facilities with outfalls to surface water are located outside and 

hydrologically downgradient of the Nichols Ranch Unit and are therefore unlikely to impact 

surface water quality or wetlands at the site. For the Hank Unit, no discharges have been made 

to any of the permitted outfalls (Uranerz, 2007). 

The Smith Ranch/Highland (operated by Power Resources, Inc., south-southeast of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project), the Irigaray/Christensen Ranch (operated by Uranium 

One, Inc., northwest of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project), and the Moore Ranch Project 

are the only operating licensed ISR projects within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project site. The PRI North Butte site is a licensed but nonoperational satellite facility of the 

Smith Ranch/Highland project and is located approximately 3.2 km [2.0 mi] to the north of the 

Hank Unit and 8.1 km [5.0 mi] to the northeast of the Nichols Ranch Unit. No construction of 

wellfields or other infrastructure has occurred on the North Butte site since the license was 

issued in 1999; however, the licensee has stated that activities may be initiated in 2011. 

Licensees are required to obtain U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permits if surface 

waters and wetlands within their ISR permit boundaries are jurisdictional. Moreover, the 

licensees are required to obtain industrial and construction permits from WDEQ. These permits 

require best management practices (BMPs) for spill prevention and control. 

The DOE Spook facility is the only conventional mill within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The facility has been decommissioned, and therefore, no discharge 

to surface water would be occurring. 

Oil wells are scattered within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site 

(Figure 5-3). At present, six oil and gas wells exist on the lands within and adjacent to the Hank 

Unit, of which three are within the boundaries of the Hank Unit. No oil and gas wells are located 

within or adjacent to the Nichols Ranch Unit. According to the Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission, no further oil and gas development would take place in the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. Within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project site, oil wells are largely clustered around Johnson City, west of Gillette, between the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project and the Moore Ranch ISR Project site, and south of the 

Moore Ranch ISR Project site. Oil and gas operators would be required to obtain construction 

and industrial Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits from WDEQ, in addition 

to USACE permits jurisdictional waters could potentially be disturbed. 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-25 

No surface water would be discharged as part of the ISR facility operations, and the potential 

impact to onsite ephemeral channels would be from increased surface water runoff, primarily 

during the construction and decommissioning phases of the proposed project. The creeks 

within and surrounding the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site are ephemeral streams 

and remain dry the majority of the year. Stream flows in ephemeral channels result from heavy 

snowmelt and large rain storms. There are four potential jurisdictional emergent wetlands, 

which have resulted from human activities, in the southeastern portion of the Nichols Ranch Unit 

(Uranerz, 2007). No wetlands exist on the Hank Unit site (Uranerz, 2007). All the wetlands at 

the Nichols Ranch Unit are located outside of the proposed construction area and would be 

avoided during all phases of the proposed project. The wetlands survey completed for this 

proposed project is described in SEIS Section 3.5.1.5. Nationwide Permit 44 under Section 404 

of the Clean Water Act (CWA), issued by the USACE, is required for discharges of dredged or 

fill material into a wetland or waters of the United States (WUS) exceeding 0.2 ha [0.5 ac] in 

area. As discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.1, none of the wetlands delineated at the Nichols 

Ranch Unit exceed 0.2 ha [0.5 ac] in size; therefore, no Nationwide Permit 44 would be 

required. The potential impact would be mitigated through the industrial and construction 

WYPDES permits the applicant would be required to obtain from the WDEQ before operations 

commence. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed to avoid installing wells in the channels 

and washes of ephemeral drainages. If a well were to be installed in an ephemeral drainage, 

then appropriate erosion protection controls would be implemented to minimize damage. Such 

controls would include grading and contouring, culvert installation, low-water crossing 

constructed of stone, water contour bars, and designated traffic routes (Uranerz, 2007). 

The NRC staff has determined that the cumulative impact on surface water and wetlands within 

the surface water study area resulting from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions is MODERATE. Based on the information from BLM and other state agencies identified 

in this section; the primary types of actions leading to this MODERATE finding are energy 

development activities within the surface water study area, namely from CBM development, oil 

and gas production, and uranium ISR facilities. 

The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (the proposed 

action) would have a SMALL incremental effect on surface water and wetlands when added to 

the MODERATE cumulative impact from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions in the surface water study area. This conclusion is based on the fact that no surface 

water discharge would occur as part of ISR facility operations. Liquid byproduct material 

generated during ISR processes would be disposed of via deep well disposal, which is 

regulated by WDEQ. The applicant may be allowed to discharge non process liquids under a 

WYPDES permit. Any impacts would be mitigated through the industrial and construction 

WYPDES permits that the applicant would be required to obtain from the WDEQ before 

operations commence. 

For the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3), NRC staff concludes that the cumulative 

surface water and wetlands impacts would be similar to, but less than those described 

previously for the proposed action. Under this alternative, the Hank Unit would not be 

constructed and all proposed facilities would be confined to the Nichols Ranch Unit. Similar to 

the proposed action, the primary disturbances that could potentially impact surface water during 

construction would be well drilling, road and facility construction, and pipeline installation. Spills, 

leaks, and other inadvertent discharges into surface waters could occur during operations, but 

the potential would be reduced because only one unit would be operating. As described in 

SEIS Section 4.5.1, no potential jurisdictional wetlands are located on the Hank Unit. Best 

management practices and the required permits implemented for the proposed action would 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-26 

also be implemented for Alternative 3. The NRC staff determined that the SMALL impact from 

the proposed action would be further reduced for Alternative 3. Based on this analysis, NRC 

staff concluded that implementation of Alternative 3 would have a SMALL incremental effect on 

surface water when added to the MODERATE cumulative impact on surface water expected 

from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the surface water study 

area. 

5.5.2 Groundwater 

Potential environmental impacts on groundwater resources from the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project would occur primarily during the operation and aquifer restoration phases of the ISR 

facility lifecycle. The analysis of impacts to groundwater resources from operation of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project in Section 4.5.2 showed that the water yields in some 

private wells located outside of the proposed project area that are completed in the ore zone 

aquifer could potentially be affected by the facility’s operation at the Nichols Ranch Unit. 

Specifically, the NRC staff concluded the proposed operation would reduce groundwater levels 

in the production aquifer around the Nichols Ranch Unit; however, the predicted drawdown from 

the Nichols Ranch Unit represents a small fraction of the current groundwater levels in the 

affected production aquifer outside the license boundary. Therefore, impacts to well yield would 

be expected to be SMALL. Moreover, NRC concluded that because the applicant would be 

required to install monitoring wells around and within the proposed facility, as part of its license 

application, for early detection, control, and reversal of potential horizontal and vertical 

excursions, the potential groundwater quality impacts on nonexempted aquifers would be 

SMALL. Furthermore, after production and aquifer restoration were completed and groundwater 

withdrawals were terminated at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, the groundwater 

levels would recover with time. Therefore, as discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.2, the potential 

impact on groundwater resources from operating the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

would be SMALL. 

To assess the cumulative impacts of a proposed ISR operation to groundwater resources over 

the life of the project from 2007 to 2020 as discussed in Section 5.1.2, NRC typically evaluates 

ongoing or planned activities within a radius of approximately 80-km [50-mi]. Although the 

production aquifers at the Nichols Ranch Project are known to be present for several miles 

around the proposed project area, their true extent is unknown. The Wasatch Formation, in 

which the extraction zone is located, does not constitute a regional aquifer. Rather, it is a 

sedimentary formation that contains local water-saturated lenses that can be locally productive 

but not hydraulically interconnected with other sand lenses because of the considerable clay 

content of the Wasatch Formation (ENSR, 2006). Given the heterogeneity of the geology in the 

Powder River Basin, the target aquifers at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are unlikely 

to cover an 80-km [50-mi] radius. Therefore, the NRC staff considers an 80-km [50-mi] radius to 

be a conservative estimate of the possible areal extent of potential impacts. Other ISR facilities 

occur within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (although 

production may be from a different ore-producing zone) and oil and gas and CBM production 

also occur with an 80-km [50-mi] radius; however the production is from different geologic 

horizons than the proposed production at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

BLM estimated that CBM development in the Powder River Basin through the year 2018 would 

remove about [3 million acre-feet], less than 0.3 percent of the total recoverable groundwater 

[nearly 1.4 billion acre-feet] in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations within the Powder River 

Basin. An estimated 15 to 33 percent of the removed groundwater would infiltrate the surface 

and recharge the shallow aquifers above the coals (BLM, 2003). Table 3-1 of this SEIS 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-27 

summarizes the number of permitted or completed CBM wells and oil and gas wells within the 

Nichols Ranch and Hank Units and those within 4.8 km [3 mi] of the Nichols Ranch and Hank 

Units. SEIS Section 3.5.1.3 discusses CBM-produced water, which the applicant reported 

would be discharged at the surface into impoundments designed to infiltrate into the surficial 

aquifers. Therefore, CBM produced water is and will continue to be discharged to surface 

impoundments, which are designed to infiltrate into the surficial aquifer near the Nichols Ranch 

Unit and potentially the Hank Unit. 

BLM predicted that within the Powder River Basin, the redistribution of pressure within the coals 

after CBM water production ended would allow the hydraulic pressure head to recover to within 

approximately 15 m [50 ft] or less of preproject levels within 25 years after project completion 

(BLM, 2003). The complete recovery of water levels would take tens to hundreds of years, 

depending on the specific location. Groundwater wells completed in the Fort Union Formation 

within the areal extent of a 30-m [100-ft] CBM well-induced drawdown could experience drops in 

water level and possibly encounter methane (BLM, 2003). BLM (2003) noted that the areal 

extent and magnitude of drawdown effects on coal zone aquifers and overlying or underlying 

sand units in the Wasatch Formation would be limited by the discontinuous nature of different 

coal zones within the Fort Union Formation and sandstone layers within the Wasatch Formation. 

Cumulative impacts on groundwater resulting from the interaction between ISR activities and 

CBM activities may occur but are not likely because CBM production and ISR activities are 

conducted in stratigraphically separate aquifers. For the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, 

the ISR activities would take place in sandstone aquifers 230 m [765 ft] stratigraphically above 

the top of the coal seam at the Nichols Ranch Unit and 355 m [1,160 ft] above the coal seam at 

the Hank Unit. Because of the presence of multiple layers of sand/sandstone and lowpermeable silt/shale (confining layers) between the coal seams and uranium ore-bearing 

aquifers, hydraulic communication between them would be insignificant. As presented by the 

applicant (Uranerz, 2007), the drawdown induced by groundwater withdrawals from CBM coal 

seams would be progressively attenuated across impermeable silt/shale layers within 30 to 

60 m [100 to 200 ft] above the coal seams; therefore, the potential impacts of groundwater 

withdrawals from coal seams on groundwater levels in the uranium ore-bearing aquifers would 

be SMALL. However, the potential impacts could be larger if the coal seams and ore-bearing 

aquifers are artificially connected through improperly abandoned, deep exploratory oil and gas 

wells. In such cases, CBM drawdowns could propagate up into shallower ore-bearing aquifers. 

However, as part of site characterization for its license application, the applicant is required to 

identify all abandoned exploratory wells in compliance with 10 CFR 51.45, which requires a 

description of the affected environment containing sufficient data to support the Commission’s 

conduct of an independent analysis. Any improperly abandoned wells within the proposed 

project site would be sealed prior to ISR operations at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

site. In its application, the applicant stated that no improperly abandoned borings or oil and gas 

wells were identified in its evaluation of the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units (Uranerz, 2007). 

Therefore, the potential cumulative impact of CBM production in the Powder River Basin on the 

quality and quantity of groundwater at and near the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would 

be SMALL. 

The Smith Ranch/Highland (operated by Power Resources, Inc., south of the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project), the Reynolds Ranch, North Butte, and Ruth ISR satellite facilities (licensed 

to PRI), the Irigaray/Christensen Ranch (operated by Uranium One, north of the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project), and the Moore Ranch (recently licensed to Uranium One, 

southeast of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project) ISR projects are the only licensed ISR 

projects within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. Operations have 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-28 

not yet commenced at the licensed North Butte ISR project {operated by Power Resources, Inc., 

approximately 3.2 km [2 mi] north of the Hank Unit and 8 km [5 mi] northeast of the Nichols 

Ranch Unit} (Uranerz, 2007) or at the Moore Ranch ISR Project located 32 km [20 mi] southeast 

of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The Reynolds Ranch and Ruth satellite facilities 

are also currently non-operational properties located 70km [43.5 mi] southeast and 24 km 

[15 mi] southwest of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

The North Butte ISR is sufficiently close to the Hank Unit to be of concern with respect to 

cumulative groundwater impacts. Of special concern is the potential for an excursion in the 

Hank Unit to be drawn away from the wellfields by the drawdown created by the North Butte 

operations. The ore-bearing sands at North Butte ISR are located in the B, C, and A Sands of 

the Wasatch Formation (see Figure 3-3 of the SEIS). The B and C Sands extend to and act as 

the underlying aquifers to the ore bearing F Sand at the Hank Unit. These sands were treated 

as one unit, the BC Sand, by PRI. The F Sand at both North Butte and the Hank Unit is 

separated from the underlying BC Sand by a thick shale layer known as the FB Aquitard. No 

hydraulic connection was demonstrated between the F and BC Sands from pumping tests at 

either the Hank Unit or the North Butte ISR. As described earlier, operations in the F Sand at 

the Hank Unit are in an unconfined aquifer and the applicant has demonstrated that the 

drawdown from consumptive groundwater use in the Hank Unit will not extend to the North 

Butte lSR license boundary. However, the proposed operations in the North Butte BC Sand 

may create sufficient drawdown to impact the underlying BC Sand at the Hank Unit where these 

sands act as the underlying aquifer. 

To evaluate this impact, NRC staff estimated the amount of drawdown that would occur in the 

underlying BC Sand aquifer at the Hank Unit after 1 year of operation at North Butte, using 

reported values for aquifer hydraulic parameters and proposed consumptive groundwater rates 

from the North Butte mine unit application (PRI, 2006). Using a reported bleed rate of 114 Lpm 

[30 gpm] located at one well in the combined BC Sand in the center of T44N R76W Section 24 

(roughly the centroid of the proposed wellfields at North Butte), a reported transmissivity of 

630 gal/day/ft, and a storage coefficient of 2.4 E-4 (PRI, 2006), the project drawdown in the BC 

Sand at the Hank Unit was determined using the Cooper-Jacob unsteady drawdown equation 

for a single well in an homogeneous isotropic aquifer of infinite areal extent and constant 

thickness. The drawdown in the underlying BC Sand aquifer at the Hank Unit after 1 year of 

operation at North Butte was determined to be approximately 2.1 m [7 ft] under the 

northernmost edge of the ore body, located approximately 2.8 km [1.75 mi] from the North Butte 

pumping well. This drawdown decreased to about 0.5 m [1.8 ft] in the underlying BC Sand 

aquifer at the center of the ore body at the Hank Unit. The NRC staff finds these drawdowns at 

these distances are not sufficiently large to increase the chance of an excursion in the 

underlying BC Sand aquifer being drawn outside of the proposed Hank Unit license area. In 

addition, the applicant will be required to conduct sufficient monitoring of the underlying BC 

Sand aquifer to detect and correct potential excursions. The NRC staff therefore concludes that 

operations at the North Butte site would have a SMALL impact on the underlying BC Sand 

aquifer and the potential for excursions at the Hank Unit. 

The Smith Ranch Highlands ISR (including Ruth and Reynolds Ranch satellites), 

Irigary/Christensen Ranch, and Moore Ranch license areas are located at sufficient distances 

from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, such that their potential cumulative impact on 

groundwater levels at and near the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site would be SMALL. 

Moreover, because the licensees at the Smith Ranch/Highland, Irigaray/Christensen Ranch, 

and Moore Ranch ISR sites are required to implement excursion detection, control, mitigation, 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-29 

and remediation plans under NRC regulations, their contribution to the potential cumulative 

impact on groundwater quality and quantity would be SMALL. 

At present, six oil/gas wells occur on the lands within and adjacent to the Hank Unit. No oil/gas 

wells are located within or adjacent to the Nichols Ranch Unit. According to the Wyoming Oil 

and Gas Conservation Commission, no further oil and gas development would take place within 

80 km [50 mi] of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Oil wells are completed at greater 

depths {approximately 3,050 m [10,000 ft] with some wells less than 2,750 m [9,000 ft] near the 

Hank Unit} than the targeted aquifers for ISR uranium production in the Wasatch Formation, 

which typically occur at depths ranging from 90 to 210 m [300 to 700 ft] bgs. The ISR uranium 

production wells are completed at depths hundreds of meters [thousands of feet] above the 

oil-producing horizons. Therefore, the potential cumulative impact on oil production in the 

Powder River Basin from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be SMALL. 

The DOE Spook facility is the only decommissioned conventional mill within a 80-km [50-mi] 

radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Given that the facility has been 

decommissioned and therefore meets NRC regulatory standards which demonstrate it will not 

impact the public health, safety, or environment, the potential contribution to a cumulative 

impact on groundwater would be SMALL. 

Deep disposal of process wastewater is one of the disposal methods that CBM, ISR, and oil 

production facilities practice in the Powder River Basin. For deep well disposal, the applicant is 

required to obtain underground injection control (UIC) permits for the targeted deep aquifer from 

the WDEQ. The permit would be granted if the deep disposal practice is safe for public health 

and safety and would not impact potential underground sources of drinking water. 

The NRC staff has determined that the cumulative impact on groundwater resources within an 

80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project resulting from past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions is MODERATE. Based upon a BLM report for the 

Buffalo Planning Area, in which the Nichols Ranch Project is centrally located, the primary types 

of actions leading to this moderate finding are energy development activities including CBM 

development and oil and gas production. However, as described previously cumulative impacts 

on groundwater resulting from the interaction between ISR activities and CBM activities and oil 

and gas production could occur but are not likely because CBM and oil and gas production and 

ISR activities are conducted in stratigraphically separate aquifers separated by hundreds to 

thousands of feet from the ore production zone at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

Other ISR projects are located within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project that could also extract uranium from deposits within the Wasatch Formation; 

however, as noted previously the occurrence of these deposits is discontinuous and locally 

productive within the area evaluated. 

The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (the proposed 

action) would have a SMALL incremental effect on groundwater when added to the 

MODERATE cumulative impact from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in 

the groundwater study area based on the localized occurrence of the ore-bearing aquifer. 

For the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3), the cumulative impacts to groundwater 

would be the same as evaluated for the proposed action; however, the impacts would be limited 

to the Nichols Ranch Unit. The facility footprint where surface-disturbing activities are proposed 

would be approximately half that of the proposed action, and therefore the potential for impacts 

to groundwater would be reduced relative to the proposed action. As with the proposed action, 

the limited construction water use and the applicant’s commitments to use BMPs would protect 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-30 

shallow groundwater from potential impacts from spills. Consumptive use of groundwater 

during operations and aquifer restoration would remain small but would be significantly reduced 

as the process bleed projected for the Hank Unit (almost twice that of Nichols Ranch Unit) 

would not be consumed as wastewater under this alternative. The smaller wastewater volume 

could reduce the number of deep disposal wells required for the disposal of liquid byproduct 

material. During the decommissioning phase, substantially less land area would need to be 

decommissioned and reclaimed. As with the proposed action, prior NRC review and approval of 

the applicant’s decommissioning plan would evaluate the applicant’s measures to protect public 

health and safety and the environment including groundwater resources from the potential 

impacts of decommissioning activities. Earlier NRC approvals of the completion of wellfield 

restoration would have determined whether restoration standards that were protective of public 

health and safety had been met for the production zone aquifer. Before NRC terminates the 

ISR source material license, the licensee must demonstrate there would be no long-term 

impacts to underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). 

Based on this analysis, NRC staff concluded that implementation of Alternative 3 would have a 

SMALL incremental impact on groundwater resources when added to the MODERATE 

cumulative impact on groundwater resources anticipated from other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions within the groundwater study area. 

5.6 Ecological Resources 

The cumulative impact on ecological resources from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

was considered. The geographic boundary area considered for the analysis of cumulative 

impacts encompasses the Powder River Basin. The basin is dominated by sagebrush 

shrubland and mixed grasslands, which cover 88 percent of proposed project area. The basin 

is currently experiencing rapid growth due to various types of energy development activities, 

and this trend is projected to continue in the future. As such, ecosystems and species within the 

basin are subject to varying levels of incremental impacts associated with this expansion. The 

timeframe selected for the analysis begins in 2007, when the applicant submitted a license 

application to NRC for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, and ends in 2020, which 

represents the license termination at the end of the decommissioning period. No impacts to 

biota would be expected from the proposed action beyond license termination. Older data are 

considered where applicable to demonstrate historical trends. 

5.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology 

Activities occurring within the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project license area include grazing 

and herd management, hunting, and mineral exploration. Potential cumulative impacts to 

ecological resources, both flora and fauna, may occur and include reduction in wildlife habitat 

and forage productivity, modification of existing vegetative communities, and the potential 

spread of invasive species and noxious weed populations. Concerning wildlife, impacts may 

involve loss, alteration, or incremental fragmentation of habitat; displacement of and stresses on 

wildlife; and direct or indirect mortalities. In Section 4.6 these direct impacts are characterized 

as being SMALL at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR site. Land disturbance resulting from other 

development activities in the study area would have similar ecological impacts as those 

described in Section 4.6. Numerous development activities across the Powder River Basin 

could cumulatively reduce wildlife and plant populations and alter population structure. BLM 

(2003) concluded that continued natural resource development across the Powder River Basin 

has the potential to alter the distribution of various types of native vegetation, resulting in 

cumulative impacts to biodiversity. For some species that may require specific conditions for 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-31 

their habitats, future use would be strongly influenced by the quality and composition of the 

remaining habitats. 

Because sagebrush shrublands and mixed grasslands cover close to 90 percent of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, these vegetative plant communities would be most 

affected by the proposed action (Uranerz, 2007). Surface disturbance from the construction and 

operations activities of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project could result in the spread of 

invasive and noxious weeds. Because the area of disturbed land area of 121 ha [300 ac] would 

be noncontiguous and comprise less than 10 percent of the total proposed project site {1,364 ha 

[3,371 ac]}, some vegetation would be affected but would not affect a sizeable segment of any 

species’ population. Furthermore, disturbed areas would be revegetated according to a 

reclamation plan, and the applicant would implement mitigative measures to minimize the 

spread of noxious weeds (Uranerz, 2007). Therefore, the potential impact on vegetation would 

be SMALL. 

Impacts to wildlife species were described in Section 4.6.1.1.1.2. Big game species travel 

across huge expanses of land, and the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project will only occur on 

0.003 percent of the land covered by the Pumpkin Buttes Antelope Herd Unit and 0.002 percent 

of the range covered by the Pumpkin Buttes Mule Deer Herd Unit. As such, the impact of the 

proposed action is negligible. Waterfowl and shorebirds would experience SMALL impacts from 

the proposed project because there is limited seasonal favorable habitat for these species. The 

impact to nongame/migratory birds would be SMALL because at any given time only 1 percent 

of the project area would be disturbed. The proposed project is anticipated to have SMALL 

impacts on most mammal species as most species would be able to travel to nearby suitable 

habitat. Reptiles and amphibians would experience SMALL impacts as only a small area of the 

proposed project {24 to 32 ha [60 to 80 ac]} would be disturbed at any one time. 

Given the small footprint of the proposed project, the NRC staff has concluded that the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would have a SMALL incremental effect on wildlife. 

However, the numerous SMALL impacts occurring at other oil and gas, CBM, and coal 

development projects would result in cumulative impacts to wildlife that are MODERATE across 

the entire study area. BLM (2003) concluded, for example, that there could be cumulative 

impacts to certain species of raptors and migratory birds in the region resulting from shifts in the 

habitat composition or distribution. This determination reflects the many thousands of acres of 

habitat that will be disturbed by development actions. 

The NRC staff has determined that the cumulative impact on terrestrial ecology within the 

ecological resources study area resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions is MODERATE. BLM reports that close to ten percent of the study area would be 

disturbed by various reasonably foreseeable future activities. This amount of habitat 

disturbance would impact vegetation by promoting spread of noxious weeds and fragmenting 

vegetative communities. Impacts to wildlife could involve loss, alteration, or incremental 

fragmentation of habitat; displacement of and stresses on wildlife; and direct or indirect 

mortalities 

The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (the proposed 

action) would have a SMALL incremental effect on terrestrial ecology when considered with all 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the land use study area. This 

conclusion is based on the fact that the proposed action would only disturb approximately 

121 ha [300 ac] of habitat. 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-32 

The cumulative impacts to terrestrial ecology described previously for the proposed action 

would be similar to, but less than the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3). 

Section 4.6.3 describes impacts associated with Alternative 3. Only 60 ha [120 ac] would be 

affected under Alternative 3 compared to 121 ha [300 ac] for the proposed action. Impacts from 

decommissioning and land reclamation would also be less because the Hank Unit site would not 

be developed. The SMALL impact from the proposed action would be further reduced for 

Alternative 3. Based on this analysis, NRC staff concluded that implementation of Alternative 3 

would have a SMALL incremental effect on terrestrial ecology when added to the MODERATE 

cumulative impact on terrestrial ecology expected from other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions in the study area. 

5.6.2 Aquatic Ecology 

The NRC staff has determined that the cumulative impact on aquatic ecology resulting from all 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is SMALL. Cumulative impacts from 

other oil and gas, CBM, and coal development projects do not seem to be affecting aquatic 

ecosystems across the study area. This conclusion is based on water quality data from a study 

in the Powder River Basin conducted by the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). Water quality 

measurements can serve as indicators of impacts to freshwater communities and organisms. 

Despite the widespread development that has already occurred, the USGS concluded that, with 

few exceptions, water quality constituents generally did not exceed State or Federal acute and 

chronic criteria for the protection of aquatic life (Peterson, 2010). Assuming that development 

activities employ best management practices and adhere to water quality regulations, future 

development would have only a SMALL effect on aquatic ecology. 

The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (the proposed 

action) would have a SMALL incremental effect on aquatic ecology when considered with all 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the land use study area. This 

conclusion is based on the fact that the site of the proposed action does not contain any aquatic 

habitat; there would be no outlets into other study area aquatic habitats originating from the 

proposed project site; and a recent study concluded that there has not been any significant 

diminishment of water quality in the Powder River Basin. 

Any cumulative impacts to aquatic ecology described previously for the proposed action would 

be similar to, but less than the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3). The SMALL 

impact from the proposed action would be further reduced for Alternative 3. Based on this 

analysis, NRC staff concluded that implementation of Alternative 3 would have a SMALL 

incremental effect on aquatic ecology when added to the SMALL cumulative impact on aquatic 

ecology expected from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

5.6.3 Protected Species 

As discussed in Section 5.6.1, one federally listed candidate species, the Greater sage-grouse, 

is known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. There are eight 

known leks within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the Hank Unit and one lek within a 3.2-km [2-mi] 

radius of the Nichols Ranch Unit. 

No federal candidate or proposed species, such as the Greater sage-grouse and the mountain 

plover (Charadrius montanus), are known to occur on the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

site, although both have been observed in the vicinity of the project site. Of the state-listed 

species, the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) and swift fox (Vulpes velox) are 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-33 

known to occur on or in the vicinity of the site and were observed during the wildlife inventories 

the applicant conducted (Uranerz, 2007). 

Loss and degradation of native sagebrush shrubland habitats have imperiled much of this 

ecosystem type as well as sagebrush-obligate species, including the Greater sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus). Sage-grouse are found in sagebrush shrubland habitats, and 

sagebrush is essential during all seasons and for every phase of their lifecycle. Most of the 

sagebrush lands have been changed by land use, such as livestock grazing, agriculture, or 

resource extraction. These uses can influence habitats either directly or indirectly or can alter 

the disturbance regime by changing the frequency of fire (Naugle, et al., 2009). The long-term 

viability of the sage-grouse rangewide continues to be at risk because of population declines 

related to habitat loss and degradation. Sage-grouse populations have declined overall from 

1965 to 2007, with the greatest decline occurring before the mid-1980s. The total rangewide 

population decline is estimated at 45 to 80 percent from historic levels (Becker, et al., 2009). 

Populations have been declining at 2.0 percent per year from 1956 to 2003 (Connelly, et al., 

2009). As of this writing, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has designated the Greater 

sage-grouse as a "candidate species" under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). FWS 

would consider the bird on an annual basis for listing as a threatened or endangered species. 

The State of Wyoming is critical for sage-grouse as it currently contains 64 percent of all known 

sage-grouse habitat and more active leks than any other state (Doherty, et al., 2009). According 

to information gathered from the BLM Buffalo Field Office and WGFD, eight sage-grouse leks 

are located within a 3.2-km [2.0-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site 

(Uranerz, 2007). One additional active lek was identified during formal surveys conducted in 

April 2006, bringing the total number of active leks in the vicinity of the proposed site to nine in 

2006 (Figure 3-8) (Uranerz, 2007). None of these leks, however, occurs within the proposed 

license area.

Because of its spatial extent, oil and gas resource development is regarded as playing a 

major role in the decline of the species in the eastern portion of the species’ range, which 

includes the study area (Becker, et al., 2009). Future oil and gas development is projected to 

cause a 7 to 19 percent decline in sage-grouse lek population counts throughout much of the 

current and historic sage-grouse range (Connelly, et al., 2009). Forecasts of future population 

viability across 23 populations and 7 sage-grouse management zones (SMZs) suggest that 

75 percent of the populations and 29 percent of the SMZs are likely to decline below effective 

population sizes of 500 within 100 years, if current conditions and trends persist. Preventing 

high probabilities of extinction in many populations and in some SMZs in the long term would 

require concerted efforts to decrease continuing loss and degradation of habitat that may 

negatively affect sage-grouse at local scales (Garton, et al., 2009). 

The NRC staff concludes in Section 4.6.1.1.1.1 that the impact from the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project site upon vegetation would be SMALL. However, for species with 

specialized habitat requirements, such as sage-grouse, future population viability would be 

strongly influenced by the quality and composition of any remaining habitat. As such, it is 

possible that the addition of the proposed license area would contribute to a slight decrease in 

sagebrush shrubland, thereby reducing the amount of habitat for sage-grouse. 

Black-tailed prairie dog complexes are found at the project site, which provides potentially 

suitable habitat for the federally endangered black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes). However, no 

black-footed ferret population exists at the proposed site. The closest successfully reintroduced 

population of black-footed ferrets is in Shirley Basin, Wyoming, approximately 160 km [100 mi] 

south of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. No suitable habitat for the blowout 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-34 

penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) or Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) exists on 

the proposed site. As discussed in Section 4.6.1.1.3, NRC conducted informal consultation with 

FWS to ensure the provisions of the ESA were upheld regarding the black-footed ferret for the 

proposed project. FWS concluded no adverse impacts to the species would be likely as a result 

of the proposed action (NRC, 2009c). 

The NRC staff has determined that the cumulative impact on protected species within the study 

area resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is SMALL to 

MODERATE. Impacts to swift fox, prairie dog, and mountain plover were characterized as 

SMALL. For state-listed species such as the swift fox and prairie dog, individual members of 

these species have the ability to relocate or recolonize areas surrounding the development 

sites. WGFD gives priority management attention to black-tailed prairie dog complexes that 

cover an area of at least 2,000 ha [5,000 ac] because WGFD considers conserving these to be 

integral to the species ecology and important habitat for many associated or dependent species. 

The black-tailed prairie dog habitat on and in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project site is not large enough to be considered a management priority. The swift fox is 

nocturnal, the species would likely avoid habitat near construction areas, development activities 

across the study area would not noticeably alter these species’ patterns or behavior. The 

mountain plover is not common in the area and has never been observed on the proposed 

project site. Additionally, plovers could respond positively to proposed project activities by 

nesting in pipeline corridors, on roads, and in cleared areas. 

The negative impacts of energy development projects on sage-grouse have been well 

documented (Doherty, et al., 2008; Walker, et al., 2007; Holloran, 2005; Braun et al., 2002,) 

These investigations demonstrated that energy projects, especially CBM-related activities, can 

have direct impacts on the species. Examples include avoidance of human infrastructure or 

negative impacts on survival and reproduction. Indirect impacts include changes in habitat 

quality and predator communities (Naugle, et al., 2009). It has been demonstrated that sagegrouse respond negatively to CBM development in the Powder River Basin. Additionally, 

conventional densities of oil and gas wells far exceed the species’ threshold of tolerance and 

energy development threatens to extirpate birds from otherwise suitable habitats and further 

isolate remaining populations (Naugle, et al., 2006). With an additional 13,800 CBM wells 

projected to be drilled in the area by yearend 2028, cumulative impacts to sage-grouse across 

the study area would be MODERATE. 

The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (the proposed 

action) would have a SMALL incremental effect on protected species when considered with all 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the study area. This conclusion is 

based on the fact that the proposed action would only disturb only 121 ha [300 ac] of habitat 

and the proposed project license area does not contain critical habitat for any of the protected 

species. Furthermore, while the species has been observed in the area, the sage-grouse may 

be migratory and, therefore, only be present near the site during the spring and 

summer months. As such, mitigative measures agreed to by the applicant in its license 

application would minimize impacts. 

The cumulative impacts to protected species described previously for the proposed action would 

be similar to, but less than, the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3). Section 4.6.3 

describes impacts associated with Alternative 3. Only 60 ha [120 ac] of habitat would be 

affected under Alternative 3 compared to 121 ha [300 ac] for the proposed action. The SMALL 

impacts from the proposed action would be further reduced for Alternative 3. Based on this 

analysis, NRC staff concluded that implementation of Alternative 3 would have a SMALL 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-35 

incremental effect on protected species when added to the SMALL to MODERATE cumulative 

impact on protected species expected from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. 

5.7 Air Quality 

Potential cumulative impacts on air quality were assessed that could result from past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable development activities. The geographic area for the impact 

analysis was based on the NRC staff’s consideration of other regional air modeling studies 

addressing larger scale emission sources applicable to oil and gas activities, CBM production, 

and conventional coal mining suggesting the region of influence (ROI) for air emissions could 

range from about 60 km [37 mi] (Stoeckenius, et al., 2006) to beyond 241 km [150 mi] 

(BLM, 2009f). Based on the NRC staff’s general understanding of the effect of source emission 

strength on the magnitude and spatial extent of downwind air impacts (i.e., larger plumes 

transport longer distances downwind before diminishing to insignificant levels), the NRC staff 

expects the lower magnitude of proposed emissions, relative to the larger scale sources 

described previously, would have the potential to impact a smaller geographic area. Therefore, 

the staff selected the geographic area for source emissions as a 80km [50 mi] radius around the 

proposed facility. The geographic area for evaluating the impacts of the emissions was selected 

more conservatively as a 161 km [100 mi] radius around the proposed facility with particular 

emphasis on areas that are in the path of the predominant wind direction (Section 3.7.1.2). The 

timeframe for the air quality cumulative impacts analyses runs to 2020, which represents the 

license termination at the end of the decommissioning period as described in Section 5.1.2 of 

this SEIS. Beyond license termination, there would be no impact on air quality from the 

proposed action. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR project site that emit air pollutants include other uranium mining/milling activities, 

CBM, coal mining, and oil and gas operations (Section 5.1.1). As described in Section 3.7.2 of 

this SEIS, the area around the site is in attainment for all NAAQS. Emissions from projected 

development of future oil and gas exploration and production, including CBM and coal mining, 

have been evaluated for impacts to air in previous EISs and supporting documents for proposed 

developments in the Powder River Basin area (BLM, 2003, 2006, 2009f, 2010b) where the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR project is located. While the concurrent activities emit a variety of 

pollutants, the NRC staff concludes principal emissions from the oil and gas industry that would 

overlap significantly with emissions from the proposed action are nitrogen oxides, volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), and fugitive road dust. The principal emissions from coal mining 

include fugitive dust (particulates including coal dust) and exhausts from diesel-powered 

equipment (BLM, 2010b). Therefore, the NRC staff cumulative impact analysis focuses on the 

cumulative impact to air quality from nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust emissions from the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project facility, other proposed ISR facilities, and future oil and gas 

and coal operations in the Powder River Basin area of Wyoming. 

The potential air impacts from future CBM activities, coal mining, and oil and gas exploration in 

the Powder River Basin have been previously evaluated (BLM, 2003, 2006, 2009f, 2010b). 

A recent BLM cumulative air analysis of the Powder River Basin was conducted to support 

review of coal development in the Powder River Basin (BLM, 2009f). That analysis involved 

executing a state-of-the-art EPA guideline dispersion model, CALPUFF, Version 5.8 (Scire, et 

al., 1999) to calculate local-scale, short-range dispersion as well as region-scale, long-range 

dispersion of emissions assuming worst case meteorological conditions. Emissions in the BLM 

analysis were developed for base year 2004 (NO2, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10) and were projected 

for year 2020. Emission sources included coal-related (mines, power plants, railroads, 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-36 

conversion facilities); permitted sources in Wyoming and Montana; CBM production sources; 

and miscellaneous sources (roads, urban areas, conventional oil and gas, noncoal power 

plants). The estimated impacts from that study for the baseline year (2004) indicated calculated 

air concentrations were below NAAQS, except for short-term PM10 and PM2.5 in the near field 

(BLM, 2009f). The threshold for the distinction between near field and far field is 50 km [31 mi] 

(EPA, 2010). The BLM year 2020 projected impacts showed compliance with standards, except 

for short-term and annual PM2.5 and PM10 in localized areas. Far-field visibility impacts were 

identified by BLM for downwind Class I areas (Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, 

Badlands National Park, Wind Cave National Park) as a consequence of power plant and CBM 

emissions, and visibility impacts to several Class II areas were projected from power plant and 

coal mine emissions. These modeling results suggest local and regional air quality in the 

Powder River Basin and nearby areas is presently good but is degrading with time, primarily 

from particulate emissions, as various emissions sources are projected to increase until 2020. 

While NOx projections for near-field receptors in 2020 were below the ambient standard, the 

calculated concentrations were at 80 percent of the limit compared to the base-year calculation 

of 30 percent of the limit. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes from these results the potential air 

quality impacts from future CBM activities, coal mining, and oil and gas exploration in the 

Powder River Basin would be MODERATE because the margin for compliance is being reduced 

with the future projected development and the associated increase in emissions. 

In Section 4.7 of this SEIS, the NRC staff concluded the potential impacts to air quality from the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be SMALL. Nonradiological air emission impacts 

primarily involve fugitive road dust from vehicles used throughout the facility lifecycle and 

combustion engine emissions from diesel equipment used predominantly during the 

construction and decommissioning phases. The NRC staff concluded that the air quality for the 

region in the vicinity of the site is in compliance with the NAAQS, and based on emissions 

estimates described in Section 2.2.1.6.1.1 of the SEIS, the facility would not be classified as a 

major source under the New Source Review or operating (Title V of the Clean Air Act) permit 

programs. The NRC staff analysis noted the presence of Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) Class I and II areas within the region that emissions from the proposed action could 

potentially impact; however, based on the magnitude of emissions from the proposed action, the 

prevailing wind direction, and distance from the proposed facility, the NRC staff concluded 

impacts would be SMALL. 

Within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, there are at least six 

other operating or planned ISR facilities (Table 5-1) that would generate emissions comparable 

to emissions projected for the proposed project. Because ISR facilities commonly use a phased 

approach to well drilling and wellfield construction (NRC, 2009a) and all seven facilities would 

not undergo construction concurrently (each proposed ISR facility must go through the average 

2-year licensing process and obtain the necessary Federal, State, and local permits), the NRC 

staff assumes the degree of overlap in construction activities would be most likely to occur for 

wellfield drilling activities because each facility would construct more than one wellfield over a 

period of years. To estimate the potential annual contribution of the seven facilities to local air 

emissions, the NRC staff considered the emissions results in Appendix D of this SEIS. The 

contribution from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, as detailed in Table D3-4, was 

assumed to be the full development of the first proposed wellfield, partial construction of the 

second proposed wellfield, and the development of four deep wells. The contribution from each 

of the remaining six ISR facilities, as detailed in Table D3-1, was assumed to be the 

development of one wellfield and one deep well. For that scenario, the total annual contribution 

of ISR facility nitrogen oxide emissions in the region that would add to the emissions from other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be approximately 107 t/yr 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-37 

[118 T/yr]. Fugitive road dust emissions would be expected to scale directly with each new 

facility because emissions are expected to occur during all phases of the facility lifecycle. The 

NRC staff assumed an average value of 63.5 t/yr [70 T/yr] for each facility, resulting in a total of 

444 t/yr [490 T/yr] of fugitive road dust. These facilities, and therefore their emissions, would be 

spatially dispersed throughout the region and therefore do not represent a single point source. 

The construction and operation of proposed ISR facilities would contribute incremental 

increases to area emissions including, in particular, NOx and fugitive dust and therefore would 

incrementally impact air quality. A number of variables affect downwind concentrations of 

emitted air pollutants, including ambient meteorological conditions and the magnitude of the 

emission rate. Based on the low magnitude of estimated emissions from the proposed action 

(Section 2.2.1.6.1.1 of this SEIS), good air quality in the region (Section 3.7.2 of this SEIS), and 

meteorology often favorable for dispersion (Section 3.7.1 of this SEIS), the NRC staff concludes 

that detailed quantitative air analyses are not necessary to support the evaluation of potential air 

impacts. Because ISR nonradiological emissions are low compared to existing and future 

proposed developments in the region, NRC concludes the relative contribution to future air 

quality impacts from proposed ISR facilities would be SMALL. While detailed emissions data for 

individual projects, practices, or industries in the local area were not identified by the NRC staff 

to compare with the proposed action estimates, the NRC staff did identify general information to 

provide context and support for the NRC staff conclusion that proposed annual ISR 

nonradiological air emissions levels are relatively low. This information is detailed in the 

following paragraph. 

At the State level, emissions inventory estimates (Russell and Pollack, 2005) for 2002 suggest 

the total amount of NOx emitted from oil and gas drilling that year was approximately 4,500 t 

[4,964 T] from the construction of 2,948 wells. From these numbers, the NRC staff 

approximates an average of 1.54 t [1.7 T] of NOx per well. For comparison, the calculated 

drill-rig emissions for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project wellfield development activities 

are 8.0 × 10−3

 t [8.8 × 10−3 T] of NOx per well (derived from emission calculation results reported 

in Appendix D in this SEIS), orders of magnitude less than the aforementioned emissions from 

wells drilled to support oil and gas exploration and production. The state average value is more 

comparable to the emissions calculated for a single proposed deep disposal well {calculated to 

emit approximately 5.4 t [6.0 T] per well as shown in Appendix D}. The higher emissions from 

the deep well drilling are temporary, with two to eight deep disposal wells expected per proposal 

and approximately 528 hours per well (Appendix D) or 66 eight-hour drilling days each. Other 

regional sources of NOx include power plants and trains (e.g., shipping locally mined coal). 

Year 2004 NOx emissions from coal-fired power plants in southwest Wyoming are reported as 

31,116 and 12,004 t/yr [34,321 and 13,240 T/yr]. Maximum NOx emissions from a proposed rail 

line from Miles City to Decker, Wyoming, were reported as 10.1 t/km/yr [6.9 T/mil/yr] 

(BLM, 2006) and therefore 184 t/yr [203 T/yr] along the 47.3-km [29.4-mi] route. Oil and gas 

drilling varies considerably in well depth and associated emissions. Examples of NOx emissions 

from oil and gas drilling in the Jonah-Pinedale area of southwestern Wyoming 

(Stoeckenius, 2010) indicate large clusters of drilling rigs emit approximately between 0.91 and 

5.9 t [1 and 6.5 T] of NOx per day. While this area complies with the NOx ambient air quality 

standard (Section 3.7.2) (NOx is a precursor to ozone formation), it has experienced episodic 

exceedances of the ambient ozone standard based on a combination of specific factors 

(including strong temperature inversions, low winds, snow cover, bright sunlight, and 

emissions), which is resulting in more regulatory and research attention (Stoeckenius, 2010). 

The aforementioned NOx emitted from drilling and construction equipment for seven proposed 

ISR facilities that would be within an 80-km [50-mi] radius was calculated by the NRC staff as 

107 t/yr [118 T/yr] {approximately 0.3 and 0.9 percent of the aforementioned coal plant 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-38 

emissions, 58 percent of the 47.3-km [29.4-mi] rail spur estimate, and 5.0 to 32 percent of the 

Jonah-Pinedale oil and gas drilling cluster example}. The contribution to annual NOx emissions 

calculated for the proposed action of 31 t/yr [34 T/yr] is approximately 29 percent of the 

seven-facility estimate used in this analysis. Based on the preceding analysis, the NRC staff 

concludes the facility emissions from the proposed ISR projects are low relative to other 

regional emissions and therefore potential air quality impacts from these emissions would 

be SMALL. 

Fugitive dust emissions from the proposed action and other existing or proposed ISR facilities 

would contribute to the cumulative particulate matter emissions from power plant, CBM 

activities, and coal mining, in particular. As the projected emissions from these activities for 

2020 indicate near-field exceedances of PM2.5 and PM10 (BLM, 2009f) and potential far-field 

visibility impacts would be increasing (BLM, 2009f), the NRC staff expects particulate emissions 

would continue to be an air-quality concern in future years. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 

the cumulative impact could be MODERATE for these other sources. Because the principal 

particulate emissions are from fugitive dust, ISR facilities are not major sources of particulate 

emissions as discussed in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1. The NRC staff concludes that the proposed 

action impacts to air would be localized, intermittent, and temporarily MODERATE (e.g., visible 

plumes of dust are possible from intermittent traffic on unpaved roads), but the overall impacts 

would be predominantly SMALL. 

Overall, based on the preceding analysis, the NRC staff concludes the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project would have a SMALL incremental effect on the MODERATE cumulative impacts to 

air quality resulting from past, ongoing, and future ISR projects, CBM projects, oil and gas 

operations, surface coal mining activities, and other development identified in Section 5.1.1. 

While the proposed ISR emissions are relatively low, the actual cumulative effect of multiple, 

new ISR facilities that could be licensed in the future would depend on the ambient air quality at 

the time of licensing, the continued development of other emission-generating activities in the 

area and region, and the timing and magnitude of emission-generating activities at each 

proposed ISR facility. Because NRC would license these ISR facilities and permit them 

sequentially on a first-come, first-served basis, the addition of emissions from each new facility 

would be incremental. This incremental development of uranium milling facilities in the region 

allows NRC to evaluate each proposal and allows state air quality staff to evaluate potential 

impacts within the context of existing air quality. 

For the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3), the cumulative nonradiological impacts to 

air quality would be the same types of impacts as those evaluated for the proposed action; 

however, because the number of wellfields would be halved under this alternative, some annual 

air emissions would be reduced and the total lifecycle emissions for the facility would be less 

than the total lifecycle emissions for the proposed action. Because the Hank Unit would not be 

constructed, fugitive dust and diesel emissions from well drilling and construction equipment 

(Section 4.7.3.1) from the Hank Unit would not occur. The lack of active wellfields in the Hank 

Unit would also diminish the traffic volume with respect to incoming shipments of process 

chemicals, onsite shipments of ion exchange resins, and outgoing shipments of yellowcake and 

waste materials (Section 4.7.3.2), therefore reducing the generation of fugitive road dust. The 

types of nonradiological air impacts from decommissioning this alternative would be the same 

as those stated for the proposed action (Section 4.7.3.4); however, the magnitude of emissions 

would be lower because half the number of wellfields would need to be decommissioned and 

reclaimed, reducing the operating hours for construction equipment and proportionally 

decreasing emissions from that equipment. Though soil and road reclamation and infrastructure 

demolition would result in emissions greater than the operation and aquifer restoration phases 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-39 

for this alternative, the levels of pollutants generated would be similar to the construction phase 

and would be diminished relative to the proposed action because the Hank Unit would not be 

present. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have a SMALL incremental effect on air quality when 

added to the MODERATE cumulative impact on air quality from other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions within the air quality study area. 

5.7.1 Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

As discussed in the U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP) report (GCRP, 2009), it is 

the “... production and use of energy that is the primary cause of global warming, and in turn, 

climate change will eventually affect our production and use of energy.” This assessment is 

focused on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. GHG emissions associated with construction, 

operation, and decommissioning of an ISR facility are addressed in Chapters 3 and 4 of this 

SEIS (see Table 5-4). Evaluating the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions is challenging. 

Evaluation of cumulative impacts of GHG emissions requires the use of a global climate model. 

GCRP (2009) synthesized in a technical support document the results of numerous climate 

modeling studies as discussed in Section 3.7.1.5. Based on this study, EPA determined that 

potential changes in climate caused by GHG emissions endanger public health and welfare. 

NRC recognizes that the global cumulative impacts of GHG emissions as presented in the 

report are the appropriate basis to evaluate cumulative impacts. Based on the impacts 

identified in the GCRP report, NRC recognizes that the national and worldwide cumulative 

impacts of GHG emissions are noticeable but not destabilizing. The timeframe for the global 

climate change and greenhouse gas emissions cumulative impacts analyses runs to 2020, 

which represents the license termination at the end of the decommissioning period as described 

in Section 5.1.2 of this SEIS. Annual emissions comparisons are used in this analysis to 

describe the relative magnitude of proposed project emissions with other existing sources. 

5.7.1.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Region

The Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) prepared a report for WDEQ that provides an inventory 

and forecast of the Wyoming GHG emissions (CCS, 2007). These emissions data were based 

on projections from electricity generation, fuel use, and other GHG-emitting activities. 

Emissions are reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e), a conversion to put any of the various 

gases emitted (i.e., methane or nitrous oxides) into the equivalent greenhouse effect 

compared to CO2 (BLM, 2008b). Gross carbon-dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) emissions in 2005 

for Wyoming were 56 million Mt [61.7 million MT]. 

This volume accounted for less than 1 percent (0.8 percent) of the total U.S. gross GHG 

emissions. This total is reduced to 20 million Mt [22 million MT] CO2e as a result of annual 

sequestration (removal) due to forestry and other land uses (CCS, 2007). 

Wyoming has a higher per capita emission rate than the national average (greater than four 

times). This is due to the state fossil fuel production industry and industries that consume high 

amounts of fossil fuels, as well as a large agricultural industry, large distances between cities, 

and a small population (CCS, 2007). The CCS report expects that Wyoming GHG emissions 

 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-40 

Table 5-4. Comparison of Annual Mass of Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Source 

Source CO2 Emission 

Global Emissions 28,000,000,000 t [30,884,000,000 T]* 

United States 6,000,000,000 t [6,618,000,000 T]* 

Single ISR Facility (Nichols Ranch) 2,810 t [3,100 T] 

Current/Proposed ISR Facilities 6,237 t [6,880 T] 

Average U.S. Passenger Vehicle 4.5 t [5T]†

*EPA, 2009

†FHWA, 2006

would continue to grow as demand for electricity is projected to increase, followed by emissions 

associated with transportation. These GHG projections are reflected in Table 5-5. 

As of 2009, there are 13 active coal mines in the Wyoming portion of the Powder River Basin, 

and these mines produced approximately 450 million Mt [496 million MT] (BLM, 2010c). 

According to the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the State of Wyoming 

contains more than 33,000 active gas and oil wells, 45 operational gas processing plants, 5 oil 

refineries, and more than 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 Wyoming GHG emissions from this industry. However, the 

CCS (2007) estimated approximately 13.5 million Mt [14.9 million MT] of CO2e emissions were 

emitted by fossil fuel industries. Of this amount, 80 percent was due to the natural gas industry. 

This amount is expected to grow an additional 8 to 10 percent in the next decade (CCS, 2007). 

No data currently exist for the nonfossil fuel industries, including uranium. 

Table 5-5. Wyoming Historical and Reference Case GHG Emissions in Million Mt 

[Million MT] CO2e 

Year 1990 2000 2005 2010 2020 

Energy Sector 38.0 

[41.9] 

43.6 

[48.1] 

47.5 

[52.4] 

51.6 

[56.9] 

59.6 

[65.7] 

Electricity Production Based 39.8 

[43.9] 

43.3 

[47.8] 

44.2 

[48.7] 

47.8 

[52.7] 

54.2 

[59.8] 

Coal 39.8 

[43.9] 

43.2 

[47.8] 

44.1 

[48.7] 

47.7 

[52.6] 

53.9 

[59.4] 

Natural Gas 0.0 

[0.0] 

0.1 

[0.1] 

0.1 

[0.1] 

0.1 

[0.1] 

0.2 

[0.2] 

Petroleum 0.0 

[0.0] 

0.0 

[0.0] 

0.0 

[0.0] 

0.0 

[0.0] 

0.0 

[0.0] 

Geothermal, Biomass, and Waste 

(CO2, CH4, and N2O) 

0.0 

[0.0] 

0.0 

[0.0] 

0.0 

[0.0] 

0.0 

[0.0] 

0.0 

[0.0] 

Source: CCS, 2007 

5.7.1.2 GHG Emissions from the Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project

In response to current concerns related to GHG emissions, NRC has focused on evaluating CO2

emissions for the life of the proposed facility and compared this with other forms of extraction. 

The primary source of CO2 emissions from ISR facilities is combustion engine emissions from 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-41 

construction equipment (including drill rigs). Construction equipment is used most during initial 

wellfield and facility construction and later during the decommissioning phase to remove 

buildings and equipment and reclaim land surfaces. 

NRC staff estimated annual and cumulative CO2 emissions over the life of the facility from the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project for construction and decommissioning activities, as 

documented in Appendix D of this SEIS. Combustion engine exhaust calculations performed for 

the Nichols Ranch ISR Project were based on a combination of proposal-specific and 

representative information appropriate to support a conservative emissions screening analysis 

(Appendix D). Only nonroad combustion emissions were considered. Diesel emissions, 

including drilling rigs, were estimated using emission factors EPA provided using different 

engine classes, based on power output and operating time (Appendix D). The applicant 

proposes to initially drill two wellfields of approximately 490 and 400 wells. This includes 

injection and production wells (for the ISR process) as well as monitoring wells. In addition, the 

applicant proposes to have up to eight UIC Class I wells [for deep well injection of byproduct 

material (wastewater)]. Analyses from Appendix D show that well-drilling rigs and other 

construction equipment used during the construction phase have the highest annual emissions 

of CO2 for the proposed action. This amounts to 2,810 t [3,100 T] of CO2 per year. The 

cumulative calculated CO2 emissions from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project including 

drilling and construction of all wellfields and then decommissioning all wellfields and associated 

facilities is 5,712 t [6,300 T]. 

The majority of estimated annual CO2 emissions are from drilling, and nearly 67 percent of 

the calculated drilling CO2 emissions are from deep disposal well-drilling activities. As 

described in Figure 2-1, well-drilling activities would occur over a period of several years. 

The estimate did not include sequestration (removal) due to forestry or other agricultural 

activities (EPA, 1996). 

If the applicant implemented the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3), the 

aforementioned annual emissions estimate would be approximately 95 percent of the value 

reported for the proposed action and the cumulative facility lifecyle emission estimate would be 

approximately 50 to 75 percent of the estimate for the proposed action (with the greater 

reduction occurring based on an assumption that the applicant would reduce the number of 

deep disposal wells from eight to four). For the modified alternative, the duration of construction 

and decommissioning activities would be reduced with the reduction in well fields, and therefore 

the annual emissions reported here and in Appendix D, while similar alternatives would occur 

over a shorter duration of years for the modified alternative. 

5.7.1.3 Nichols Ranch ISR Project GHG Emissions Impact

As described in Section 5.7.1.1, the total amount of GHGs produced in Wyoming in 2005 

was 56 gross million Mt [61.7 million MT], not taking into account sequestration (CCS, 2007). 

By taking into account 36 gross million Mt [39.7 million MT] for sequestration of GHGs, 

as estimated in the Wyoming Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections 

1990–2020 (CCS, 2007), the net total of GHGs produced annually in Wyoming is 20 Mt [22 MT]. 

The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project conservatively would produce a maximum annual total 

of 2,810 t [3,100 T] of GHGs (as carbon dioxide). This equates to approximately 0.014 percent 

of the net total GHGs produced in Wyoming in 2005. This compares to approximately 

2.2 percent from conventional mining operations as discussed in Section 5.7.1.6. If GHG 

emissions increased or sequestration decreased from 2005 levels, the effect of the Nichols 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-42 

Ranch ISR Project would be even less. Therefore, the potential impact of GHGs from the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project and the modified alternative project would be SMALL. 

5.7.1.4 Effect of Climate Change on the Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

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 the 

changes, especially in predicting trends in a specific geographic location. To predict the effect 

of climate change on the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, temperature and precipitation 

data from two National Weather Service (NWS) stations located in Kaycee {56 km [35 mi] from 

the proposed site} and Midwest {40 km [25 mi] from the proposed site} were reviewed 

(NCDC, 2010a). The most comprehensive historical temperature and precipitation records for 

NWS in the Powder River Basin covered a period from November 1900 to May 2010 for Kaycee 

and from January 1939 to May 2010 for Midwest. Aside from the year-to-year fluctuations, 

there was no observable increase or decrease in either temperature or precipitation during the 

periods of record for the two NWS stations (NCDC, 2010a). In looking at annual temperature 

data from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) for the State of Wyoming from 1895 to 

2009, there was a slight upward trend in temperature {0.09 °C [0.16 °F] per decade} 

(NCDC, 2010b). In the report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (GCRP, 

2009), the U.S. Global Change Research Team indicated that the temperatures in the past 

15 years had risen even faster {0.56 to 1.1 °C [1 to 2 °F] for the Powder River Basin}, most of 

which is attributed to warmer winters. This trend is expected to continue into the next decade, 

and by the end of this century, average annual temperatures in the Powder River Basin could 

rise as much as 2.2 to 4.4 °C [4 to 8 °F] (GCRP, 2009). 

While the aforementioned study of individual weather station data from NCDC (2010a) showed 

no change in annual precipitation from 1900 to 2010, a similar evaluation of 105 years of 

climatological data for the entire State of Wyoming, revealed a slight downward trend in 

precipitation {0.33 cm [0.13 in] per decade} (NCDC, 2010b). Nevertheless, the U.S. Global 

Change Research Team is predicting that the Northern Great Plains Region (which includes the 

Powder River Basin) would receive increased precipitation in future decades. Most of the 

precipitation is expected to fall in the colder months (winter and spring), and the summer and fall 

are 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). 

Based on the previous discussion, the overall effect of projected climate change on the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project facility is SMALL. The small predicted increases in 

temperatures and precipitation over the next decade would have no effect on any of the 

phases of the proposed project. Because the major functioning of the facility is below ground, 

the effects of the surficial and atmospheric environments are not expected to impact the target 

(ore body) aquifer. Aquifer recharge could increase in future years, resulting from expected 

increased precipitation (and consequent infiltration into the groundwater), which could affect the 

proposed project by increasing the volume of groundwater in the ore body and improving the 

effectiveness of the aquifer restoration process. Similarly, while potential changes to the 

proposed site environment and resources such as ecology are plausible, the NRC staff 

considers the small magnitude of the predicted climate changes during the period when the 

proposed activities would be conducted not to be sufficient to alter the proposed site 

environmental conditions in a manner that would significantly change the environmental impacts 

from what has already been evaluated in this SEIS. 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-43 

5.7.1.5 GHG Mitigation Measures

BMPs and mitigation measures could be used to minimize the emission of GHGs at the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project facility. These include, but are not limited to 

 Using fossil-fuel vehicles that meet latest emission standards 

 Ensuring diesel-powered construction equipment and drill rigs are properly tuned 

and maintained 

 Using low-sulfur diesel fuel 

 Using newer, cleaner-running equipment 

 Avoiding leaving equipment idling or running unnecessarily 

 Minimizing trips to well pads. 

5.7.1.6 Other Mining Activities in the Powder River Basin

Extensive research into the relative volumes of GHGs that ISR facilities and other natural 

resource extraction methods emit has been performed. In support of the analysis for this final 

SEIS, the NRC staff surveyed the recent EISs issued for projects located in the Powder River 

Basin. Based on this survey, the NRC staff found that estimates and projections of the carbon 

footprint of the natural resource extraction activities vary widely. 

West Antelope II Coal Lease Application FEIS 

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the West Antelope II Coal Lease 

Application also addressed GHG emissions as specifically related to the proposed action 

(Antelope Mine), the mine adjacent to the West Antelope II lease by application (LBA) tract. An 

inventory of expected GHG emissions in 2007 was conducted at Antelope Mine. Additionally, 

West Antelope projected emissions for a typical year of operations at Antelope Mine if the West 

Antelope II lands are leased and mined. Emissions are measured as CO2 equivalents (CO2e), a 

conversion to put any of the various gases emitted (i.e., methane or nitrous oxides) into the 

equivalent greenhouse effect as compared to CO2 (BLM, 2008b).

Emissions would be generated from the following: carbon fuels used in mining operations, 

electricity used onsite, blasting, methane released from mined coal, spontaneous combustion, 

onsite rail transport, and coal transported to purchasers (see Table 5-6).

Projected emission rates increase if the West Antelope II tract is added to mining operations. 

The increase in CO2 emissions would result from the additional diesel fuel that would be used in 

consideration of the added haul distances and overburden hauling, as well as increased 

electricity and explosives related to increasing strip ratios (BLM, 2008a). 

 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-44 

Table 5-6. Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions at the West Antelope II Mine 

Source 2007* Average Year with West Antelope II LBA* 

Fuel 110,877 195,173

Electricity 77,574 111,854

Mining Process 36,772 40,884

Onsite Rail 1,959 2,251

Total at Mine 227,182 347,911

Other Rail† 656,444 754,338

*CO2e in metric tons

†Assumes 10 percent increase, based on demand in eastern United States

Source: BLM, 2008b 

The CCS estimated that activities in Wyoming accounted for 55.6 million metric tons of gross 

CO2e emissions in 2005 (CCS, 2007). Using that estimate, the 2007 Antelope Mine emissions 

total represents 0.41 percent of statewide emissions. With the addition of the West Antelope II 

LBA tract, the projected total Antelope Mine emissions would represent 0.63 percent of 

statewide emissions (BLM, 2008b). 

Wright Area Coal Lease Application Final Environmental Impact Statement 

The Wright Area Coal Lease Applications (BLM, 2010b) FEIS analyzes the environmental 

impacts of leasing six tracts of Federal coal reserves adjacent to the Black Thunder, Jacobs 

Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines. All are operating surface coal mines in the 

southern Powder River Basin, near the town of Wright, Wyoming. While BLM does not 

authorize mining through the issuance of a Federal coal lease, WDEQ, with oversight from the 

Office of Surface Mining (OSM), has regulatory authority in issuing permits to mine coal in 

Wyoming. However, BLM considered the impacts of mining coal because it is a logical 

consequence of issuing a maintenance lease to an existing coal mine. BLM analyzed GHG 

emissions specifically related to mining activities for the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and 

North Antelope Rochelle mines; adjacent to the North, South, and West Highlight Fields, West 

Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine; and South Porcupine LBA tracts. The use of the coal after it is 

mined is not determined at the time of leasing. However, almost all coal that is currently being 

mined in the Wyoming Powder River Basin is being used to generate electricity by coal-fired 

power plants (BLM, 2010b).

CO2e emissions are projected to increase at the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North 

Antelope Rochelle mines if these additional LBA tracts are added to the mining operations 

(see Table 5-7). The increase in CO2e emissions is expected to result from the additional fuels 

(especially diesel) that would be used in consideration of the increased coal and overburden 

haul distances, as well as increased use of electricity and explosives related to increasing 

overburden thicknesses. Estimates assume that the combined annual production rate from 

these three mines is 270 million tons (BLM, 2010b). 

CCS estimated that activities in Wyoming will account for approximately 60.3 million metric tons 

of gross CO2e emissions in 2010 and 69.4 million metric tons in 2020 (CCS, 2007). Using the 

CCS projects, the 2007 emissions from the three conventional mines identified in Table 5-7 

would contribute 2.22 percent of the 2010 Wyoming statewide emissions. The addition of six 

LBA tracts (the North Highlight Field, South Highlight Field, West Highlight Field, West Jacobs 

 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-45 

Table 5-7. Estimated Annual Equivalent CO2 Emissions at the Black Thunder, Jacobs 

Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle Mines

Source 2007* With LBA Tracts 

Fuel 577,463 1,429,582

Electricity 465,908 777,141

Mining Process 201,871 296,166

Total of Three 

Sources

1,245,241 2,502,889

*CO2e in metric tons

Source: BLM, 2010b 

Ranch, North Porcupine, and South Porcupine) together with the conventional mines identified 

in Table 5-7 would increase the projected 2020 statewide emissions to 3.61 percent 

(BLM, 2010b). 

5.8 Noise 

Cumulative impacts from noise were assessed within an 8-km [5-mi] radius of the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. This area served as the cumulative assessment geographic 

boundary and was chosen because noise dissipates quickly from the source. GEIS Section 

4.3.7 stated that sound levels as high as 132 dBA will taper off to the lower limit of human 

hearing (20 dBA) at a distance of 6 km [3.7 mi] in this region. The cumulative effects timeframe 

runs from 2007 to 2020. The year 2007 is when the applicant submitted a license application to 

NRC for a new source material license for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The 

cumulative impact analysis timeframe would terminate in 2020, which represents the license 

termination at the end of the decommissioning period. Noise impacts may occur during all 

phases of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project and are projected to be SMALL. Impacts 

are detailed in Section 4.8.1 of this SEIS. The GEIS noted that noise would not be discernible 

to an offsite person at distances of greater than 300 m [1,000 ft] (NRC, 2009a). Section 4.8 of 

the SEIS evaluated potential noise impacts to the nearest resident (Pfister Ranch) who lives 

approximately 970 m [3,170 ft] north of the Hank Unit. Because this person lives beyond 300 m 

[1,000 ft] of the proposed project area, there would be no noise impact above background 

levels. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future noise-generating activities in the vicinity of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would primarily be from traffic noise, uranium 

mining/milling operations, oil and gas operations, and CBM operations. The FEIS for the 

Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project noted that sound levels from CBM operations would be 

expected to be unnoticeable at distances of 490 m [1,600 ft] and beyond, and the FEIS 

concluded there would be no cumulative impact on the surrounding area (BLM, 2003). CBM 

operations also are active near the proposed license area. Table 3.1 shows that 200 CBM wells 

are within 4.8 km [3 mi] of the Nichols Ranch Unit, while 180 CBM wells are within the same 

distance of the Hank Unit. There is one oil and gas well within 4.8 km [3 mi] of the Nichols 

Ranch Unit and 27 wells within the same distance as the Hank Unit. The FEIS noted that oil 

and gas operations would generate noise during well drilling, which decreases to 54 decibels 

(dBA) at 610 m [2,000 ft] from the drill rig. Oil and gas operations generate noise during the 

ongoing operations of compressor stations, although noise levels were anticipated to be below 

55 dBA at distances of 490 m [1,600 ft] and beyond (BLM, 2003). According to EPA, 55 dBA is 

the level that protects against interference and annoyance with a margin of safety (EPA, 1978). 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-46 

Wildlife within the study area could be impacted by noise as nine Greater sage-grouse leks 

have been identified within 3.2 km [2.0 mi] of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site 

(Figure 3-8). However, the applicant has committed to implement mitigation measures that 

include delaying or minimizing project activities and vehicle traffic avoidance near active leks 

during key mating periods as well as following seasonal WGFD guidelines (WGFD, 2010). 

These actions should reduce potential noise impacts on the Greater sage-grouse. 

The NRC staff has determined that the cumulative impact on noise within the noise study area 

resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is SMALL. There are 

few sensitive noise receptors (e.g., residences, churches, community centers) in the study area, 

and noise levels will dissipate before reaching those that exist do exist. 

The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (the proposed 

action) would have a SMALL incremental effect on noise when considered with all other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the noise study area. The noise generated from 

either the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project or from CBM or oil and gas operations would be 

at background levels at distances ranging from 300 to 610 m [1,000 to 2,000 ft]. The nearest 

residence is found at a distance of 970 m [3,170 ft], and there are few sensitive noise receptors 

within the study area. The applicant has also committed to employing mitigative measures to 

reduce any potential impacts to Greater sage-grouse. 

The cumulative noise impacts described previously for the proposed action would be similar to, 

but less than, the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3). Section 4.8.3 describes 

impacts associated with Alternative 3. Noise associated with construction activity and 

construction-related traffic would decrease under Alternative 3, and the SMALL impact from the 

proposed action would be further reduced for Alternative 3. Based on this analysis, NRC staff 

concluded that implementation of Alternative 3 would have a SMALL incremental effect on noise 

when added to the SMALL cumulative noise impact expected from other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions in the noise study area. 

5.9 Historical and Cultural Resources 

Cumulative impacts to historic and cultural resources were assessed within the planning area 

administered by the BLM Buffalo Field Office (hereinafter referred to as the “Buffalo Planning 

Area”). The Buffalo Planning Area encompasses 315,772 ha [780,291 ac] of public lands and 

1,914,624 ha [4,731,140 ac] of mineral estate within Campbell, Johnson and Sheridan counties 

in north-central Wyoming. This area delineates the geographic boundary utilized for the 

cumulative analysis of historic and cultural resources and will be collectively referred to as the 

“historic and cultural resources study area.” This area was selected as the cumulative analysis 

geographic boundary because the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is centrally located 

within the boundary area and the BLM charter includes land management. 

Potential impacts to historic and cultural resources could result from energy development, 

erosion, and grazing activities. Recent BLM reports (regional management plans; coal, gas, oil, 

lease applications) provide valuable information on past, present, and future development 

activities that could result in cumulative effects on historic and cultural resources when added to 

impacts associated with the proposed Nichols ISR project. The cumulative effects analysis 

timeframe begins in 2007 and terminates in 2020. The year 2007 is when the applicant 

submitted a license application to NRC for a new source material license for the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The cumulative impact analysis timeframe would terminate in 2020, 

which represents the license termination at the end of the decommissioning period. 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-47 

According to the Buffalo Resource Management Plan Revision, bentonite, uranium and gypsum 

are the only locatable (metallic and nonmetallic) minerals that the Buffalo Field Office has 

received Notices of Intent or Mine Plans of Operations since the Buffalo RMP Record of 

Decision was signed in 1985. Consequently, as the price of uranium began to increase, there 

has been an increase in interest in development within southeastern Johnson and Campbell 

Counties. There are also significant coal, federal oil and gas reserves within the Powder River 

Basin (PRB). PRB coal production is expected to increase at an annual rate of 2 to 3 percent 

per year. (BLM, 2009-RMP) 

Since the emergence of CBM activities in the late 1990s, over one thousand archaeological 

sites are evaluated each year (BLM, 2009h – RMP Revision dated March 27, 2009). Hundreds 

of archaeological sites are discovered and recorded each year as the result of cultural resource 

investigations associated with energy development projects (BLM, 2009 –RMP). The revised 

RMP states as the demand for federally-owned minerals increases, there will be a demand to 

identify cultural resources. Within the study area, activities on both public and private lands 

include oil, gas, CBM and coal development. These activities are ongoing and are projected to 

expand in the future. However, any potential impacts to historic and cultural resources would 

likely be minimized for projects occurring on federal or state lands, licensed or permitted by 

Federal agencies, or which are licensed or funded in part by the government because these 

projects would be subject to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Section 106 

consultation process, and applicable statues. 

Along with the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, there are other ISR and conventional 

uranium (underground and pit) operations in various stages of the licensing process within the 

Powder River Basin. Uranium-related exploration within the study area includes the Smith 

Ranch-Highland Uranium Project, an ISR project operated by Power Resources, Inc. (PRI), and 

the Irigaray/Christensen Ranch Project, operated by Cogema Mining, Inc., which are located 

approximately 78 km [48.5 mi] south-southeast and 12 km [7.5 mi] northwest of the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project, respectively (Table 5-1). 

A records search conducted by the applicant revealed that 18 cultural resource inventories have 

been conducted within or near the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR permit area. These cultural 

resource inventories were completed between 1976 and 2008 for various energy development 

projects; including uranium mines, coal bed methane wellfields, and oil and gas wells. A total of 

54 sites have been recorded within the 11 surveyed sections which include and surround the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR project area. These sites are mainly associated with prehistoric 

occupation of the area. (Uranerz, 2010) 

The entire area within the proposed Nichols Ranch unit permit boundary was previously 

surveyed as part of the Tex Draw Federal Plan of Development (POD). A Class III 

archaeological survey identified 13 archaeological sites. These included six prehistoric, two 

historic, and five prehistoric/historic sites. Based on the available data, the sites are mostly 

artifact scatters, though historic building remains are present at Site 48JO2953, which is not 

eligible for listing on the NRHP. Only 1 of the 13 sites is eligible for listing on the NRHP and is 

identified in Table 3-11 (see SEIS Section 3.9.2.1). 

The proposed Hank unit project area has been completely surveyed in association with five 

projects. These projects include the Nichols Ranch ISR project, 2007 Hank In-situ Uranium 

Project, 2006 Dry Willow Phase 4 POD, and the 2006 Dry Willow CBM POD. A total of 25 sites 

were recorded. Of the 25 sites, 7 are eligible for listing on the NRHP, 16 are not eligible for 

listing, and 2 remain unevaluated for NRHP eligibility (see Table 3-11 in Section 3.9). Except 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-48 

for Sites 48CA268 and 48CA6147, all of the cultural resources identified in the Hank Unit are 

prehistoric or protohistoric (Uranerz, 2010). 

The Hank Unit falls within the 3.2 km [2 mi] radius of the Pumpkin Buttes, the applicant must 

follow the stipulations listed in BLM’s Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the WY SHPO for 

mitigation of adverse effects for the Pumpkin Buttes TCP (BLM, 2009g). The PA outlines 

various measures that a project proponent (federal oil, gas, and uranium leaseholders) within a 

3.2 km [2 mi] radius of the Pumpkin Buttes must take to mitigate the adverse effect of its 

proposed actions on the TCP. In addition to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP, consultation with Native 

American tribes also identified four additional TCPs within the proposed Hank Unit permit area. 

As stated in SEIS Section 4.9.1.1, no sites will be directly affected by construction activities; 

because sites located near proposed construction areas will be marked, fenced, and avoided. 

However, there will be an adverse effect to the visual setting of five TCPs. NRC, the WY 

SHPO, BLM, Uranerz, and interested Native American tribes are consulting to develop an MOA 

to address the mitigation of adverse effects to the five TCPs. The applicant has committed to 

following cultural resource mitigation measures identified in its in the Mine Plan for the NRC and 

WDEQ/LQD permit applications for the entire Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. Direct impacts to 

historic and cultural resources from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR project would range from 

SMALL to MODERATE, depending upon the activities occurring throughout the lifecycle of this 

proposed facility. 

The NRC staff has determined that the cumulative impact on historic and cultural resources 

resulting from all past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions is MODERATE. This 

is based upon previous cultural resource inventories, applicant-committed mitigation measures, 

the adverse effect to the visual setting of five TCPs from activities at the proposed Hank Unit, 

and future energy development activities in the area. Regarding paleontological resources, 

should project activities involve ground disturbance depths exceeding a few feet, the applicant 

would have a monitor in place and its procedures would cover inadvertent discoveries. Based 

on this analysis, the proposed project would have a SMALL incremental impact on 

paleontological resources when added to the SMALL cumulative impact to these resources 

expected from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

For the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3), the cumulative impact on historic and 

cultural resources would be the same as evaluated for the proposed action, however, the 

magnitude of impact would be less compared to the proposed action because Alternative 3 

would have a smaller footprint. Ground-disturbing activities during construction and 

decommissioning such as trenching and digging and associated impacts, would affect an area 

of approximately 60 ha [150 ac] for the Nichols Ranch Unit compared to twice the land area if 

the Hank Unit were involved. Under this alternative, no proposed activities would occur at the 

Hank Unit that could adversely impact the nine known archeological sites that include seven 

NRHP-eligible and two unevaluated sites. There would be no adverse impacts to the Pumpkin 

Buttes TCP nor the four additional TCPs identified during NRC’s review. 

Because the Nichols Ranch Unit is located 9.6 km [6 mi] west of Pumpkin Buttes, there would 

be negligible effects to the five TCPs from activities associated with the Nichols Ranch Unit. 

There is one NRHP-eligible site (48CA5391) located near a projected wellfield at the Nichols 

Ranch Unit. This site would mark it with protective fencing and avoided. Additionally, the 

applicant committed to a number of mitigation measures (Uranerz, 2007, 2010), which are listed 

in Section 4.9.1.1 of the SEIS and are specific to reducing impacts. NRC staff concludes that 

Alternative 3 would have a SMALL incremental effect on historic and cultural resources when 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-49 

added to the MODERATE cumulative impact on land use from other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions within the land use study area. 

Regarding paleontological resources, should activities involve ground disturbance depths 

exceeding a few feet, the applicant would have a monitor in place and its procedures would 

cover inadvertent discoveries. Based on this analysis, impacts associated with implementing 

Alternative 3 would have a SMALL incremental impact on paleontological resources when 

added to the SMALL cumulative impact to these resources expected from other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

5.10 Visual and Scenic Resources 

Visual and scenic impacts from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are anticipated to 

be MODERATE and are detailed in Section 4.10 of this SEIS. The timeframe for the analysis of 

this resource is 2007 to 2020. The year 2007 is when the applicant submitted a license 

application to NRC for a new source material license for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project. The cumulative impact analysis timeframe terminates in 2020, which represents the 

license termination at the end of the decommissioning period. No structures associated with the 

proposed action would exist after license termination. The geographic boundary for the 

cumulative effects analysis of this resource is the land within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site, which is the area stipulated in the BLM’s PA. Beyond 

this distance, any changes to the landscape would be in the background distance zone and 

would be either unobtrusive or imperceptible to viewers. As described in Section 2.2.1.1 of this 

SEIS, the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project comprises about 1,365 ha [3,370 ac] of mostly 

private land, located west and southwest of the Pumpkin Buttes area. With respect to potential 

cumulative effects, resource development in the vicinity of the proposed ISR facility may affect 

the visual and scenic resources associated with the Pumpkin Buttes Traditional Cultural 

Property (TCP) and four associated TCPs. The viewshed for the general area is classified by 

BLM as a Class III and IV Visual Resource Management resource, with no Class I Visual 

Resource Management areas nearby. The Hank Unit 910 ha [2,250 ac] would be located on 

the western flank of North Middle Butte, about 2.4 km [1.5 mi] from the Pumpkin Buttes area. 

The Nichols Ranch Unit {455 ha [1,120 ac]} is further west, about 10 km [6 mi] away from 

Pumpkin Buttes. The taller proposed central processing plant {10 m [20 ft]} and related office 

and maintenance buildings for the ISR facility would be located on the Nichols Ranch Unit 

(farther from the TCPs). As discussed in Section 4.10, the plant and buildings would be the 

prominent features of the mostly flat landscape. The Hank Unit, closer to the TCP, would be the 

location of a smaller satellite plant along with one maintenance building. Although the proposed 

Hank Unit would not be visible from the main road to the T-Chair Livestock Company Ranch, it 

would be visible from the top of the Pumpkin Buttes. 

BLM visual resources analyses have indicated that infrastructure for existing CBM projects, 

with wells and infrastructure similar to the infrastructure that would support the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project facility, can have a “strong to moderate” visual effect on the Pumpkin 

Buttes TCP at distances up to about 3.2 km [2 mi]. This distance forms the basis of the area of 

potential effects established in a programmatic agreement between BLM and WY SHPO to 

mitigate potential impacts to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP from construction activities in the vicinity 

(BLM, 2009h). With a taller profile, oil and gas production facilities are visible from a greater 

distance, about 24 km [15 mi] west from the base of Pumpkin Buttes (BLM, 2007). Coal mines 

are more than 16 km [10 mi] east (Figure 5-2) and, with the exception of dust emissions, do not 

affect the viewshed in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (BLM, 2007). 

Existing commercial facilities to the west that are potentially visible from the proposed Nichols 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-50 

Ranch ISR Project and visible from Pumpkin Buttes include conventional oil and gas wells and 

the supporting infrastructure (well pads, pump jacks, access roads, pipelines), reservoirs, fence 

lines, power lines, water storage facilities, uranium recovery facilities, ranch buildings, and dust 

from vehicular traffic (BLM, 2007). Several transmission towers are present outside the Hank 

Unit permit boundary on top of South Middle Butte (Uranerz, 2007). CBM development has and 

is likely to take place in the Hank Unit area, and well houses are present in the area. As noted 

in the BLM analysis, “The setting of the Pumpkin Buttes as they face the project area is nearly 

dominated by modern visual distractions” (BLM, 2007). 

Over the next 15–20 years, reasonably foreseeable developments in the vicinity of the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project could include a continuation of current activities such as livestock 

ranching and energy resource development (oil, gas, coal bed methane, and uranium). With an 

estimated 1,359 conventional oil and gas wells and 13,800 CBM wells projected to be drilled in 

the Buffalo Planning Area by 2028, it is likely that some of these facilities will be within the 

viewshed of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. 

Section 4.10 of this SEIS describes the potential impacts to visual resources, especially the 

Pumpkin Buttes TCP and four associated TCPs, from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

(including the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units) as being MODERATE. These impacts would be 

to a viewshed already dominated by modern visual distractions associated with CBM and oil 

and gas production. The existing PA between BLM and WY SHPO includes measures to 

mitigate the effects of construction activities on the viewshed within 3.2 km [2 mi] of the 

Pumpkin Buttes TCP (BLM, 2009h). Similarly, the BLM has established an MOA with CBM 

producers to mitigate the potential visual effects from their operations (BLM, 2007). In 

Section 3.9 of the environmental report, the applicant stated it would also implement mitigation 

measures such as dust suppression, avoiding development on the tops and sides of the nearby 

North and South Middle Buttes, burying pipelines and power lines, and painting structures (well 

head covers, header houses, and buildings) with colors designed to blend in better with the 

natural landscape (Uranerz, 2007). In addition, NRC-approved decommissioning activities at 

the end of the proposed project would be required to include reclamation activities to restore the 

preconstruction landscape and create a more natural viewshed. Section 106 consultation 

among NRC, WY SHPO, BLM, and the applicant regarding potential impacts to the TCPs is 

ongoing (Appendix A). 

The NRC staff has determined that the cumulative impact on visual and scenic resources to the 

study area resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is 

MODERATE. Visual distraction in the form of oil and gas and CBM production-related 

infrastructure currently dominates the viewshed. A Pumpkin Buttes visual assessment 

completed in 2006 noted roads and trails, CBM-associated structures, reservoirs, and power 

lines were readily visible from the base of the buttes (Uranerz, 2007). To offset potential 

impacts from anticipated development within the viewshed of Pumpkin Buttes, BLM entered into 

a PA with the WY SHPO focused on mitigation of adverse effects for the Pumpkin Buttes TCP 

from anticipated Federal minerals development (BLM, 2009h). Since the Hank Unit overlaps 

with and lies inside the 3.2-km [2.0-mi] buffer area of the Pumpkin Buttes TCP, mitigation 

measures identified in the PA for the Pumpkin Buttes TCP would apply to the proposed Hank 

Unit. The applicant has committed to follow mitigation measures outlined in the PA for activities 

occurring at the Hank Unit (Uranerz, 2010). 

The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (the proposed 

action) would have a SMALL to MODERATE incremental effect on visual and scenic resources 

when considered with all other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the study 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-51 

area. Regarding the Nichols Ranch Unit, there would be no visual impacts to Class II areas 

during any of the project’s phases. The Nichols Ranch Unit is located outside the 3.2-km [2-mi] 

radius for potential impact on a TCP element. Finally, as part of the Section 106 consultation 

under the NHPA, any visual impacts could be further reduced. Therefore, visual and scenic 

impacts associated with the Nichols Ranch Unit would be SMALL. However, the Hank Unit is 

located inside the 3.2-km [2.0-mi] radius of the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. Because of the proximity 

of the Hank Unit to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP and the presence of construction machinery in 

plain view, some detrimental effects to visual and scenic resources would occur resulting in 

MODERATE impacts. These impacts would be greatest during the construction and 

decommissioning phases. 

The cumulative impacts to visual and scenic resources described previously for the proposed 

action would be similar to, but less than, the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) since 

there would be no construction, operations, aquifer restoration, or decommissioning activities 

within the buffer area stipulated in the Pumpkin Buttes PA. Section 4.10.3 describes impacts 

associated with Alternative 3. There would be no construction and decommissiong activities 

associated with the Hank Unit. Therefore, impacts from the Nichols Ranch Unit would be 

remain SMALL as has been described previously. The SMALL to MODERATE impacts from 

the proposed action would be reduced to SMALL for Alternative 3. Therefore, Alternative 3 

would have a SMALL incremental effect on visual and scenic resources when added to the 

MODERATE cumulative impact on visual and scenic resources from other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

5.11 Socioeconomics 

The geographic boundary for the socioeconomic cumulative impact analysis includes Campbell 

and Johnson Counties because the proposed ISR facility at Nichols Ranch would be located 

along the adjoining border of Campbell and Johnson Counties. Population change in these 

counties over time can be used as an indicator of future social and economic change. As is 

shown in Figure 5-4, Campbell County grew from 12,957 in 1970 to 43,440 in 2010 and is 

projected to reach 52,130 in 2020. Johnson County grew from 5,587 in 1970 to 8,640 in 2010 

and is projected to reach 9,990 in 2020. By comparison, the population of Wyoming was 

332,416 in 1970 and is projected to grow modestly from 2010 to 2020 (from 539,740 to 

578,730). 

As previously discussed in SEIS Section 4.11, the construction and operation of the proposed 

ISR facility at Nichols Ranch would require approximately 45–55 workers with only 20 workers 

required for aquifer restoration and decommissioning. Overall, the level of socioeconomic 

impacts that would occur from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning of the proposed ISR facility at Nichols Ranch would be less than the level of 

impacts described in GEIS Section 4.3.10, because fewer workers would be required. 

A regional economic model (Regional Economic Model, Inc. Policy Insight) that was part of BLM 

Powder River Basin Coal Review Task 3C Report: Cumulative Social and Economic Effects 

(BLM, 2005d), was used to develop reasonably foreseeable cumulative employment and 

population projections. Two future scenarios were modeled showing a lower and upper coalproduction scenario in the Powder River Basin. The two scenarios represent a projected range 

of economic activity derived by combining the range of future coal production with other 

identified foreseeable activities, including oil and gas production and other mining operations. 

The timeframe for the model analysis spans from 2007 to 2020, and older data were 

incorporated into the model to build upon historic employment and population trends. 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-52 

Figure 5-4. Wyoming, Campbell County and Johnson County Population, 1970 to 2020 

Source: WDAI-EAD (2008)

The Powder River Basin BLM coal review study area served as the geographic boundary for 

the coal-review study. Across the entire six-county Powder River Basin (Campbell, Johnson, 

Converse, Crook, Sheridan, and Wetson), projected increases in employment from coal mining 

operations and oil and gas development would range from 12,120 to 28,625 jobs under the 

lower and upper coal-production scenarios between 2003 and 2020. Most of this gain is 

expected to take place in Campbell County, which is projected to capture 60 percent of the new 

jobs under the lower projection scenario and 65 percent under the upper coal-production 

scenario (BLM, 2009e). Figure 5-5 shows employment and population trends for Campbell 

County from 2000 to 2020. Based on the relatively small number of workers expected at the 

proposed ISR facility, the Nichols Ranch ISR Project would have a SMALL incremental 

contributory impact on employment. 

While Campbell County and the entire Powder River Basin have been described as possessing 

an enhanced capacity to respond to and accommodate growth, periods of rapid growth have 

been known to stress communities and their social structures, housing resources, and public 

infrastructure and service systems (BLM, 2005a,b,c). 

Both the lower and upper coal-production scenarios indicate a strong demand for housing 

resources through the year 2020. 

Based on the lower coal-production scenario, Campbell County is expected to require a 

minimum 58 percent increase in total housing demand between 2003 and 2020. This demand 

is anticipated to exert substantial pressure on housing markets, prices, and the real estate 

development and construction industries, all at a time when demand for labor and other 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-53 

Figure 5-5. Projected Campbell County Population and Employment, 2000 to 2020 

Source: WDAI-EAD (2008)

resources would also be high. However, the incremental impact to housing demand from the 

proposed construction and operation of the ISR facility at Nichols Ranch would be SMALL, 

based on the small number of expected workers. 

Short-term school capacity shortages could also result from an increase in population. Under 

the lower coal-production scenario, Campbell County is projected to experience a substantial 

increase in school-aged children through 2020. Based on this scenario, an additional 1,587 

students would be added to school enrollments by 2020, representing a 22 percent increase 

over the 2009 to 2010 school year enrollment. Actual enrollment, however, is outpacing both 

the lower and upper coal-production scenario projections. This accelerated growth is likely due 

to recent increases in oil and gas production in the Powder River Basin. By comparison, the 

incremental impacts to schools from the construction and operation of the ISR facility at Nichols 

Ranch would be SMALL due to the small number of permanent operations workers. The 

construction workforce would not relocate entire families during the short construction phase of 

the project. 

Population increases in affected counties and communities would create across-the-board 

increases in demand for public services. Increased demand for public services from 

the proposed construction and operation of the ISR facility at Nichols Ranch would be SMALL 

due to the small number of workers required for all phases of the project. Anticipated increased 

demand for services include water supply and wastewater systems, which are anticipated to 

meet projected needs through 2020. Increased ad valorem tax payments are anticipated to 

follow the expanding economy and employment opportunities. Tax revenues generated by the 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-54 

proposed ISR facility at Nichols Ranch, however, would be minor compared to those projected 

for the lower and upper coal-production scenarios and oil and gas development. 

Based upon the BLM reports, the overall socioeconomic impact within the study area resulting 

from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is projected to be 

MODERATE. The actions leading to this moderate finding are increased population in the study 

area due to increased employment in energy development activities, namely coal mining, CBM, 

oil and gas production, and uranium ISR facilities. 

As previously discussed in SEIS Section 4.11, the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project and aquifer restoration would 

have little to no impact on socioeconomic conditions in the region beyond those currently being 

experienced. Also, based on this and other information presented in Chapter 4 of this SEIS, 

there would be little to no additional contributory effect on future socioeconomic conditions in the 

region. Based on assessments of population, employment, housing, school enrollment, public 

services, and local finances, the proposed ISR facility project at Nichols Ranch is projected to 

have a SMALL incremental socioeconomic effect on the region when added to the MODERATE 

impacts expected from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions described 

in SEIS Section 5.1.1. This conclusion is based on the small number of workers required to 

support the proposed action. 

For the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3), NRC staff concludes that the overall 

cumulative socioeconomic impact would be similar to, but less than, that described for the 

proposed action because Alternative 3 would require fewer workers. The potential effect on 

population, employment, housing, school enrollment, public services, and local finances would 

consequentially be reduced. Also, less production would generate less tax revenue for the 

State of Wyoming. Based on this information, NRC staff concluded that implementation of 

Alternative 3 would have a SMALL incremental socioeconomic effect when added to the 

MODERATE cumulative socioeconomic impact from other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions within the socioeconomic study area. 

5.12 Environmental Justice 

No minority and low-income populations have been identified as residing near the proposed ISR 

facility at Nichols Ranch. The percentage of minority populations living in the two nearest block 

groups are very small when compared to the percentage of minority populations recorded at the 

state level and much less than the national level. Potential impacts to minority and low-income 

populations from the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed ISR facility 

and aquifer restoration at Nichols Ranch are discussed in Section 4.12.2 of this SEIS. The 

geographic area and timeframe for the analysis of cumulative impacts follows the area and 

timeframe for the socioeconomic analysis in SEIS Section 5.11. The GEIS also identified no 

minority population block groups in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region but did identify 

Albany County as having a low income population (NRC, 2009a). Northern Albany County is 

predominantly rural with no U.S. Census Bureau-identified population centers or towns in the 

portion of the county that lies within the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region. 

The economic base of the region is largely comprised of ranching and resource extraction. Low 

income populations are generally dispersed throughout the study area (see SEIS 

Section 4.12.1). Based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental 

impacts presented in Chapters 4 and 5, any impacts from the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of the proposed ISR facility and aquifer restoration at Nichols Ranch under 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-55 

either the proposed action or Alternative 3, including other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would not be disproportionately high and adverse. 

5.13 Public and Occupational Health and Safety 

The cumulative impact on public and occupational health and safety was considered within an 

80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Historically, the NRC has 

used the 80-km [50-mi] radius as a standard bounding geographic area to evaluate population 

doses from releases at ISR facilities. This section considers both radiological and 

nonradiological impacts from normal operations and accidents. The public and occupational 

health and safety impacts from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project could range from 

SMALL to MODERATE, depending on the specific impact, and are detailed in Section 4.13.1 of 

this SEIS. During all phases of normal operation, health and safety from radiological and 

nonradiological impacts would be SMALL. Based on discussions in 4.13.1.2.1, impacts to 

occupational workers would be SMALL except in the unlikely event that an accident was not 

mitigated. In this case, the impacts to workers could be MODERATE. The impact to the public 

from radiological and nonradiological accidents would be SMALL. For non-radiological 

accidents, as described in Section 4.13.1.2.4, impacts could range from SMALL to MODERATE 

for onsite workers if not appropriately mitigated. The timeframe for this analysis is 2007 to 

2020, which is the expected lifecycle of the proposed facility. The year 2007 is when the 

applicant submitted its license application to NRC for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

The cumulative impact analysis timeframe would terminate in 2020, which is the year that NRC 

estimates license termination would occur should a license be granted. There would be no 

impact on public health and safety from the proposed action following license termination. 

The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site is located in the Wyoming East Uranium 

Milling Region as defined in the GEIS (NRC, 2009a), which contains 21 previous, current, or 

potential uranium-handling sites. Two of the 21 sites are operating uranium mines 

(Smith Ranch-Highland), and two are DOE disposal sites (Shirley Basin South and Spook). 

The remaining sites are either in active decommissioning or in a terminated or standby status. 

The GEIS (NRC, 2009a) identified eight draft or final EISs submitted from January 2005 to 

February 2008 for projects that could contribute to the cumulative impact on public and 

occupational health and safety within the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region. In addition, 

the GEIS identified 10 programmatic EISs for projects that have an impact over the entire State 

of Wyoming. 

Several companies are actively investigating the potential for ISR extraction, as well as other 

types of mining and milling, in areas near the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. A review of 

the surrounding area indicated there are four NRC-licensed nuclear facilities within 80 km 

[50 mi] of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area (NRC, 2009a) as shown in Table 5-1. 

These facilities include Uranium One, Inc. Irigaray/Christensen Ranch ISR facility, Power 

Resources, Inc. licensed North Butte amendment area, PRI Smith Ranch-Highland ISR facility, 

and Uranium One Moore Ranch site. Two of the licensed facilities, Irigaray/Christensen Ranch 

and Smith Ranch-Highland, currently have existing yellowcake processing plants, with the latter 

in operation. Several inactive and decommissioned conventional uranium mills are within an 

80-km [50-mi] radius. As noted previously in this SEIS Section 4.13, the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project would have a SMALL impact on public health and safety consistent with 

background radiation. As noted in SEIS Section 4.13.1.2.1, the maximum exposed nearby 

resident is calculated to receive 0.01 mSv [1 mrem] per year, which is 1-percent of the 1 mSv 

(100 mrem) per year regulatory limit. These doses are consistent with the doses identified for 

other ISR facilities considered in the GEIS, where the range was from a high of 0.317 mSv 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-56 

[31.7 mrem] per year for the Crow Butte facility to 0.004 mSv [0.4 mrem] per year for the 

Irigaray facility. Thus, because the public dose from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR facility 

would not significantly contribute to the cumulative public health and safety effects, the NRC 

staff concludes that the incremental cumulative impact would be SMALL. 

Both worker and public radiological exposures are addressed in NRC regulations at 10 CFR 

Part 20. Licensees are required to implement an NRC-approved radiation protection program to 

protect occupational workers. Measured and calculated doses for workers and the public are 

commonly only a fraction of regulated limits. As stated in Section 4.13, for normal operations, 

radon-222 would be the only significant radionuclide anticipated to be released; the primary 

sources would be from wellfield venting and releases from within the central plant for process 

operations (predominantly via vent stacks on the ion-exchange columns and various tanks). As 

discussed in Section 7.2.4 of the applicant’s technical report, the applicant would use 

pressurized down flow ion-exchange columns that are designed to significantly reduce the 

radon emissions from the processing circuit (Uranerz, 2007). 

As stated in Section 4.13.1.2.1 of this SEIS, the highest dose at the site boundary for the 

proposed Nichols Ranch Unit is 0.04 mSv [4 mrem] per year. The calculated collective dose 

using MILDOS-AREA for the population residing within 80 km [50mi] is 0.002 person-Sv 

[0.2 person-rem] per year. Table 4.2-2 of the GEIS (NRC, 2009a) shows the offsite maximum 

dose to a member of the public could range from less than 0.01mSv [1 mrem] per year to 

0.317 mSv [31.7 mrem] per year. Because the range of the doses for these facilities are well 

below the limits in 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1), the cumulative impacts from other similar facilities 

located within 80 km [50 mi] would be SMALL. 

In SEIS Section 4.13.1.2.2, a radiological hazard assessment (Mackin, et al., 2001) considered 

three types of accidents, representing the sources containing the higher levels of radioactivity 

for all aspects of operation: thickener failure and spill, pregnant lixiviant and loaded resin spills 

(radon release), yellowcake dryer accident release. The impacts to workers from these 

accidents are considered SMALL except for the unlikely event that the accidents would be 

unmitigated. Under that circumstance, the dose impacts could be considered MODERATE. 

SEIS Section 4.13 provides the baseline information for the cumulative impact discussion. The 

types and quantities of chemicals (hazardous and nonhazardous) for proposed use at the 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project do not differ from those evaluated in the GEIS. The use of 

hazardous chemicals at ISR facilities is controlled under several regulations (see SEIS 

Section 4.13.1.2.3 for a list of these regulations) that are designed to provide adequate 

protection to workers and the public. The handling and storage of chemicals at the facility would 

follow standard industrial safety standards and practices. Industrial safety aspects associated 

with the use of hazardous chemicals are regulated by the Wyoming Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration. Nonradological worker safety would be addressed through occupational 

health and safety regulations and practices. 

According to the GEIS (NRC, 2009a), the non-radiological impacts for other similar facilities 

located within 80 km [50 mi] would also adhere to the standards and regulations described 

above and within SEIS Section 4.13 and would have SMALL impacts, non-radiological 

cumulative impacts can be considered SMALL. 

The NRC staff determined that the cumulative impact on public and occupational health within 

an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project from all past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would be SMALL. Therefore, the proposed project is 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-57 

projected to have a SMALL incremental impact on public and occupational health and safety 

when added to the SMALL cumulative impacts expected from other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions described in Section 5.1.1 of this SEIS. Since the 

proposed facility is located in a remote, sparsely populated area with limited public access, the 

exposure to members of the public would be limited. Occupational health hazards would be 

limited because licensees are required to implement an NRC-approved radiation protection 

program to protect occupational workers. Additionally, ISR facilities would follow standard 

industrial safety standards and practices. 

For the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3), the cumulative impact on public and 

occupational health and safety would be similar to, but less than that evaluated for the proposed 

action; however, the reduced size of the facility would reduce the annual uranium production 

and consequently some of the potential health and safety risks, but overall the impacts would be 

similar for either the proposed action or under Alternative 3. Wellfield and resin transfer radon 

releases at the Hank Unit would be reduced to zero under Alternative 3 and there would be no 

additional offsite doses to the nearest members of the public from the Hank site. Based on the 

distance between the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units, however, the NRC staff concludes there 

would be no reduction in offsite dose at the Nichols Ranch Unit under Alternative 3 since the 

operations would be the same as for the proposed action because yellowcake processing would 

still occur at the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit. Worker exposures associated with ion exchange 

activities at the Hank Unit would also be eliminated under Alternative 3. There would be no daily 

loaded ion exchange resin shipments from the Hank Unit to the Nichols Ranch Unit under 

Alternative 3, and, therefore, the risk of accidents and spills would be reduced. The reduced 

production would require fewer chemical supply and yellowcake product shipments and 

associated unloading and loading operations and therefore a reduction in risk of spills or other 

incidents. During decommissioning, the volume of facilities and equipment that would need to 

be removed, surveyed, and disposed would be subtantially reduced. The reduction in 

radioactive material handling during decommissioning would result in lower overall worker 

radiation exposures under Alternative 3, although worker doses would need to comply with NRC 

dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff determined that Alternative 3 is projected to have 

a SMALL incremental impact on public and occupational health and safety when added to the 

SMALL cumulative impacts expected from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. 

5.14 Waste Management 

Cumulative impacts on waste management were assessed with the impacts from the Powder 

River Basin BLM coal-review study area (which serves as the geographic boundary for this 

resource) because uranium mining/milling activities, CBM activities, and oil and gas exploration 

could generate solid, hazardous, or radioactive wastes that would likely use the same disposal 

facilities. The timeframe for the analysis of this resource category is 2007 to 2020, as discussed 

in Section 5.1.2, and is based on the estimated operating life of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR facility. 

As discussed in SEIS Section 2.2.1.6, all stages of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

(construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning) would generate effluents 

and waste streams, all of which must be handled and disposed of properly. These would 

include liquid and solid wastes. Any wastewater generated during or after the uranium 

extraction phase of site operations would be classified as byproduct material (NRC, 2000). 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-58 

The staff reviewed the material submitted by the applicant and estimated the total Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project facility lifecycle waste volumes as the summation of the operational waste 

volumes and the total decommissioning waste volumes. Assuming a total operating period of 

as much as 8 years considering the production and aquifer restoration phases for the Nichols 

Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit (Uranerz, 2007, Figure 2-1), the total volume of solid byproduct 

material to be generated for offsite disposal through the end of decommissioning would be 

about 8,837 m3

 [11,550 yd3]; the total volume of nonhazardous solid waste to be generated for 

offsite disposal would be about 7,957 m3

 [10,400 yd3]. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project site that could generate solid, hazardous, or radioactive wastes include 

uranium mining/milling activities, CBM activities, and oil and gas exploration. Each of these 

facilities would generate solid and hazardous wastes and would be responsible for complying 

with applicable regulations and site-specific license agreements that manage generated wastes. 

Within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, there are at least six 

either operating or planned ISR facilities that would generate waste volumes consistent with 

those projected for the proposed project. The cumulative effects on present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that would contribute to the total amount of solid byproduct material 

generated by ISR facilities could, therefore, be as much as approximately 61,860 m3

[80,850 yd3

] {i.e., 8,837 m3 [11,550 yd3] × 7 facilities}. Similarly, the cumulative volume of 

nonhazardous solid waste that could be generated from these facilities could be approximately 

55,700 m3

 [72,800 yd3]. 

Available local capacity for disposal of solid byproduct material is at the Pathfinder-Shirley Basin 

site in Mills, Wyoming. As reasonably foreseeable additional ISR sites are licensed, this local 

capacity may become limited. Future ISR applicants could engage other low-level radioactive 

waste disposal facilities licensed to accept byproduct material. Another existing facility licensed 

by NRC to accept byproduct material for disposal is the Rio Algom Ambrosia Lake uranium mill 

tailings impoundments near Grants, New Mexico. Additionally, three sites in NRC-licensed 

agreement states can accept byproduct material for disposal (i.e., the Energy Solutions site in 

Clive, Utah; the White Mesa uranium mill site in Blanding, Utah; and the Waste Controls 

Specialists site in Andrews, Texas). 

Based on the disposal options currently available and the disposal agreement that NRC 

requires prior to operations, the staff concludes that the potential cumulative waste 

management impacts associated with the generation of byproduct material would be SMALL. 

As discussed in SEIS Section 2.2.1.6.3, the applicant stated in its license application that 

nonhazardous solid waste would be disposed of at a landfill located near Gillette in Campbell 

County, Wyoming. As discussed in SEIS Section 4.1.1.1, the landfill in Gillette, Wyoming, has 

planned available capacity for approximately the next 30 years. The total nonhazardous waste 

volume from seven ISR projects would represent about 8 percent of the waste that would be 

disposed at the Gillette landfill based on 2005 disposal rates (Wyoming Office of State Lands 

and Investments, 2007). 

Based on this comparison and the planned operational life of the landfill, the staff concludes the 

region has sufficient capacity to dispose of the nonhazardous solid waste generated from the 

proposed action and other present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Therefore, the 

cumulative waste management impacts for disposal of nonhazardous solid waste would 

be SMALL. 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-59 

The applicant must also comply with applicable State and Federal regulations with respect to 

disposing of hazardous wastes. Based on the small projected quantities of hazardous wastes 

the staff estimates for proposed action (Section 2.2.1.6.3) and other similar and reasonably 

foreseeable ISR facilities that could be licensed in the region, the staff concludes the potential 

cumulative impacts from the additional generation of hazardous wastes would be SMALL. 

Regarding the potential cumulative impacts of liquid byproduct material disposal, the applicant 

states that it is seeking permits from WDEQ for eight deep disposal wells (four for the Nichols 

Ranch Unit and four for the Hank Unit) for liquid byproduct material (Uranerz, 2007). Additional 

deep disposal well use in the region is anticipated as additional ISR facilities are licensed. The 

State permitting process for these wells evaluates the suitability of proposals to ensure 

underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) are protected. Because the State would not 

permit deep injection wells that would have the potential to impact USDWs, the staff concludes 

the cumulative impact from using deep disposal wells for the proposed action along with the 

potential impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be SMALL. 

Given the applicant would obtain the necessary permits and contractual agreements for 

disposing of its byproduct material, the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is projected to have 

a SMALL incremental impact on waste management when added to the SMALL cumulative 

impact from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions described in 

Section 5.1.1. 

The cumulative impact on waste management would be similar to, but less than the Modified 

Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3). Section 4.14.3 describes why the waste management 

impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be less than the Proposed Action during all phases 

of the project. Under Alternative 3, a smaller scope of activities would be conducted because 

only the Nichols Ranch Unit would be licensed, resulting in the generation of less waste during 

all phases of the proposed project and a reduction in the waste management impact compared 

to the proposed action. Only a central processing plant would be constructed, and fewer wells 

would be drilled, reducing the generation rate of construction-related nonradioactive wastes and 

ultimately creating a smaller volume of operational wastes, including process bleed and 

nonhazardous solid waste. In addition, only one septic system and up to four deep disposal 

wells would need to be constructed because of the reduced volume of liquid byproduct material. 

During decommissioning, the footprint of the smaller facility would reduce the volume of 

byproduct material and nonhazardous solid waste that would need to be shipped offsite for 

disposal. Based on this analysis, the NRC staff concludes that implementation of Alternative 3 

would have a SMALL incremental effect on waste management when added to the SMALL 

cumulative impact on waste management expected from other present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions in the waste management study area. 

5.15 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

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

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-60 

40 CFR Part 1500 to 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of 

the Environment, Parts 1500-1508, “Council on Environmental Quality.” 

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 Under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 

<http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/pnnl-18567.pdf> (28 April 

2010). 2009 

BLM. “Wyoming GIS Available Data.” <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/resources/public_room/ 

gis/datagis.html> (3 May 2010). 2010a. 

BLM. “Powder River Basin Coal.” 

<http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal.html> (1 June 

2010). 2010b. 

BLM. “Draft Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Buffalo Field 

Office Planning Area, Wyoming.” < > (23 April 2010). 2009a. 

BLM. “Update of the Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Past and Present 

and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities.” 

<http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal/prbdocs/coalreview

/task_2_update__12.html>(24 April 2010). 2009b. 

BLM. “Final Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report Buffalo Resource 

Management Plan Revision.” BLM Buffalo Field Office, 

<http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/buffalo/docs.Par.9016

9.File.dat/RevisedFinalMineralReport_Part1.pdf> (23 April 2010). 2009c. 

BLM. “Update Of The Task 3D Report For The Powder River Basin Coal Review Cumulative 

Environmental Effects.” Bureau Of Land Management High Plains District Office and Wyoming 

State Office. <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/ 

PRB_Coal/prbdocs/coalreview/task_3d_update__12.html> (24 April 2010). 2009d. 

BLM. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease 

Applications.” WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, and WYW161248. August. 

<http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/content/wy/en/info/NEPA/HighPlains/SouthGillette.html> 

(17 September 2009). 2009e. 

BLM. “Update of Task 3A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Cumulative Air 

Quality Effects for 2020.” December. <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/ 

Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal/prbdocs/coalreview/task_3a-2020.html> (23 April 2010). 2009f. 

BLM. “Programmatic Agreement Between Bureau of Land Management and Wyoming State 

Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Mitigation of Adverse Effects on the Pumpkin.” 2009g. 

BLM. “Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation Buffalo Resource Management 

Plan Revision.” BLM, Buffalo Field Office. http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/ 

programs/Planning/rmpsPlanning/rmps/buffalo/docs.html (30 September 2010). 2009h. 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-61 

BLM. “Fortification Creek Area Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental 

Assessment.” August. <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/bfodocs/fortification_creek. 

html> (17 September 2009). 2008a. 

BLM. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 

WYW163340.” <http://www.blm/gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/cfodocs/West_Antelope_II.html> 

(September 2009). 2008b. 

BLM. “Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record for Anadarko Petroleum Corp. Dry 

Willow Phase II, Environmental Assessment.” WY-070-07-148. Buffalo, Wyoming: Bureau of 

Land Management, Buffalo Field Office. <http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/ 

information/NEPA/bfodocs/pods/anadarko.Par.78198.File.dat/Dry%20Willow%20Phase%20II%

20EA.pdf> (4 May 2010). 2007. 

BLM. “Task 3A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Cumulative Air Quality Effects.” 

February. <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal/prbdocs/ 

coalreview/task3a.html> (23 April 2010). 2006. 

BLM. “Task 1D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Current Environmental 

Conditions.” June. 

<http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal/prbdocs/coalreview

/Task1D.html> (17 September 2009). 2005a. 

BLM. “Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Past and Present and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities.” July. 

<http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal/prbdocs/coalreview

/Task2.html> (17 September 2009). 2005b. 

BLM. “Task 3D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Cumulative Environmental 

Effects.” December. <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/ 

PRB_Coal/prbdocs/coalreview/task3d.html> (17 September 2009). 2005c. 

BLM. “Task 3C Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Cumulative Social and 

Economic Effects.” December. <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/ 

Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal/prbdocs/coalreview/task3c.html> (17 September 2010). 2005d. 

BLM. “Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the Powder 

River Basin Oil and Gas Project.” January. 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/bfodocs/prb_eis.html> (17 September 2009). 2003. 

Braun, C. E., O. O. Oedekoven, and C. L. Aldridge. Oil and gas development in western North 

America: effects on sagebrush steppe avifauna with particular emphasis on sage 

grouse.Transactions North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 67:337-349. 

2002. 

CCS. “Wyoming Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections 1990-2020.” 

Report for Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. <http://www.climatestrategies.us/ 

ewebeditpro/ items/O25F18230.pdf> (1 October 2009). 2007. 

CEQ. “Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act.” 

<http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.htm> (5 October 2009). 1997. 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-62 

Connelly, J.W., C.A. Hagen, and M.A. Schroeder. “Ecology and Conservation of Greater SageGrouse: A Landscape Species and Its Habitats.” Chapter 5, Characteristics and Dynamics of 

Greater Sage-Grouse Populations. Studies in Avian Biology, Prepublication Release. 

<http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/Docs/SAB/Chapter05.pdf> (28 April 2010). 2009. 

Doherty, K.E., D.E. Naugle, H. Copeland, A. Pocewicz, and J. Kiesecke. “Ecology and 

Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse: A Landscape Species and Its Habitats.” Chapter 22, 

Energy Development and Conservation Tradeoffs: Systematic Planning for Sage-Grouse in 

Their Eastern Range.” Studies in Avian Biology, Prepublication Release. 

<http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/Docs/SAB/Chapter22.pdf> ( 28 April 2010). 2009. 

Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, B. L.Walker, and J. M. Graham. Greater Sage-Grouse winter 

habitat selection and energy development. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:187–195. 2008. 

EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). “Maps: Exploration, Resources, Reserves, and 

Production.” <http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/maps/ 

maps.htm#geodata> (3 May 2010). 2007. 

EPA. Memorandum from R. Brode, Physical Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to 

T. Fox, Leader, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Subject: Technical Issues Related to 

CALPUFF Near-Field Applications. September 26, 2008. 2010. 

EPA. “Climate Change–Science–State of Knowledge.” <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ 

science/stateofknowledge.html#ref> (11 September 2009). 2009. 

EPA. “Compilation of Air Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary and Point Sources.” AP-42, 

Fifth Edition: Chapters 3.3 and 3.4. Washington, DC: EPA. October 1996. 

EPA. “Protective Noise Levels, Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document.” EPA-55019-79-

100. Washington, DC: EPA. Office of Noise Abatement and Control. 1978 

FHWA. Highway Statistics 2005. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. 2006. 

Garton, E.O., J.W. Connelly, C.A. Hagen, J.S. Horne, A. Moser, and M.A. Schroeder. “Ecology 

and Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse: A Landscape Species and Its Habitats.” Chapter 

16, Greater Sage-Grouse Population Dynamics and Probability of Persistence. Studies in Avian 

Biology, Prepublication Release. <http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/Docs/SAB/Chapter16.pdf> (28 

April 2010). 2009. 

GCRP. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press. 

2009. 

Greystone Environmental Consultants and ALL Consulting. “Surface Water Quality Technical 

Report, Surface Water Modeling of Water Quality Impacts Associated with Coal Bed Methane 

Development in the Powder River Basin,” prepared in support of “Final Environmental Impact 

Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project,” 

January.<http://wogcc.state.wy.us/inddrainage.cfm?code=5>(6 December 2010). 2003 

 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-63 

Holloran, Matthew J., Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Population Response 

to Natural Gas Field Development in Western Wyoming. PhD, Department of Zoology and 

Physiology, December, 2005. 

<http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/sagegrouse/Holloran2005PhD.pdf> (2 December 2010). 

Kadrmas, Lee, and Jackson, Inc. “Campbell County Coal Belt Transportation Study.” Gillette, 

Wyoming: Kadrmas, Lee, and Jackson, Inc. August, 2010. 

Mills, R. “The USA needs URZ.” <http://www.thedailycommodities.com/2010/11/the-usa-needsurz/> (7 December 2010). 2010. 

Naugle, D.E., K.E. Doherty, B. Walker, M.J. Holloran, and H.E. Copeland. “Ecology and 

Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse: A Landscape Species and Its Habitats.” Chapter 21, 

Energy Development and Greater Sage-Grouse. Studies in Avian Biology, Prepublication 

Release. <http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/Docs/SAB/Chapter21.pdf> (28 April 2010). 2009. 

Naugle, D.E. , K.E. Doherty, And B.L. Walker. Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat Selection And 

Energy Development In The Powder River Basin: Completion Report. 

<http://www.voiceforthewild.org/SageGrouseStudies/Winter_habitat_report.pdf> (12 December 

2010). 2006. 

NCDC. “Record of Climatological Observations for Kaycee 1900–11–2010–05 (485055) and 

Midwest 1939–01–2010–05 (486195). <http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html; 

jsessionid=9CBA8A18D428D1C3BE19F7E0AE199FD2?foreign=false&_page=0&jsessionid=9C

BA8A18D428D1C3BE19F7E0AE199FD2&state=WY&_target1=Next+%3E> (21 July 2010). 

2010a. 

NCDC. “Climate at a Glance—Annual Temperature Wyoming for 1895 to 2009.” 

<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/wy.html> (21 July 2010). 2010b. 

NRC. NUREG–1555, “Supplemental Staff Guidance to NUREG-1555, "Environmental Standard 

Review (ESRP) for Consideration of the Effects of Greenhouse Gases and of Climate Change.” 

Washington, DC: NRC. March, 2010. 

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

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

NRC. “Expected New Uranium Recovery Facility Applications/ Restarts/Expansions: Updated 

08/26/2009". <http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/uranium/ur-projects-list-public.pdf> 

(April 16, 2010). 2009b. 

NRC. Memorandum to File from B. Balsam and I. Yu, Project Managers, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. “Summary of teleconference with Pedro Ramirez, Wyoming Field 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding Endangered Species Act informal consultation 

for the Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (Docket No. 040-09067).” ML093130107. 

Washington, DC: NRC. 2009c. 

 
Cumulative Impacts 

5-64 

NRC. Memorandum to William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations, from Annette L. 

Vietti-Cook, Secretary. Subject: Staff Requirements, SECY–99–0013: Recommendations on 

Ways to Improve the Efficiency of NRC Regulation at In-Situ Leach Uranium Recovery 

Facilities.” <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/commission/srm/1999/1999-

013srm.html> (16 November 2009). 2000. 

Peterson, D.A., M.L. Clark, K. Foster, P.R. Wright and G.K Boughton. Assessment of ecological 

conditions and potential effects of water produced from coal bed natural gas development on 

biological communities in streams of the Powder River structural basin, Wyoming and Montana, 

2005–08: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5124, 84 p. < 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5124/> (2 December 2010). 2010. 

Russell, J. and A. Pollack. “Final Report: Oil and Gas Emission Inventories for the Western 

States.” Novato, California: Environ International Corporation. December 2005. 

Scire, J.S., D.S. Strimitis, and R.J. Yamartino. “A User’s Guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion 

Model (Version 5.0).” Concord, Massachusetts: Earth Tech, Inc. October 1999. 

Stoeckenious. T. “Final Report: A Conceptual Model of Winter Ozone Episodes in Southwest 

Wyoming.” 06–20441E. Novato, California: Environ International Corporation. 

January 29, 2010. 

Stoeckenious, T., S. Lau, E. Tai, R. Morris, M. Jimenez, and J. Russell. “Final Report: 

Southwest Wyoming NO2 PSD Increment Consumption Modeling: Results for Sublette County.” 

Novato, California: Environ International Corporation. May 22, 2006. 

Uranerz. Presentation slides from Uranerz Energy Corporation/NRC Coal Bed Methane 

Meeting. ML081620270. May 27, 2008. 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. Casper, 

Wyoming: 2007. 

USGS. “Principal Aquifers of the 48 Conterminous United States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands.” <http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html> (3 May 2010). 2003. 

Walker, B. L. Greater sage-grouse response to coal-bed natural gas development and West 

Nile virus in the Powder River Basin, Montana and Wyoming, U. S. A. PhD Dissertation. 

University of Montana, Missoula. 2008. 

Walker, B. L., D. E. Naugle, and K. E. Doherty. 2007. Greater Sage-Grouse population 

response to energy development and habitat loss. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2644-

2654. 2007 

WDAI-EAD. <http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop/pop.html> (26 April 2010). 2008. 

WDEQ. Letter from D. Finley, Administrator, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, to 

M. Thomas, Uranerz Energy Corporation. Subject: Permit No. CT-8644. October 2, 2009. 
 Cumulative Impacts

5-65 

WMA. “Wyoming Coal Data." <http://www.wma-minelife.com/coal/coalfrm/coalfrm1.htm> 

(13 October 2009). 2008. 

WOGCC. “Formations.” <http://wogcc.state.wy.us> (4 May 2010). 2010. 

WyGISC. “Mineral Occurrences for Wyoming.” <http://www.wygisc.uwyo.edu/clearinghouse/ 

mineral.html> (3 May 2010). 1990. 

Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments. “Wyoming Biomass Inventory: Animal Waste, 

Crop Residue, Wood Residue, and Municipal Solid Waste.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Office of 

State Lands and Investments, Wyoming State Forestry Division. March 2007.

6-1 

6 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 

6.1 Introduction 

As discussed in Section 8.0 of NUREG–1910, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities (GEIS) (NRC, 2009), monitoring programs, in general, 

are developed for in-situ uranium recovery (ISR) facilities to verify compliance with standards for 

the protection of worker health and safety in operational areas and for protection of the public 

and environment beyond the facility boundary. Monitoring programs provide data on 

operational and environmental conditions so prompt corrective actions can be implemented 

when adverse conditions are detected. In this regard, these programs help limit potential 

environmental impacts at ISR facilities and the surrounding areas. 

Required monitoring programs can be modified to address unique site-specific characteristics 

by the addition of license conditions resulting from the conclusions of the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) safety and environmental reviews. The discussion of the 

proposed monitoring programs for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project is organized as follows: 

• Radiological monitoring (Section 6.2) 

• Physiochemical monitoring (Section 6.3) 

• Ecological monitoring (Section 6.4). 

6.2 Radiological Monitoring 

This section describes the Uranerz Energy Corporation’s (Uranerz, referred to herein as the 

applicant) radiological monitoring program proposed in its license application (Uranerz, 2007) 

and in responses to NRC requests for additional information and open issues. The purpose of 

the radiological monitoring program is to (i) characterize and evaluate the radiological 

environment, (ii) provide data on measurable levels of radiation and radioactivity, and 

(iii) provide data on the principal pathways of radiological exposure to the public (NRC, 2003). 

In accordance with NRC regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40 

(10 CFR Part 40), Appendix A, Criterion 7, a preoperational monitoring program is required to 

establish facility baseline conditions. After establishing the baseline program, ISR facility 

operators are required to conduct an operational monitoring program to measure or evaluate 

compliance with standards and to evaluate the environmental impact of an operating ISR 

facility. Although not a requirement, NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14 (NRC, 1980) provides 

guidance for implementing monitoring programs at uranium mills (which includes ISR facilities) 

that are acceptable to the NRC staff. 

The results from data collected as part of the applicant’s baseline monitoring program are 

discussed in Section 3.12.1 of this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). The 

following sections briefly describe the applicant’s operational monitoring program. 

6.2.1 Airborne Radiation Monitoring 

The applicant proposes to conduct continuous air particulate sampling with weekly filter 

changes and to collect quarterly composite samples and analyze them for natural uranium, Ra226, Th-230, and Pb-210 (Uranerz, 2007). Results of the operational air particulate monitoring 

program would be reported to NRC in semiannual effluent reports, as required by 
Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs 

6-2 

10 CFR 40.65. Radon sampling would be conducted at the same eight air particulate sampling 

locations used for air particulate sampling (Figures 6-1 and 6-2). The applicant has proposed to 

use track-etch radon detectors, which would be exchanged quarterly and analyzed for radon 

concentration. 

The applicant proposes to implement an airborne radiation monitoring program to detect radon 

and air particulate releases from the Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant and Hank Unit 

satellite facility processes. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 show the proposed air sampling locations, 

which based on the recommendations in Regulatory Guide 4.14, include air monitoring stations 

located at or near the site boundaries, in different sectors that represent the highest predicted 

airborne particulate concentrations, and at one control location located upwind from the site. Air 

particulate samplers would be located at four different locations at both the Nichols Ranch and 

Hank Units (Figures 6-1 and 6-2), upwind, downwind, at the nearest residence, and at the 

proposed plant location on each unit. The NRC staff did not concur with the applicant’s 

proposed air particulate sampling locations because site-specific meteorological information 

was not used to site the monitoring locations. NRC staff concluded the applicant proposed 

sampling program did not adequately consider other potential sources of residual uranium from 

airborne releases at the processing facilities including uranium surface contamination, uranium 

packaging operations, and maintenance activities. Therefore, based on the NRC staff safety 

review of the applicant’s technical report, NRC will require by license condition that the applicant 

install a meteorological station within the proposed project area and collect meteorological data 

for a period of 1 year, or until the data collected are determined to be representative of longterm conditions. 

6.2.2 Soils and Sediment Monitoring 

During the ISR operations phase, the applicant proposes to annually collect surface soil 

samples at the same locations sampled for radon (Figures 6-1 and 6-2). Surface soil samples 

would be collected as grab samples from the surface {of 0 to 15 cm [0 to 6 in]} and analyzed for 

total uranium, Th-230, Ra-226, and Pb-210 in accordance with Regulatory Guide 4.14. The 

applicant also proposes to annually collect grab sediment samples at the same preoperational 

sampling locations shown in Figures 6-3 and 6-4. The sediment samples would be collected 

upstream at the license boundary, at various locations overlying the ore body, and at the 

downstream license boundary and be analyzed for total uranium, Ra-226, Pb-210, and Th-230. 

Before decommissioning, but after operations ended, subsurface soil samples would be 

collected to compare with subsurface soil samples collected during the preoperational 

monitoring program. 
Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs

6-3 

Figure 6-1. Nichols Ranch Unit Air Particulate and Radon Monitoring Locations 

Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007) 
Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs 

6-4 

Figure 6-2. Hank Unit Air Particulate and Radon Monitoring Locations 

Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007) 
Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs

6-5 

Figure 6-3. Nichols Ranch Unit Sediment Sample Locations 

Note: This figure shows both the soil and sediment locations sampled for the applicant’s baseline 

survey. The applicant’s proposed operational monitoring program for sediments is to sample at 

the same location as the baseline survey. The applicant’s proposed operational monitoring 

program for soils is shown in Figure 6-1. Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007)
Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs 

6-6 

Figure 6-4. Hank Unit Sediment Sample Locations 

Note: This figure shows both the soil and sediment locations sampled for the applicant’s baseline 

survey. The applicant’s proposed operational monitoring program for sediments is to sample at 

the same location as the baseline survey. The applicant’s proposed operational monitoring 

program for soils is shown in Figure 6-2. Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007)
Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs

6-7 

6.2.3 Vegetation, Food, and Fish Monitoring 

As described in SEIS Section 3.12.1, the applicant conducted preoperational vegetation 

sampling at various locations on and adjacent to the Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. In its 

license application, the applicant stated that no liquid effluents would be dispersed of via surface 

water and that the air pathway would be limited to the generation of radon emissions with no 

uranium particulate emissions (Uranerz, 2007). The applicant proposes to locate process 

equipment on curbed, reinforced concrete pads to prevent liquids from entering the 

environment; any spills or releases would be pumped back into the process circuit or sent to a 

deep disposal well (Uranerz, 2007). 

The applicant evaluated predicted dose to an individual using the MILDOS-Area model, and the 

NRC staff confirmed that the ingestion pathway to individuals from vegetation, food, and fish 

would be insignificant. Therefore, in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14, the applicant 

does not intend to conduct vegetation, food, or fish sampling, because the predicted dose to an 

individual from these pathways would be less than 5 percent of the applicable radiation 

protection standard in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14. However, if the applicant 

determines that there are other significant potential sources of radioactive particulates that could 

be released from the process facilities, then the applicant may be required to conduct 

vegetation, food, and fish sampling in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14. 

6.2.4 Surface Water Monitoring 

The proposed project area contains only ephemeral channels that remain dry for most of the 

year. As noted in SEIS Section 3.5.1.3, the streams only flow in response to heavy snowmelt 

and large rainfall events. The applicant has stated that surface water samples would be 

collected at the same locations sampled for the preoperational baseline and measured for the 

constituents listed in the license application (Uranerz, 2007, Table D6A-1) when water is 

present (Uranerz, 2007). 

6.2.5 Groundwater Monitoring 

Groundwater monitoring of private wells located within 1 km [0.6 mi] of the boundary of an 

operating wellfield would be performed to detect potential radiological contamination. For the 

Nichols Ranch Unit, four private wells were identified as the Red Springs #4 Lower (DW-4L), 

Pats Well #1, and Brown 20-9 (Uranerz, 2007). For the Hank Unit, private wells were identified 

as BR-F, Dry Willow #1, and Means #1 (Uranerz, 2007). Figures 3-6 and 3-7 show the well 

locations. These wells would be sampled quarterly and analyzed for natural uranium and Ra226 with the landowner’s consent to monitor for potential radiological impacts from the ISR 

operation. 
Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs 

6-8 

Figure 6-5. Nichols Ranch Unit Surface Water Sample Locations 

Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007) 
Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs

6-9 

Figure 6-6. Hank Unit Surface Water Sample Locations. 

Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007) 
Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs 

6-10 

Figure 6-7. Nichols Ranch Unit Monitoring Well Locations 

Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007) 

 
Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs

6-11 

Figure 6-8. Hank Unit Monitoring Well Locations 

Source: Modified from Uranerz (2007) 
Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs 

6-12 

6.3 Physiochemical Monitoring 

The ISR process significantly alters the water quality in the production zone aquifer. Therefore, 

before uranium extraction may occur in a production aquifer, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) must exempt the production aquifer. Appendix C of this final SEIS discusses the 

criteria EPA uses for an aquifer exemption. During operations, physiochemical groundwater 

monitoring is conducted by a licensee to limit potential impacts to groundwater quality in 

nonexempt aquifers surrounding the exempt production zone aquifer. Physiochemical 

monitoring by a licensee provides data on operational and environmental conditions so that 

prompt corrective actions can be taken if an adverse condition is detected (NRC, 2009). The 

applicant’s proposed physiochemical monitoring program at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

includes wellfield groundwater monitoring and wellfield and pipeline flow and pressure 

monitoring discussed in SEIS Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2, respectively. The relevant guidance for 

conducting this monitoring is discussed in each subsection. 

6.3.1 Wellfield Groundwater Monitoring 

GEIS Section 8.3 discusses the potential for ISR production processes to affect groundwater in 

and near the operating wellfield (NRC, 2009). For this reason, groundwater conditions are 

extensively monitored both before and during operations and after restoration. The 

methodology on how appropriate well spacing and sampling frequency is determined is 

described in NUREG–1569, the Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction 

License Applications (NRC, 2003). The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project preoperational 

and baseline groundwater monitoring is discussed next in Section 6.3.1.1. The groundwater 

quality monitoring during operation and restoration is discussed in Section 6.3.1.2. 

6.3.1.1 Preoperational Groundwater Sampling 

GEIS Section 8.3.1.1 discusses how a baseline groundwater quality program would be 

established prior to uranium production (NRC, 2009). The purpose of this program is to 

characterize the water quality in monitoring wells that are used to detect lixiviant excursions 

from the ore production zones, to recover excursions, and to establish restoration target values 

(RTVs) for aquifer restoration after the operations phase is complete. 

At the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, the applicant collected groundwater samples from 

wells located throughout the proposed project area to evaluate preoperational water quality as 

part of the site characterization as discussed in SEIS Section 3.5.2.3.3. The purpose of the 

preoperational sampling is to evaluate the overall groundwater quality in the proposed project 

area under normal preoperational conditions. It is not used to establish the baseline water 

quality for determining the restoration criteria for the individual wellfields. The applicant also 

conducted pumping tests of the aquifers to characterize aquifer behavior. Nine single-well and 

three multiwell pumping tests were performed at the Nichols Ranch Unit to determine the 

hydraulic characteristics of the underlying aquifers. The applicant conducted 11 single-well 

tests and 3 multiwell pumping tests across the Hank Unit to determine the hydraulic 

characteristics of the underlying aquifers. The test results provided a preliminary baseline of 

groundwater behavior in the proposed project area. 

During the preoperational phase of an ISR facility, an applicant sets up a monitoring network to 

monitor the performance of the affected aquifers during the operation of the ISR facility. The 

applicant at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project has proposed to install ore zone 

monitoring wells (A Sand at the Nichols Ranch Unit; F Sand at the Hank Unit) at a spacing of 
Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs

6-13 

one well per 1.6 ha [4 ac] in the wellfields at both units. By license condition, the ore zone 

monitoring wells would be sampled four times on a twice per month basis to establish wellfield 

baseline water quality. Data for each water quality parameter identified in the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality-Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD) Guideline No. 8 

(WDEQ, 2005), including uranium parameters, would be averaged (Uranerz, 2010). If the 

collected wellfield data indicated that waters of different underground water classes coexist 

(WDEQ-LQD Rules and Regulations, Chapter VIII), then the data would not be averaged but 

rather treated as subzones. Sub-zone-specific data would also be averaged. A subzone 

boundary would be delineated halfway between the sampled well sets as appropriate. The third 

and fourth sample events could be analyzed for a reduced set of parameters depending on 

which parameters were not detected during the first and second sampling events. 

Once the baseline water quality for each wellfield was established, the baseline water quality 

would be used to establish the RTVs that would be used to assess the effectiveness of 

groundwater restoration on a wellfield-specific basis. The restoration target values (parameters 

listed in Uranerz, 2007, Table 5-1) are a combination of the average and a range of baseline 

values for specific constituents in wells completed in the Nichols Ranch Unit “A Sand” ore 

production zone and the Hank Unit “F Sand” ore production zone. WDEQ would review and 

approve the baseline water quality assessment and restoration target values for each wellfield. 

NRC would also review and approve the restoration target values for specific parameters. 

Monitoring wells would be installed in a ring around each wellfield before operations began to 

monitor for horizontal excursions from the ore production zones, the Nichols Ranch Unit “A 

Sand,” and the Hank Unit “F Sand.” Monitoring wells would be located approximately 150 m 

[500 ft] from the production area boundary and spaced 150 m [500 ft] apart within each unit 

(Uranerz, 2007). Based on the applicant’s analytical and numerical groundwater flow 

monitoring, the applicant concluded and NRC staff agreed that this spacing and distance were 

appropriate to detect potential horizontal excursions. Based on the NRC safety review NRC will 

require by license condition the wells to be sampled four times prior to wellfield operation on a 

twice per month basis to establish baseline water quality and upper control limits (UCLs) for 

operational excursion monitoring. The first and second samples would be analyzed for the full 

set of WDEQ-required constituents (Uranerz, 2007, Table D6-6a); however, the third and fourth 

sample events could be analyzed for a reduced set of parameters depending on which 

parameters were not detected during the first and second sampling events. The applicant has 

also proposed to measure water levels in the monitoring wells; however, these data would not 

be used as excursion indicators (Uranerz, 2007). 

The applicant would also be required to install overlying and underlying aquifer monitoring wells 

in the wellfields at both units to detect vertical excursions. Overlying and underlying monitoring 

wells would be spaced approximately one well to every 1.6 ha [4 ac]. The overlying and 

underlying aquifers at the Nichols Ranch Unit, are the “B Sand” and the “1 Sand”, respectively. 

The overlying and underlying aquifers at the Hank Unit are the “G Sand” and the “C Sand” or “B 

Sand”, respectively. In narrow areas of the wellfield, the overlying and underlying monitoring 

wells would be spaced no farther than 305 m [1,000 ft] apart. 

Like the applicant’s proposed sampling for horizontal excursions described previously, NRC will 

require by license condition that the applicant sample overlying and underlying aquifer wells four 

times prior to wellfield operation on a twice per month basis. The first and second samples 

would be analyzed for the full set of WDEQ-required constituents (Uranerz, 2007, Table D6-6a); 

however, the third and fourth sample events could be analyzed for a reduced set of parameters 

depending on which parameters were not detected during the first and second sampling events. 
Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs 

6-14 

The applicant has also proposed to measure water levels in the monitoring wells; however, 

these data would not be used as excursion indicators (Uranerz, 2007). 

The applicant installed four additional monitoring wells in the surficial aquifer—two at the 

Nichols Ranch Unit and two at the Hank Unit—to better characterize the background 

groundwater quality. As discussed in SEIS Section 3.5.2, the water quality of the surficial 

aquifer could be impacted by (i) spills, piping, and casing leaks, which provide an artificial 

connection (e.g., a wellbore) between the surficial aquifer and deeper aquifers, and (ii) 

discharges from current and future CBM-produced water to surface impoundments. Based on 

the NRC safety review, NRC will require by license condition that the applicant sample the 

surficial aquifer monitoring wells four times on a twice per month basis prior to wellfield 

operation at both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units to establish their baseline water quality. 

The first and second samples would be analyzed for the full set of WDEQ-required constituents 

(Uranerz, 2007, Table D6-6a); however, the third and fourth sample events could be analyzed 

for a reduced set of parameters depending on which parameters were not detected during the 

first and second sampling events. 

 

After completion of well installation and wellfield baseline groundwater sampling and wellfield 

characterization at both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units, the applicant has stated it would 

conduct multiwell pumping tests to verify communication between the wellfield and monitoring 

well ring. NRC staff determined that the applicant developed an acceptable pumping test 

strategy to demonstrate communication between the Nichols Ranch Unit A Sand confined 

aquifer with the monitoring well ring. However, the applicant did not provide a pumping test 

strategy to demonstrate communication across the Hank Unit unconfined F Sand aquifer. 

Based on the NRC safety review, NRC will require by license condition that the applicant 

conduct a hydrogeologic test at the Hank Unit prior to lixiviant injection and report the results to 

NRC for review and approval. The hydrogeologic test will allow the applicant to demonstrate 

that a hydraulic gradient can be maintained to prevent excursions beyond the perimeter 

production zone monitoring well ring. Following completion of the hydrogeologic test, the 

applicant would develop a pumping test strategy for the Hank Unit F Sand wellfields to provide 

to NRC and WDEQ for review and approval (Uranerz, 2010). 

After wellfield testing is completed, the applicant would prepare a production area pump test 

report for each production area describing the production area geology, hydrogeology, pumping 

test results, baseline groundwater quality for all aquifers, UCLs for the excursion monitoring 

wells, and RTVs for the production zone. The applicant’s Safety and Environmental Review 

Panel (SERP), responsible for monitoring any proposed change in the facility or process, would 

review these reports to ensure that the hydrologic testing results and planned ISR activities 

were consistent with the technical requirements and did not conflict with NRC regulatory 

requirements. The report would then be submitted to WDEQ and NRC for review and approval 

before ISR operations commenced. Based on the NRC safety review, NRC will have a license 

condition addressing submission of the first production area pump test reports in each unit for 

review and approval. 

The Uranerz license application (Uranerz, 2007) provides detailed procedures for sampling and 

analysis, including methods for measuring water levels, well purging and sampling protocols, 

sample preservation and documentation, analytical methods, and quality assurance/quality 

control requirements. 
Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs

6-15 

6.3.1.2 Groundwater Quality Monitoring 

GEIS Section 8.3.1.2 details the placement of monitoring wells at an ISR facility around the 

wellfields in the aquifers overlying and underlying the ore-bearing production aquifers and within 

the wellfields for early detection of potential horizontal and vertical lixiviant excursions during 

production operations. Monitoring well placement is based on a number of factors including the 

nature and extent of the confining layer and the occurrence of drill holes, hydraulic gradient and 

aquifer transmissivity, and well abandonment procedures used in the region. The ability of a 

monitoring well to detect groundwater excursions is influenced by several factors, such as the 

thickness of the aquifer, the distance between the monitoring wells and the wellfield, the 

distance between adjacent monitoring wells, the frequency of groundwater sampling, and 

the magnitude of changes in lixiviant migration indicator parameters. Therefore, the 

spacing, distribution, and number of monitoring wells are site specific. 

The applicant’s proposed groundwater monitoring program at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

would be designed to detect lixiviant excursions outside the producing wellfield into the 

overlying and/or underlying or adjacent aquifers. Lixiviant excursions can be caused by 

(i) improper water balance between injection and recovery rates, (ii) undetected high 

permeability strata or geological faults, (iii) improperly plugged or abandoned drill holes, (iv) 

discontinuity within confining layers, (v) poor well integrity, or (vi) hydrofracturing of the ore zone 

or surrounding units. Section 5.7.8 of the applicant’s technical report documents the 

groundwater monitoring and underlying aquifer monitoring wells twice monthly at intervals of 

approximately 2 weeks and analyze them for the UCL parameters of chloride, total alkalinity, 

and conductivity, which are the excursion indicators (Uranerz, 2007). The applicant would also 

measure and record static water levels. Chloride was selected as an excursion indicator 

because of its low concentration in native groundwater; chloride would be introduced into the 

lixiviant from the ion exchange process and is very mobile in groundwater. Conductivity was 

selected as an excursion indicator because it is an indicator of overall groundwater quality. 

Finally, total alkalinity was selected as an excursion indicator because bicarbonate is the major 

constituent added to the lixiviant during production. The applicant would submit quarterly static 

water level measurements and monitoring data to WDEQ and maintain copies onsite for NRC 

review (Uranerz, 2007). 

After operations were complete, the wellfields would be restored. The applicant would sample 

the same horizontal perimeter and overlying/underlying monitoring wells used during production 

for aquifer restoration. During restoration, lixiviant injection would cease, thereby reducing the 

potential for an excursion. The applicant has proposed a reduced groundwater monitoring 

program during aquifer restoration because lixiviant injection would have ceased. During the 

aquifer restoration phase, wells located in the perimeter monitoring ring and completed in the 

overlying and underlying aquifers would be sampled every 60 days for chloride, alkalinity, and 

conductivity excursion parameters. An excursion would be defined in the same manner as 

during operations and subject to the same corrective action requirements. 

6.3.2 Wellfield and Pipeline Flow and Pressure Monitoring 

GEIS Section 8.3.2 discusses operator monitoring of injection and production well flow rates to 

manage the entire wellfield water balance. The pressure of each production well and the 

production trunk line in each wellfield header house would also be monitored. Unexpected 

losses of pressure may indicate equipment failure, a leak, or well integrity problems. 
Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs 

6-16 

The applicant has proposed an extensive program of wellfield and pipeline flow and pressure 

monitoring at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project as described in Uranerz’s license application 

technical report Section 3.5 (Uranerz, 2007). Injection well and production well flow rates and 

pressures would be monitored at each header house to balance injection and production in 

each wellfield pattern and throughout the wellfield. Individual well flow readings would be 

recorded during each shift, and the overall wellfield flow rates would be balanced daily. Flow 

data would also be checked at the central processing plant and satellite facility. The recovery 

and injection trunk lines would be equipped with electronic pressure gauges. Information from 

these gauges would be monitored from the central processing plant and satellite facility control 

rooms. High and low pressure and flow alarms would alert wellfield and plant operators if 

specified ranges were exceeded. Automatic shutoff valves would stop the flow in the event of 

significant changes of volume or pressure. The wellfield and pipeline flow monitoring would 

alert the operators to detect malfunctions that could lead to either wellfield infrastructure or 

pipeline failures, thus minimizing the potential impact to groundwater. 

6.3.3 Surface Water Monitoring 

The applicant does not plan to conduct physiochemical monitoring (as described in Section 6.3 

of the SEIS) of surface water, because no surface water discharges would occur as part of the 

ISR process at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. To ensure the protection of surface 

water from unexpected leaks, the applicant would monitor each injection and production well as 

described previously to detect a change in flow and/or pressure, which could indicate a leak or 

rupture in the system. If a leak occurred, the system would be shut down and remediation 

conducted as appropriate. 

6.3.4 Meteorological Monitoring 

To describe the affected environment and assess air quality impacts resulting from the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, the applicant used meteorological data from the Antelope 

Coal Company Mine meteorological station located approximately 77 km [48 mi] southeast of 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The Antelope Coal Company Mine has similar 

topographic features as the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site (Uranerz, 2007) and is 

characterized by mildly rolling hills covered with grass and sparse shrubs. However, based on 

the NRC safety review of the applicant’s technical report, the applicant will be required by 

license condition to install a meteorological station within the proposed project area to collect 

meteorological data for at least 1 year before ISR operations begin. The applicant would be 

required to submit this information to NRC for review. 

6.4 Ecological Monitoring 

6.4.1 Vegetation Monitoring 

As discussed in Section 6.2.3, the applicant concluded from its preoperational vegetation 

sampling program and through modeling that the ingestion pathway would not be a significant 

contributor to radiological dose. Therefore, the applicant does not intend to conduct vegetation, 

food, or fish sampling, because the predicted dose to an individual from these pathways would 

be less than 5 percent of the applicable radiation protection standard. 
Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs

6-17 

6.4.2 Wildlife Monitoring 

Large game animal such as deer or pronghorn have extensive ranges and are not confined to 

the site. Therefore, the potential for bioaccumulation of radionuclides in these animals would be 

limited because they would likely derive only a small fraction of total sustenance from the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. No fish species occur within the proposed project area 

because surface water is ephemeral and there is not a sufficient volume of surface water to 

support aquatic species. 

The applicant has proposed wildlife studies that include annual raptor and sage-grouse surveys 

between late April and early May to identify the occurrence of new nests and leks and to assess 

whether known nests or leks are still active (Uranerz, 2007). The applicant has proposed to 

record activity at identified raptor nests and known leks based on the preoperational surveys 

that were performed. The applicant has also proposed to survey areas of planned activity 

(i.e., wellfields, central processing plant, satellite facility) for the life of the ISR project and within 

a 1.6-km [1-mi] radius of the activity (Uranerz, 2007) to protect against unforeseen conditions, 

such as a new nest or a new lek being affected by ISR operations. 

6.5 References 

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

Source Material.” Washington DC. U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

Licensing of Source Material.” “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: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

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

NRC. NUREG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications—Final Report.” Washington, DC: NRC. June 2003. 

NRC. Regulatory Guide 8.25, “Air Sampling in the Workplace, Revision 1.” Washington, DC: 

NRC. June, 1992. 

NRC. Regulatory Guide 4.14, “Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring at Uranium 

Mills, Revision 1.” Washington, DC: NRC. April 1980. 

Uranerz. Letter from M. Thomas, Environmental Safety and Health Manager, Uranerz Energy 

Corporation, to R. Linton, Project Manager, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Subject: 

Responses to the Open Issues to the Safety Evaluation Report for the Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project License Application.” ML100740143. February 24, 2010. 

 
Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs 

6-18 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, 

November 2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and 

September 2010. Casper, Wyoming: 2007. 

WDEQ. “Guideline No. 8 Hydrology, Coal and Non Coal.” <http://deq.state.wy.us/lqd/ 

guidelns/Guideline8.pdf> March 2005 (13 October 2009). 
7 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS 

7.1 Introduction 

This chapter summarizes benefits and costs associated with Alternative 1 (implementing the 

proposed action), Alternative 2 (the No-Action alternative), and Alternative 3 (Modified Action–

No Hank Unit). Chapter 4 of this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) 

discusses the potential socioeconomic impacts from the construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Nichols Ranch In-Situ Uranium Recovery 

(ISR) Project by Uranerz Energy Corporation (Uranerz, referred to herein as the applicant). 

Implementation of the proposed action would primarily generate regional and local benefits and 

costs. Regional benefits from constructing and operating the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project would be increased employment, economic activity, and tax revenues in the region 

around the proposed site. Some of these regional benefits, such as tax revenues, would accrue 

specifically to Campbell and Johnson Counties where the proposed project would be located, 

and to the towns closest to the project site. Costs associated with the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project would be, for the most part, limited to the area surrounding the site. Examples of 

these costs would include changes to current land use changes to, water use, and increased 

road traffic. 

7.2 No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action alternative, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) would not 

grant the license for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The No-Action alternative would 

result in Uranerz not constructing, operating, restoring the aquifer, or decommissioning the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. No facilities, roads, or wellfields would be built; no 

pipeline would be laid as described in Section 2.1.1.1.2 in this SEIS. No uranium would be 

recovered from the subsurface ore body; therefore, injection, production, and monitoring wells 

would not be installed to operate the facility. No lixiviant would be introduced to the subsurface, 

and no buildings would be constructed to either process extracted uranium or to store chemicals 

used in the process. Because no uranium would be recovered, neither aquifer restoration nor 

decommissioning activities would occur. No liquid or solid effluents would be generated from 

the proposed action. As a result, the proposed site would not be disturbed by the proposed 

project activities and ecological, natural, and socioeconomic resources would remain 

unaffected. Potential environmental impacts from the proposed action would be avoided. 

Similarly, project-specific socioeconomic impacts (e.g., employment, economic activity, 

population, housing, local finance) would also be avoided. 

7.3 Benefits and Costs from the Proposed Action in Campbell and 

Johnson Counties 

Under the proposed action, the applicant would construct, operate, conduct aquifer restoration 

and decommission the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site located in Campbell and 

Johnson Counties, Wyoming. Construction of the central processing plant, satellite facility, 

access roads, and initial development of the wellfields for the proposed project would 

take approximately 9 months to 1 year to complete (Uranerz, 2007). As discussed in 

Section 2.1.1..2.7, construction of the first production areas (wellfield 1) at the Nichols Ranch 

and Hank Units would overlap. Following this, the second production areas (wellfield 2) would 

be constructed at both sites; however, construction of the second production areas (wellfield 2) 

7-1 
Cost-Benefit Analysis 

would overlap the operations phase (wellfield 1) at both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units. The 

schedule showing production, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning phases is shown in 

Figure 2-1. The Nichols Ranch Unit is expected to require a 6-month ramp up to full annual 

production, after which the Hank Unit would start a 6-month ramp up to full production. Uranium 

extraction at the Nichols Ranch Unit would require 3 to 4 years; extraction at the Hank Unit is 

estimated to require 4 to 5 years. Aquifer restoration activities and stability monitoring following 

restoration would occur over a 1- to 5-year period within the proposed 10-year license period. 

The applicant has proposed to conduct final wellfield and site decommissioning within 1 to 2 

years following aquifer restoration and stability monitoring. 

The principal socioeconomic impact or benefit from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

would be an increase in jobs in the region. Over the 10-year license period, the applicant 

expects to employ approximately 45 to 55 employees for the construction and operations 

phases and approximately 20 employees to support aquifer restoration and decommissioning 

activities (Uranerz, 2007). As discussed in Section 4.11, construction and decommissioning 

workers would most likely not relocate to the area, because of the shorter period of time 

(9 months to 2 years) over which these activities would occur. If the majority of 

operational requirements were filled by a workforce from outside the region, given a 

multiplier of about 0.7,1

 there could be an influx of 32 to 39 jobs (i.e., 45 jobs × 0.7 = 32 jobs 

and 55 jobs × 0.7 = 39 jobs). 

The closest town to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is the town of Wright with an 

estimated population of 1,462 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). However, employees supporting 

operations could prefer to reside in larger communities (NRC, 2009) and therefore could choose 

to reside in larger population centers such as Gillette and Casper. The influx of these jobs and 

a reduction of unemployment would have a MODERATE benefit to the businesses in the 

smaller towns such as Wright and a SMALL to MODERATE impact to businesses in larger 

towns located within commuting distance from the proposed project site. 

In addition to creating jobs, the operation of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project and its 

employment opportunities would contribute to local, regional, and state revenues through the 

purchase of goods and services and through the taxes levied on such goods and services. 

Furthermore, severance taxes of 4 percent of taxable market value associated with uranium 

milling/mining in Campbell and Johnson Counties are levied by the State of Wyoming Mineral 

Tax Division of the Department of Revenue (Wyoming Department of Revenue, 2009). The 

applicant’s current resource estimate for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is 

1,145,000 kg [2,521,000 lbs] of uranium for the Nichols Ranch Unit and 841,100 kg 

[1,852,000 lbs] of uranium for the Hank Unit (Uranerz, 2007). If the applicant is able to fully 

recover this resource and sell it at a nominal market price of $60 per pound of uranium, the 

severance tax would yield approximately $10,495,200 in net economic benefits over the life of 

the project. This figure excludes potential reserve resources and the potential benefits derived 

from taxes on royalties or lease payments to local landowners stemming from the operation of 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

 

1

The economic multiplier is used to summarize the total impact that can be expected from change in a given 

economic activity. It is the ratio of total change to initial change. The multiplier of 0.7 was used as a typical 

employment multiplier for the milling/mining industry (Economic Policy Institute, 2003). 

7-2 
Cost-Benefit Analysis 

7.3.1 Benefits from Potential Production 

The employment generated by the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project and the taxes paid by 

the applicant depend on the production of yellowcake. The volume of yellowcake produced 

would depend on the market price for yellowcake (as uranium) and the cost of production. 

Since 2007, the spot-market price for uranium has fluctuated significantly, from a high of over 

$130 in 2007 to as low as $40 in 2009. As of December 10, 2010, the price was $60 pound. 

The project‘s potential benefits to the local community depend on the applicant’s operating costs 

being lower than the future price of uranium. If the price of uranium drops below the operating 

costs, then the operation of the facility would become uneconomic and the operations could be 

suspended and/or discontinued. 

7.3.2 Costs to the Local Communities 

Table 7-1 identifies towns within a 40-km [25-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project and towns within commuting distance {greater than 40 km [25 mi]} from the site and their 

population and distance from the proposed project. 

As stated in Section 7.3, the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would employ 45 to 55 

workers during the ISR operations phase; if the majority of these workers came from outside the 

region, there could be an influx of 32 to 39 jobs (applying an economic multiplier of 0.7). 

Assuming that operations workers would tend to relocate closer to the site, the creation of these 

new jobs could result in an influx of 79 to 97 people, based on an assumption of 2.48 persons 

per household for the State of Wyoming (USCB, 2000). 

Chapter 4 of the SEIS states that because of the small relative size of the workforce at the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, the potential socioeconomics impact would be SMALL 

except for the impact on housing, which could range from SMALL for the region to MODERATE 

for nearby communities. As stated in Section 7.3, operations employees could prefer to reside 

in larger communities (NRC, 2009). The larger population centers closest to the Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project are Gillette and Casper, as shown in Table 7-1. The influx of new jobs along with 

the reduction in unemployment would result in a SMALL impact for the region to a MODERATE 

impact for nearby communities through an increase in housing demand and in the construction 

of new homes within the region of influence. The population growth would have a SMALL 

impact on education infrastructure and health and social services. 

The local communities would require a minimal increase in emergency response and medical 

treatment capabilities because of the small risk of an industrial accident from the 

proposed action. 

7.4 Evaluation Findings of Alternative 3 (Modified Action–No 

Hank Unit) 

Under the modified action alternative, the applicant would construct, operate, and 

decommission and conduct aquifer restoration at only the Nichols Ranch Unit and not the Hank 

Unit. Thus, the project would only consist of extracting uranium from the Nichols Ranch Unit 

7-3 
Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Table 7-1. Towns Near the Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

Towns Within 40 km [25 mi] From the Project Site 

Town Population

Distance from Project 

in km [mi]

Wright 1,462 32 [20] 

Edgerton 176 40 [25] 

Midwest 435 40 [25] 

Towns Greater Than 40 km [25 mi] From the Project Site 

Town Population

Distance from Project 

in km [mi]

Gillette 26,871 74 [46] 

Casper 54,047 98 [61] 

Source: USCB (2008) 

and processing at a central processing plant also located at the Nichols Ranch Unit. 

Construction of the central processing plant, access road, and initial development of the 

wellfields at the Nichols Ranch Unit would still take place over a 9-month to 1-year period. 

Using the projected schedule for the proposed action shown in Figure 2-1 and looking only at 

the Nichols Ranch Unit wellfields, the production in each of the two wellfields would take 

approximately 2.5 years within an approximate 9-year project lifespan. Aquifer restoration and 

stability monitoring following restoration would occur over a 1- to 3-year period within the 

overall life of the project. The applicant would conduct final wellfield and site decommissioning 

1 to 2 years following aquifer restoration and stability monitoring. 

Because only two instead of four production areas would be developed under Alternative 3, 

fewer workers would be employed compared to the proposed action. The principal 

socioeconomic impact or benefit from this alternative would be an increase in jobs in the region, 

although it would be less than the proposed action because only one unit would be developed 

and the operations would be reduced. As discussed in Section 7.3, construction and 

decommissioning workers could choose not to relocate to the area and some operations 

workers could prefer to reside in larger communities. Therefore, under Alternative 3, the influx 

of jobs and a reduction in unemployment would have a MODERATE benefit to businesses in the 

smaller towns such as Wright and could have a SMALL to MODERATE impact on businesses in 

larger towns located within commuting distance from the project site. 

Chapter 4 of the SEIS states that because of the small relative size of the workforce under 

Alternative 3, the impact would be less than that described for the proposed action. Thus, the 

socioeconomic impact would be SMALL except for the impact on housing. The influx of new 

jobs along with the reduction in unemployment would result in a SMALL impact for the region to 

a MODERATE impact for nearby communities through an increase in housing demand and in 

the construction of new homes within the region of influence. The population growth would 

have a SMALL impact on education, health, and social services. 

In addition to creating jobs, the implementation of Alternative 3 and its employment 

opportunities would contribute to local, regional, and state revenues through the purchase of 

goods and services and through the taxes levied on such goods and services. The applicant’s 

current resource estimate for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is 1,145,000 kg 

[2,521,000 lbs] of uranium for the Nichols Ranch Unit (Uranerz, 2007). If the applicant can fully 

recover this resource at the Nichols Ranch Unit and sell it at a nominal market price of $60 per 

pound of uranium, the severance tax would yield approximately $6,050,400 in net economic 

benefits over the life of the project excluding potential reserve resources and the potential 

7-4 
Cost-Benefit Analysis 

benefit from taxes on royalties or lease payments to local landowners from the operation of 

the project. 

7.5 Evaluation of Findings 

Implementation of either the proposed action or Alternative 3 would have a SMALL to 

MODERATE overall economic impact on the region of influence and nearby communities. The 

implementation of the proposed action would generate primarily regional and local benefits and 

costs. The regional benefits from operation of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would 

be increased employment, economic activity, and tax revenues in the region around the site. 

Some of these regional benefits, such as tax revenues, would accrue specifically to Campbell 

and Johnson Counties and towns closest to the project site. Other benefits may extend to 

neighboring counties in the State of Wyoming. Costs associated with the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project would be limited to the area surrounding the site and the communities within 

commuting distance. The implementation of Alternative 3 would still generate primarily regional 

and local benefits and costs. However, because less yellowcake would be produced, there 

would be a need for fewer employees and the overall benefits would be reduced. Table 7-2 

summarizes the costs and benefits of the proposed action and Alternative 3. 

Table 7-2. Summary of Costs and Benefits of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project

Benefits* 

Cost-Benefit Category Proposed Action

Capacity Produced 4.4 million pounds of U3O8

Other Monetary $10.5 million (estimated) 

Nonmonetary (50% of jobs would be from 

Campbell County) 

45 to 55 jobs—during construction, 

operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning 

32 to 39 jobs—local jobs from 

economic multiplier during operation 

and aquifer restoration 

Costs 

Cost-Benefit Category Proposed Action

Education Infrastructure SMALL 

Health and Social Services SMALL 

Housing Demand SMALL for the region 

MODERATE for nearby communities 

Emergency Response SMALL 

*Source: Uranerz (2007) 

7.6 References 

Economic Policy Institute. “Updated Employment Multipliers for the U.S. Economy.” 

Washington, DC. August. < http://www.epi.org/page/old/workingpapers/epi_wp_268.pdf> 

(13 October 2009). 2003. 

 

7-5 
Cost-Benefit Analysis 

7-6 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. Casper, 

Wyoming: 2007. 

USCB. “2008 Population Estimates for Wright, Edgerton, Midwest, Gillette, and Casper in 

Wyoming.” <http://factfinder.census.gov> (16 October 2009). ML092940144. 2008 

USCB. State & County Quick Facts for Wyoming.” <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ 

states/56000.html> ADAMS No. ML092940077. (13 October 2009). 2000. 

Wyoming Department of Revenue. “State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2009 Annual 

Report.” <http://revenue.state.wy.us/PortalVBVS/uploads/ 

Department%20of%20Revenue%20%2010.29.2009.pdf> (11 November 2009). 2009. 
8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This chapter summarizes the potential environmental impacts and consequences of the 

proposed action and reasonable alternatives, including the No-Action alternative. In doing so, 

the potential impacts and consequences of the proposed action are discussed in terms of (i) the 

unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, (ii) the relationship between local short-term uses 

of the environment and the maintenance of long-term productivity, and (iii) the irreversible and 

irretrievable commitment of resources. The information is presented for the proposed action for 

the 13 resource areas and discussed by stage of the proposed facility lifecycle 

(i.e., construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning). The impacts are 

described in Table 8-1. 

The following terms are defined in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003). 

• Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts: applies to impacts that cannot be avoided 

and for which no practical means of mitigation are available 

• Irreversible: involves commitments of environmental resources that cannot be restored 

• Irretrievable: applies to material resources and would involve commitments of materials 

that, when used, cannot be recycled or restored for other uses by practical means 

• Short-term: represents the period from preconstruction to the end of the 

decommissioning activities and therefore generally affects the present quality of life for 

the public 

• Long-term: represents the period of time following the termination of the site license, 

with the potential to affect the quality of life for future generations 

As discussed in Chapter 4, the significance of potential environmental impacts is categorized 

as follows: 

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

would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the 

resource. 

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

destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

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

destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

These alternatives and their environmental impacts are summarized in the following sections. 

Sections 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 describe the environmental consequences from implementing the 

Proposed Action, the No-Action alternative, and Alternative 3 (Modified Action), respectively. 

8.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

Under the Proposed Action, NRC would issue a source material license to Uranerz Energy 

Corporation (Uranerz, referred to herein as the applicant) for the construction, operation, aquifer 

8-1 
Summary of Environmental Consequences 

restoration, and decommissioning of facilities for in-situ recovery (ISR) uranium milling and 

processing at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The construction phase is expected to 

last from about 9 to 12 months during which time buildings, access roads, wellfields, pipelines, 

and underground injection control (UIC) disposal wells for injection of liquid effluent would be 

constructed. The applicant estimates these actions would disturb approximately 120 ha 

[300 ac] of the 1,365 ha [3,371 ac] of the proposed project area over the life of the project. The 

operations phase would last about 5 years; however, wellfield production would be staggered by 

wellfield during that time as shown in Figure 2-1 and described in SEIS Chapter 2. The duration 

of operations in each wellfield would range from 1.25 to 2.5 years. Injection wells would inject 

lixiviant (recovery) solutions into the ore body to recover uranium. Production wells would 

recover the dissolved uranium, which would be processed through the central processing plant 

at the Nichols Unit. Aquifer restoration would be initiated to ensure that water quality and 

groundwater use from surrounding aquifers was not impacted by the proposed action. The 

applicant has estimated that aquifer restoration would take approximately 5 years and would 

also be staggered for each wellfield following the production schedule as shown in Figure 2-1 

(Uranerz, 2007). During the aquifer restoration phase, contaminated groundwater would be 

transferred from one wellfield to the next, replaced with baseline groundwater through pumping 

action (i.e., “sweeping” groundwater), and then passed through ion exchange and reverse 

osmosis equipment during groundwater treatment to minimize the groundwater volume 

consumed during the aquifer restoration phase. During decommissioning, estimated to take 

approximately 1 to 2 years, disturbed lands would be returned to their preextraction use. The 

wells would be plugged and abandoned and land surface reclaimed. In its license application, 

Uranerz committed to the follow cultural resource mitigation measures (Uranerz, 2010) for the 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project and to adhere to the stipulations in the Pumpkin Buttes 

Programmatic Agreement (PA) between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the 

Wyoming SHPO (BLM, 2009) at the Hank Unit (Uranerz, 2010). The potential environmental 

consequences from implementing the proposed action are summarized in Table 8-1. 

8.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative (Alternative 2), NRC would not issue a license. The applicant 

would neither construct buildings, roads, or wellfields nor would the facility be operated at the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Uranium ore would not be recovered from the site, and 

the applicant would not receive a license. Under Alternative 2 there would be no impact to any 

of the 13 resource areas from the proposed licensing action. There would be no unavoidable 

adverse environmental impacts attributable to the proposed action, and no relationship between 

local short-term or long-term uses of the environment. Therefore, there would be no irreversible 

and irretrievable commitment of resources. 

8.3 Modified Action—No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) 

Under Alternative 3, the applicant would construct and operate facilities for ISR uranium milling 

and processing, but only at the Nichols Ranch Unit and not the Hank Unit. NRC would issue a 

license for construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning for an ISR facility 

located at the Nichols Ranch Unit only. During the construction phase, buildings, an access 

road, two wellfields, pipelines, and disposal wells would be constructed and operated resulting 

in the disturbance of approximately 61 to 81 ha [150 to 200 ac] within the 453 ha [1,120 ac] 

licensed area. The operations phase would last about 7 years; however, the individual 

wellfields themselves would be operational from 1.25 to 2.5 years (refer to SEIS Figure 2-1). 

The estimated uranium content to be milled under Alternative 3 would be approximately 

1,145,000 kg [2,521,000 lb] compared to an estimated uranium content of approximately 

8-2 
 Summary of Environmental Consequences

8-3 

1,986,100 kg [4,373,000 lb] under the proposed action. The potential environmental impacts on 

each of the 13 resource areas would either be similar to or less than those for the proposed 

action under Alternative 1 as summarized in Table 8-1. A smaller area of land would be 

disturbed, reducing the impact to geology and soils and to ecological resources such as sage 

grouse leks because eight leks could potentially be affected at the Hank Unit. Generally, less 

equipment and workers would be needed because a smaller area would be developed, thus 

reducing the potential transportation, air quality, noise, visual and scenic resources, and 

socioeconomic impacts. Two identified archaeological sites and one TCP (48CA6754 

48CA6927, and 48CA6148), which are located on top of or between the ore body and proposed 

monitoring wells, would be unaffected if the Hank Unit was not licensed. Under Alternative 3, 

impact to the five identified Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) would also be eliminated. 

The potential environmental consequences from implementing Alternative 3 are summarized in 

Table 8-1. 

8.4 References 

BLM. “Programmatic Agreement Between Bureau of Land Management and Wyoming State 

Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Mitigation of Adverse Effects on the Pumpkin Buttes 

TCP From Anticipated Federal Minerals Development.” ADAMS No. ML092640122. 2009. 

NRC. NUREG–1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with 

NMSS Programs.” Washington, DC: NRC. August, 2003. 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. 

Casper, Wyoming: 2007. 
8-4 

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action 

Impact Category Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Short-Term Impacts and Uses o

the Environment 

Land Use 4.2.1 

Under the proposed action 

(Alternative 1), there would be a small impact on land use during the construction and decommissioning phases of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. During construction, approximately 121 ha (300 ac) at the Nichol Ranch and Hank Units combined would be fenced and disturbed during earth moving activities to construct the central processing plant, satellite facility, build access roads, and develop wellfields. This acreage is less than 10 percent of the proposed project area. During decommissioning, land would be impacted by earthmoving activities to reclaim and reseed the affected areas. 

No impact for either the proposed action 

(Alternative 1) or Alternative 3. There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of land resources from implementing either Alternative 1 or Alternative 3. As shown in Figure 2-1, the proposed duration for ISR activities at the Nichols Ranch Unit has been estimated at approximately 8 years and at approximately 9 years at the Hank Unit. After this time, the land would be reclaimed and made available for other uses. 

There would be a short-term impact t

land use at both the Nichols Ranand Hank Units from implementinthe proposed action from temporalteration of rangeland leases, ashort-term, restricted access to neighboring lands. Approximate121 ha (300 ac) of the proposed project area would be unavailablother uses such as rangeland or grazing; coal bed methane (CBMoil and gas operations could coewith the applicant’s proposed actThe impact would be SMALL. 

Under Alternative 3, approximately 60 ha (150 ac) of 

land or less than 5 percent of the proposed project area would be affected by earthmoving activities at the Nichols Ranch Unit to build the central processing plant, develop two wellfields at the Nichols Ranch Unit, and construct an access road. No earth-moving activities would occur at the Hank Unit. 

Under Alternative 3, the land comprising 

the Hank Unit (911 ha [2,251 ac]) would be available for other uses such as grazing or mineral exploration. 

Under Alternative 3, only 60 ha (150 

of land at the Nichols Ranch Unit would be unavailable for other usLand use at the Hank Unit would be limited. 
8-5 

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action (continu

Impact Category Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Short-Term Impacts and Uses 

Environment 

Transportation 4.3.1 

Under Alternative 1 (the proposed 

action, there would be a SMALL impact. Increased truck and vehicle traffic along State Highway (SR) 387 and along SR 50 to access the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units, respectively, would result in small changes to the current uses of these local roads. 

No Impact. Under Alternative 1 there would be 

SMALL impact. Small increasnumber of traffic accidents resinjuries or fatalities could occusmall increase in vehicular emshould not degrade local air quThe generic environmental impstatement (GEIS) concluded thfrom transporting yellowcake, exchange resin, byproduct maand hazardous chemicals was (NRC, 2009). 

Under Alternative 3, there would be a 

SMALL impact. Increased truck and vehicle traffic would be limited to use of SR 387 at the Nichols Ranch Unit. 

No Impact. Under Alternative 3, there would be 

SMALL impact. The number orelated injuries and fatalities wlikely be less compared to Altesince only roads at the Nichols Unit would be used. Likewise, emissions would be less becauless traffic. 

Geology and Soils 4.4.1 

Under the proposed action (Alternative 

1), there would be a SMALL impact to soils primarily from earthmoving activities associated with the construction and decommissioning phases of the proposed action. Approximately, 121 ha [300 ac] of the surface at both the Nichols and Hank Units would be disturbed to construct the wellfields including header houses, the facilities, and access roads. These impacts would be temporary and at the end of the decommissioning phase the topsoil would be replaced. 

Under the proposed action (Alternative I) 

soil layers would be disturbed during all ISR phases which is irreversible however, topsoil salvaged during construction would be stored and reapplied during decommissioning. Therefore, the potential impact would be SMALL. Reseeding and re contouring would mitigate this impact. 

There would be a SMALL impact o

geology and soils during constfrom soil disturbance during construction of the central procplant, satellite facility, wellfields access roads at the Nichols anUnits. These impacts would bduration of the proposed action (approximately nine years) and approximately 121 ha [300 ac]
8-6 

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action (continu

Impact Category Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Short-Term Impacts and Uses o

Environment 

Geology and Soils 4.4.1 

Under Alternative 3, the area to be 

disturbed would be less. Approximately, 61 to 81 ha [150 to 200 ac] of the surface would be disturbed at the Nichols Ranch Unit. The Hank Unit would be unaffected. 

Under Alternative 3, since soil 

removal activities would only occur at the Nichols Ranch Unit, the potential impact would be less than described for the proposed action because less area would be affected. Topsoil salvaged during the construction phase would be replaced during the reclamation and reseeding processes. 

Under Alternative 3, less of a disturba

geology and soils 

Surface Waters and 

Wetlands 

4.5.1.1 

There would be a SMALL impact on 

surface water from the construction of the central processing plant at the Nichols Ranch Unit and the satellite facility at the Hank Unit, and the two wellfields located at each unit from increased sediment yield in the disturbed areas. No wetlands would be disturbed by the proposed action. However, the applicant has proposed to install wells in the main channels of ephemeral drainages and proposed erosion control mitigation measures such as grading and contouring, installing culverts, and constructing low water crossings of stone, water contour bars and to identify designated traffic routes to mitigate the potential impact on surface water. 

There would be no irreversible and 

irretrievable commitment of either surface water or wetlands from implementing the proposed action. No drainage or body of water would be significantly altered during operations. There would be no impact to wetlands. 

Normal construction activities within b

Hank and Nichols Units and withitwo wellfields located at each unicentral processing plant at the NiUnit and at the satellite facility at Hank Unit, along pipelines and acroads have the potential to result increased sediment yield in surfawater runoff. However, given the absence of perennial streams, the area to be affected, the potential on surface water during constructdecommissioning would primarily limited to uncommon precipitation runoff events. These impacts wofurther mitigated by implementing best management practices descabove. 
8-7 

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action (continu

Impact Category Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Short-Term Impacts and Uses of th

Environment 

Under Alternative 3, there would be a 

SMALL impact on surface water from the construction of the central processing plant at the Nichols Ranch Unit and the two wellfields located at the unit, and from increased sediment yield in the disturbed areas. Since the Hank Unit would not be developed, there would be no impact to the Dry Willow drainage area, in which the Hank Unit is located. No wetlands would be disturbed by the implementation of Alternative 3. However, since the applicant has proposed to install wells in the main channels of ephemeral drainages they have proposed erosion control mitigation measures such as grading and contouring, installing culverts, and constructing low water crossings of stone, water contour bars and to identify designated traffic routes to mitigate the potential impact on surface water from the operations at the Nichols Ranch Unit. 

Under Alternative 3, there would 

be no irreversible and irretrievable commitment of either surface water or wetlands. No drainage or body of water would be significantly altered during operations. There would be no impact to wetlands. 

Under Alternative 3, normal construction 

activities would only occur at the NichRanch Unit including the central procplant, along pipelines and access roathe wellfields, and within the wellfields themselves resulting in the potential fincreased sediment yield in surface wrunoff from the Nichols Ranch Unit. However, given the absence of perenstreams, the small area that would be affected, the potential impact on surfawater during construction and decommissioning would primarily be to uncommon precipitation or runoff eThese impacts would be further mitigimplementing the best management practices described above. 
8-8 

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action (continu

Impact Category Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Short-Term Impacts and Uses of the Environment LGroundwater 4.5.2.1 Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), there would be a SMALL impact on groundwater. Groundwater would be impacted from in situ recovery by consumption of groundwater and degradation of water quality in the ore production zone, the “A” Sand aquifer at the Nichols Ranch Unit, and the “F” Sand Aquifer at the Hank Unit. At both the Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Units, the net consumptive groundwater use during operations and aquifer restoration would reduce the groundwater levels in the A and F 

Sand aquifers by a small fraction of the groundwater levels currently within the aquifers in the Powder River Basin. 

Under Alternative 1 (the proposed 

action), about 99 percent of the groundwater used during the ISR process at the Nichols Ranch Unit would be treated and re-injected into the subsurface and about once percent of the groundwater in the A Sand aquifer would be consumed. At the Hank Unit, about 97 percent of the groundwater used during the ISR process would be treated and re-injected into the subsurface; therefore, about three percent of the groundwater from the F Sand aquifer would be consumed. 

Under Alternative 1 (the proposed 

action), short-term impacts to groundwater would include degradation of the water quality within the ore production zones and the potential to drawdown the water level in neighboring private wells. The applicant has stated that it has confidential agreements in place with private well owners to either provide the pumping capability or to replace wells if the water level drawdowns affect well yield. 

B
8-9 

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action (continu

Impact Category Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Short-Term Impacts and Uses of the Environment 

Under Alternative 3, there would be a 

SMALL impact on groundwater. Groundwater would only be impacted from in situ recovery by consumption of groundwater and degradation of water quality in the ore production zone at the Nichols Ranch Unit, the “A” Sand aquifer. Since the Hank Unit would not be developed under this alternative, the groundwater in the “F” Sand aquifer would be unaffected. The net consumptive groundwater use during operations and aquifer restoration would reduce the groundwater levels in the A Sand aquifer by a small fraction of the groundwater levels currently within the aquifers in the Powder River Basin. 

Under Alternative 3, about 

99 percent of the groundwater used during the ISR process at the Nichols Ranch Unit would be treated and reinjected into the subsurface and about once percent of the groundwater in the “A” Sand aquifer would be consumed. Since the Hank Unit would not be developed, there would be no net consumption of groundwater from the “F” Sand aquifer. 

Under Alternative 3, short-term 

impacts to groundwater would include degradation of the water quality within the ore production zone and the potential to drawdown the water level in neighboring private wells. The applicant has stated that it has confidential agreements in place with private well owners to either provide the pumping capability or to replace wells if the water level drawdowns affect well yield. Since no development would occur at the Hank Unit, the well yields in private wells in the vicinity of that unit would be unaffected. 

Ecological Resources 4.6.1 

Under Alternative 1 (the proposed 

action), there would be a SMALL impact. Construction and decommissioning of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project would result in short-term loss (over the ISR facility lifecycle) of vegetation covering a total of 121 ha [300 ac] at the combined Nichols Ranch and Hank Units. Since sagebrush shrublands and mixed grasslands cover 88 percent of the proposed project area, these would be the vegetative communities most likely to be affected. However, the disturbed area would be limited to approximately 24 to 32 ha [60 to 80 ac] of land at any given time. The short-term loss of vegetation could stimulate the introduction and spread of 

Vegetative communities directly 

impacted by earthmoving activities and wildlife injuries and mortalities would be irreversible. However, the implementation of mitigative measures such as the use of fencing to limit wildlife movement and the applicant’s enforcement of speed limits would reduce the potential impact to wildlife. Furthermore, areas impacted by earthmoving activities would be reclaimed and reseeded. 

During any of the ISR phases, direct 

impacts to ecological resources from implementing Alternative 1 (the proposed action) could include injuries and fatalities caused by either collisions with project-related traffic or habitat removal actions from the removal of topsoil. Most habitat disruption would consist of scattered, confined drill sites for wells and would not result in large transformation of the existing habitat. Wildlife could also be displaced by increased noise and traffic. The Federallylisted candidate species, the Greater sage-grouse, is known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site: eight leks within a 
8-10 

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action (continu

Impact Category Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Short-Term Impacts and Uses of the Environment 

undesirable and invasive, nonnative species, and displacement of wildlife species. During the operations and aquifer restoration phases of the ISR facility lifecycle, the use of fences would limit wildlife ingress and egress to wintering habitat. 

3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the Hank Unit and one within the same radius at the Nichols Ranch Unit. The applicant has committed to implement mitigative measures to reduce the potential impact on the Greater sage-grouse as well as other wildlife species. 

Ecological Resources 4.6.1 

Under Alternative 3, the potential 

impact on ecological resources would be SMALL. Since the Hank Unit would not be developed the affected area would be less (i.e., 61 to 81 ha [150 to 200 ac]) than that which would be affected under Alternative 1. Like the proposed action, since the dominant vegetative species is sagebrush shrublands and mixed grasslands, these plant communities would be the most affected if Alternative 3 were to be implemented. Over the life of the project, approximately 12 -16 ha [30 – 40 ac] of land would be disturbed and fenced at any given time. Like actions implemented for the proposed action, the shortterm loss of vegetation could stimulate the introduction and spread of undesirable and invasive, nonnative species, and displacement of wildlife species. During the operations and aquifer restoration phases of the ISR facility lifecycle, the use of fences would limit wildlife ingress and egress to wintering habitat. 

Under Alternative 3, the area of 

vegetative communities directly impacted by earthmoving activities would be less (approximately 46 ha [113 ac]) compared to the proposed action. The occurrence of wildlife injuries and mortalities would be irreversible. However, the implementation of mitigative measures such as the use of fencing to limit wildlife movement and the applicant’s enforcement of speed limits would reduce the potential impact to wildlife. Furthermore, areas impacted by earthmoving activities would be reclaimed and reseeded. 

Like the proposed action (Alternative 

1) during any of the ISR phases, direct impacts to ecological resources could include injuries and fatalities caused by either collisions with project-related traffic or habitat removal actions from the removal of topsoil. Most habitat disruption would consist of scattered, confined drill sites for wells and would not result in large transformation of the existing habitat. Wildlife could also be displaced by increased noise and traffic. Since most of the Greater sagegrouse leks at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project occur at the Hank Unit, and the Hank Unit would not be developed under Alternative 3, the potential to impact this species would be less than under the proposed action. The applicant has committed to implement mitigative measures to reduce the potential impact on the Greater sage-grouse as well as other wildlife species. 

Meteorology, 

Climatology, and Air Quality 

4.7.1 

There would be a SMALL impact. 

During implementation of the proposed action (Alternative 1), there would be increased amounts of dust (particulates) from earthmoving activities to construct the central processing 

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of air resources from implementing the proposed action. 

There would be a temporary, shortterm impact on air quality 

primarily during the construction and decommissioning phases from earthmoving activities and from vehicle emissions. 

The effect would be highly localized 
8-11 

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action (continu

Impact Category Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Short-Term Impacts and Uses of the Environment 

plant and satellite facility at the Nichols and Hank Units, respectively, to develop the wellfields at each unit, lay pipeline, and build access roads to the wellfields. There would be a SMALL impact from vehicular traffic on unpaved roads and from diesel emissions from construction equipment. 

and temporary. Use of mitigative measures such as applying water for dust suppression would limit fugitive dust emissions. 

Under Alternative 3, the impact on air 

quality would be less than under the proposed action because less area would be disturbed since the Hank Unit would not be developed. Earth moving activities under Alternative 3 would affect approximately 61 to 81 ha (150 to 200 ac). 

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of air resources from implementing Alternative 3. 

Under Alternative 3, the short-term 

impacts would be SMALL and less than under Alternative I because less area would be disturbed. 

Noise 4.8.1 

There would be a SMALL impact 

under the proposed action (Alternative 1). The nearest resident is located 1.5 km (0.9 mi) west of the Nichols Ranch Unit and 1 km (0.6 mi) north of the Hank Unit. 

No impact. No impact. 

Under Alternative 3, there would be a 

SMALL impact. The nearest resident is located 1.5 km (0.9 mi) west of the Nichols Ranch Unit. The Hank Unit would not be developed. 

No impact. No impact. 
8-12 

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action (continu

Impact Category Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Short-Term Impacts and Uses of the Environment Historical, Cultural, 

and Paleontological Resources 

4.9.1 

Under the proposed action, there 

would be a MODERATE impact on historic and cultural resources during the ISR construction phase. Archaeological sites at both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units could be affected by construction activities. Sites located near construction areas would be marked, fenced and avoided. However, there would be an adverse effect to the visual setting of five traditional cultural properties (TCPs). The applicant has committed to follow cultural resource mitigation measures identified in its Mine Plan for the NRC and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Land Quality Division permit applications. These measures include, but are not limited to, not conducting and ground-disturbing activities in areas that have not been previously inventoried, notifying both NRC and the WYSHPO if ground-disturbing activities were to occur within the boundaries of an eligible site, among others. The applicant has also committed to follow the stipulations identified in the Programmatic Agreement (PA) between the BLM and WY SHPO (BLM 2009) for mitigation of visual impacts to five identified TCPs. The potential impact on historic and cultural resources during ISR operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning would be SMALL because no sites would be directly affected by 

plant activities because sites would be marked, fenced, and avoided. However, there would continue to be an adverse effect 

If historic and archeological sites 

could not be avoided during the ISR lifecycle at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, this could result in an irreversible and irretrievable loss of cultural resources potentially resulting in a MODERATE to LARGE impact. 

Under the proposed action, during all 

phases of the ISR facility lifecycle, there would be limited access to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP and four additional TCPs resulting in a SMALL impact. The development of a Memorandum of Agreement will address adverse effects to the TCPs. 
8-13 

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action (continu

Impact Category Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Short-Term Impacts and Uses of the Environment 

to the visual setting of five identified TCPs. Applicantcommitted mitigation measures that are specific to reducing impacts would remain in effect. 

Under Alternative 3, there would be a 

SMALL impact on historic and cultural resources since only one NRHP-eligible site is located on the Nichols Ranch Unit and it would be marked, fenced, and avoided. No construction would occur at the Hank Unit where most of the NRHP-eligible sites are located. Furthermore, the Nichols Ranch Unit is located beyond the 3.2 km [2 mi] distance stipulated in the PA between the BLM and the WY SHPO regarding the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. The potential impact on historic and cultural resources during ISR operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning would be SMALL because either these activities would be occurring in areas where there are either no known historic and cultural resources or no sites would be directly affected by the activity. The applicant-committed mitigation measures would remain in effect throughout the life of this project. 

If historic and archeological sites 

could not be avoided during the ISR lifecycle at the Nichols Ranch Unit under Alternative 3, this could result in an irreversible and irretrievable loss of cultural resources potentially resulting in a MODERATE to LARGE impact. 

Under Alternative 3, there would be 

no short-term impact on either the Pumpkin Buttes or the four other TCPs because ISR activities would only occur at the Nichols Ranch Unit; no ISR activities would occur at the Hank Unit. 

Visual and Scenic 

Resources 

4.10.1 

Under Alternative 1 (the proposed 

action), implementing the proposed action would result in a MODERATE impact on the visual landscape during the ISR construction phase with respect to the Hank Unit’s location within 3.2 km [2.0 mi] of the base elevation of the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. 

No impact. There would be a MODERATE shortterm impact on the visual 

landscape from implementing the proposed action during the ISR construction phase with respect to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. However, the activities occurring at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 
8-14 

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action (continu

Impact Category Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Short-Term Impacts and Uses of the Environment 

However, the number and size of structures at the Hank Unit would be smaller compared to the Nichols Ranch Unit since the Hank Unit would be a satellite facility. The applicant’s commitment to implement mitigation measures during operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning would result in a SMALL impact. The area surrounding the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project contains wellfields, pipelines, and utility lines associated with CBM development. 

would be consistent with the BLM visual resource classification of the area and the ongoing natural resource extraction activities in the area. Furthermore, the applicant’s commitment to implement mitigation measures would reduce the visual impact on the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. 

Under Alternative 3 there would be a 

SMALL impact on the visual landscape. Since no development would occur at the Hank Unit under this alternative and the Nichols Ranch Unit is located at a distance beyond 3.2 km [2.0 mi] from the base elevation of the Pumpkin Buttes TCP, there would be a SMALL impact to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. 

No impact. There would be a SMALL short-term 

impact to the visual landscape from implementing Alternative 3. The proposed activities would be consistent with the BLM visual resource classification of the area and the ongoing natural resource extraction activities in the area. 

Socioeconomics 4.11.1 

Under Alternative 1 (the proposed 

action), for each phase of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, the socioeconomic impact would be SMALL. Over the life of the operation, there could potentially be a MODERATE impact on housing availability. 

Not applicable Implementing the proposed action 

would predominantly have a SMALL impact on the local communities except for housing availability. Although jobs would be created and tax revenue would be generated to stimulate the local economy, implementation of the proposed action could potentially affect housing availability over the life of the operation and result in a MODERATE impact. 

T

Under Alternative 3, for each phase of 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, the socioeconomic impact would be SMALL. Over the life of the operation, there 

Not applicable The implementation of Alternative 3 

would predominantly have a SMALL impact on the local communities except for housing availability. Although jobs would 

T
8-15 

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action (continu

Impact Category Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Short-Term Impacts and Uses of the Environment 

could potentially be a MODERATE impact on housing availability. Since the Hank Unit would not be developed, fewer workers would be employed and the potential socioeconomic impact would be less than described for the proposed action. 

be created and tax revenue would be generated to stimulate the local economy, implementation of Alternative 3 could potentially affect housing availability over the life of the operation and result in a MODERATE impact. 

Environmental Justice 4.12.1 

There would be no disproportionately 

high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

Not applicable. There would be no disproportionately 

high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

There would be no disproportionately 

high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

Not applicable. There would be no disproportionately 

high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 
8-16 

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action (continu

Impact Category Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Short-Term Impacts and Uses of the Environment Public and 

Occupational Health 

4.13.1 

Under Alternative 1 (the proposed 

action), there would be a SMALL impact on public and occupational health. Construction and decommissioning would generate fugitive dust emissions that could result in a dose comparable to that from natural background exposure based on baseline radiological environmental monitoring which indicates radon in air and the average concentrations of uranium and radium in soils are comparable to those at background. 

Not applicable. Under Alternative 1 (the proposed 

action), there would be a SMALL impact from radiological exposure. The radon dose calculations for the proposed facility under normal operations showed that the potential dose would be less than the 1mSv [100 mrem] per year dose limit for a member of the public, as specified in 10 CFR 20.1301 and also within the range of doses reported in the GEIS. The radiological impacts from accidents would be SMALL for workers if procedures to deal with accident scenarios were followed, and SMALL for the public because of the facility’s remote location. The nonradiological public and occupational health impacts from normal operations, accidents, and chemical exposures would be SMALL if handling and storage procedures were followed. 

Under Alternative 3, there would be a 

SMALL impact from radiological exposure and less than under the proposed action (Alternative 1) because activities would only be occurring at the Nichols Ranch Unit and the scope of construction (no satellite facility, fewer wells to drill, only one access road), operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning activities would be likewise reduced. 

Not applicable. Under Alternative 3, there would be a 

SMALL impact from radiological exposure and less than under the proposed action (Alternative 1) because the elimination of construction activities at the Hank Unit would reduce the combined public and occupational health impacts from construction under the proposed action which includes development of the both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units. The operations impacts would be less because there would be no satellite facility for the shipment of chemicals; no aquifer restoration activities would occur at the Hank Unit 
8-17 

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action (continu

Impact Category Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Short-Term Impacts and Uses of the Environment 

since no wellfields would be developed, and no earthmoving activities associated with decommissioning would occur at the Hank Unit. 

Waste Management 4.14.1.1

Waste generation and disposal from 

activities implemented during all phases of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project under Alternative 1 (the proposed action) would result in SMALL impacts on available disposal capacity, since permitted facilities are available to accept the wastes. Construction wastes would be mostly solids, operations wastes would include solids (primarily municipal waste) and liquids (brine, plant washdown water, and others), and decommissioning wastes would include a range of solid wastes (nonhazardous, hazardous, and solid byproduct material). 

The energy consumed during the 

ISR phases, the construction materials used that could not be reused or recycled, and the space used to properly handle and dispose of all waste types (i.e., wells for liquid wastes and permitted disposal space for solid wastes) would represent an irretrievable commitment of resources, resulting in a SMALL impact. 

During all phases, hazards 

associated with handling and transport of wastes would represent a short-term and SMALL impact. 

Under Alternative 3, the volume of 

waste generation and disposal from activities during all phases of the ISR facility lifecycle would result in a SMALL impact on available disposal capacity, since permitted facilities are available to accept the wastes. Construction wastes would be mostly solids, operations wastes would include solids (primarily municipal waste) and liquids (brine, plant washdown water, and others), and decommissioning wastes would include a range of solid wastes (nonhazardous, hazardous, and solid byproduct material). Since the Hank Unit 

The energy consumed during the 

ISR phases under Alternative 3, the volume of construction materials used that could not be reused or recycled, and the space used to properly handle and dispose of all waste types (i.e., wells for liquid wastes and permitted disposal space for solid wastes) would represent an irretrievable commitment of resources which would be less than that consumed from implementing the proposed action. Therefore, the impact would be SMALL. 

Under Alternative 3, the volume of 

waste to be handled would be less than that from the proposed action; therefore, the potential hazards associated with handling and transport of wastes during all ISR phases would represent a short-term and SMALL impact. 
8-18 

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action (continu

Impact Category Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Short-Term Impacts and Uses of the Environment 

would not be developed under this alternative the volume of wastes that would be generated would also be reduced. 
9 LIST OF PREPARERS 

This section documents all individuals involved with the preparation of this Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). Contributors include staff from the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) and consultants. Each individual’s role, education, and 

experience is outlined as follows. 

9.1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contributors 

Briana Balsam: SEIS Project Manager, Ecology, Threatened and Endangered Species 

B.S., Biology, University of Maryland, 2005 

Years of Experience: 5 

Alan B. Bjornsen: Reviewer 

 M.S., Siviculture, SUNY College of Forestry, 1971 

 M.S., Forestry, Syracuse University, 1971 

 B.S., Geology, Wheaton College, 1968 

 Years of Experience: 38 

John Bradbury: Groundwater 

Ph.D., Geochemistry/Mineralogy, Pennsylvania State University, 1984 

M.S., Geology, University of Colorado, 1975 

B.S., Chemistry, Bucknell University, 1970 

Years of Experience: 26 

Jennifer Davis: Socioeconomics and Cultural Resources 

 B.A., Historic Preservation and Classical Civilization (Archaeology), Mary Washington 

 College, 1996 

 Years of Experience: 11 

Kellee Jamerson: Reviewer 

 B.S., Environmental Science, Tuskegee University, 2006 

 Years of Experience: 2 

Ron Linton: SER Project Manager 

M.S., Geology, West Virginia University, 1992 

B.S., Geology, James Madison University, 1984 

Years of Experience: 22 

Paul Michalak: Groundwater 

M.S., Hydrology, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, 1989 

B.S., Education, Temple University, 1978 

Years of Experience: 21 

Johari Moore: Public and Occupational Health 

M.S., Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Science, University of Michigan, 2005 

B.S., Physics, Florida A&M University, 2003 

Years of Experience: 5 

9-1 
List of Preparers 

James Park: Reviewer 

M. Ed., Childhood Education, Marymount University, 1999 

M.S., Structural Geology and Rock Mechanics, Imperial College, University of London, 

 England, 1988 

B.S., Geology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1986 

Years of Experience: 15 

Christine Pineda: Reviewer 

 M.S., Environmental Sciences and Policy, Johns Hopkins University, 2000 

 B.A., Sociology, Dickinson College, 1993 

 Certificate, Environmental Studies, Dickinson College, 1993 

 Years of Experience: 11 

Ashley Riffle: Reviewer 

B.S., Biology, Frostburg State University, 2009 

Years of Experience: 1 

Elise Striz: Groundwater Reviewer 

Ph.D, Petroleum Engineering, University of Oklahoma, 1998 

M.S., Civil Engineering, University of Oklahoma, 1985 

B.S., Environmental Engineering, Purdue University, 1981 

Years of Experience: 17 

Patricia Swain: SEIS Project Manager 

M.S., Geology, University of California, Los Angeles, 1981 

B.S., Geology, University of Texas at Austin, 1976 

Years of Experience: 24 

Jim Webb: Public and Occupational Health Reviewer 

M.S., Marketing and Communication, Franklin University, 2000 

M.B.A., Business Administration, Lake Erie College, 1983 

B.S., Radiological Health Physics, Lowell University, 1978 

Years of Experience: 31 

Irene Wu: SEIS Project Manager 

M. Eng., Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institutes of 

 Technology, 2000 

B.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, 1999 

Years of Experience: 10 

9.2 Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA®) 

Contributors 

Hakan Basagaoglu: Water Resources, Cumulative Impacts 

Ph.D., Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, 2000 

M.S., Geological Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Turkey, 1993 

B.S., Geological Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Turkey, 1991 

Years of Experience: 17 

9-2 
List of Preparers 

Paul Bertetti: Water Resources 

M.S., Geology, University of Texas at San Antonio, 1999 

B.S., Geology, University of Texas at San Antonio, 1991 

Years of Experience: 18 

Philippe Dubreuilh: Land Use 

Ph.D., Geology, University of Bordeaux, France, 1982 

M.S., Geology, University of Bordeaux, France, 1977 

B.S., Geology, University of Bordeaux, France, 1976 

Years of Experience: 34 

Amy Glovan: Ecological Resources 

B.A., Environmental Studies, University of Kansas, 1998 

Years of Experience: 11 

Lane Howard: Occupational Health and Safety (Nonradiological and Radiological) 

M.S., Nuclear Engineering, Texas A&M University, 1995 

B.S., Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, 1988 

Years of Experience: 22 

Miriam Juckett: NEPA Reviewer 

M.S., Environmental Sciences, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2006 

B.S., Chemistry, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2003 

Years Experience: 7 

Patrick LaPlante: Transportation and Air Quality 

M.S., Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Georgetown University, 1994 

B.S., Environmental Studies, Western Washington University, 1988 

Years of Experience: 22 

Chandrika Manepally: Water Resources 

M.S., Civil Engineering, University of Toledo, 1997 

B.E., Civil Engineering, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India, 1995 

Years of Experience: 15 

James Myers: Waste Management, Geology and Soils 

Ph.D., Environmental Science & Engineering, Clemson University, 2004 

M.S., Geophysical Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1990 

B.S., Geology, Michigan State University, 1985 

Years of Experience: 25 

Jude McMurry: Noise, Visual and Scenic Resources 

Ph.D., Geosciences, Texas Tech University, 1991 

M.A., Geological Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, 1982 

B.A., English, McMurry University, 1975 

Years Experience: 35 

James Prikryl: Water Resources 

M.A., Geology, University of Texas at Austin, 1989 

B.S., Geology, University of Texas at Austin, 1984 

Years of Experience: 25 

9-3 
List of Preparers 

Robert Pauline: Cumulative Impacts 

M.S., Biology, Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, 1999 

B.S., Biology, Bates College, 1989 

Years Experience: 21 

Marla Roberts: Co-Principal Investigator 

M.S., Geology, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2007 

B.A., Geology, Vanderbilt University, 2001 

Years Experience: 9 

John Stamatakos: Project Manager 

Ph.D., Geology, Lehigh University, 1990 

M.S., Geology, Lehigh University, 1988 

B.S., Geology, Franklin and Marshall College, 1981 

Years of Experience: 29 

David Turner: Cumulative Impacts 

Ph.D., Geology, University of Utah, 1990 

M.S., Geology, University of Utah, 1985 

B.A., Music and Geology, College of William and Mary, 1981 

Years Experience: 29 

Deborah Waiting: GIS Analyst 

B.S., Geology, University of Texas at San Antonio, 1999 

Years Experience: 11 

Gary Walter: Waste Management Resources 

Ph.D., Hydrology, University of Arizona, 1985 

M.A., Geology, University of Missouri, Columbia, 1974 

B.A., Chinese and Sociology, University of Kansas, 1969 

Years Experience: 41 

Bradley Werling: Co-Principal Investigator 

M.S., Environmental Science, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2000 

B.S., Chemistry, Southwest Texas State University, 1999 

B.A., Engineering Physics, Westmont College, Santa Barbara, 1985 

Years of Experience: 25 

Gordon Wittmeyer: Water Resources 

Ph.D., Hydrology, University of Arizona, 1990 

M.S., Civil Engineering, Stanford University, 1982 

B.A., Economics, Claremont Men’s College, 1981 

B.S., Industrial Engineering, Stanford University, 1981 

Years Experience: 29 

 

9-4 
List of Preparers 

9-5 

9.3 CNWRA Consultants and Subcontractors 

Environmental Impact Training 

Larry Canter: Cumulative Impacts 

Ph.D., Environmental Health Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 1967 

M.S., Sanitary Engineering, University of Illinois, 1962 

B.S., Civil Engineering, Vanderbilt University, 1961 

Years of Experience: 49 

White Earth Consulting 

Susan Courage: Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

M.S., Environmental Science, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2003 

B.S., Biology, University of Texas at San Antonio, 1999 

Years of Experience: 11 

Raba-Kistner Consulting 

Pollyanna Held: Cultural and Historic Resources 

M.A., Anthropology, University of Mississippi, Oxford, 2004 

A.B., Anthropology, Princeton University, 1992 

Years of Experience: 18

10 DISTRIBUTION LIST 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing copies of this Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to the following organizations and individuals. The 

NRC would provide copies to other interested organizations and individuals upon request. 

10.1 Federal Agency Officials 

Kerry Aggen 

Bureau of Land Management 

Buffalo Field Office 

Buffalo, WY 

James Hanley 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 8 

Denver, CO 

Ramon Nation 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Wind River Agency 

Ft. Washakie, WY 

Reid Nelson 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Washington, DC 

Pete Ramirez 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mountain-Prairie Region 

Wyoming Field Office 

Cheyenne, WY 

Carol Rushin 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 8 

Denver, CO 

Pete Sokolosky 

Bureau of Land Management 

State Office 

Cheyenne, WY 

Duane Spencer 

Bureau of Land Management 

Buffalo Field Office 

Buffalo, WY 

10-1 
Distribution List 

Robert Stewart 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Office of the Secretary 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Denver, CO 

Larry Svoboda 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 8 

Denver, CO 

10.2 Tribal Government Officials 

Cedric Black Eagle 

Crow Tribe 

Crow Agency, MT 

Joseph Brings Plenty Sr. 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Council 

Eagle Butte, SD 

Perry Brady 

Three Affiliated Tribes Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

New Town, ND 

Michael Catches Enemy 

Oglala Sioux Tribe 

Pine Ridge, SD 

Darlene Conrad 

Arapaho Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

Ft. Washakie, WY 

Conrad Fisher 

Northern Cheyenne Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

Lame Deer, MT 

Vernon Hill 

Shoshone Oil & Gas Commission 

Ft. Washakie, WY 

Wilmer Mesteph 

Oglala Sioux Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

Pine Ridge, SD 

John Murray 

Blackfeet Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

Browning, MT 

10-2 
Distribution List 

Dale Old Horn 

Crow Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

Crow Agency, MT 

Donna Rae Peterson 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

Eagle Butte, SD 

Ivan Posey 

Shoshone Business Council 

Ft Washakie, WY 

Willie Sharp 

Blackfeet Tribe 

Browning, MT 

Leroy Spang 

Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council 

Lame Deer, MT 

Harvey Spoonhunter 

Arapaho Tribal Business Council 

Ft. Washakie, WY 

A. T. Stafne 

Ft. Peck Tribal Executive Board 

Poplar, MT 

Hubert Two Leggins Crow Tribe 

Crow Agency, MT 

Marcus Wells Jr. 

Three Affiliated Tribes Business Council 

New Town, ND 

John Yellow Bird Steele 

Oglala Sioux Tribal Council 

Pine Ridge, SD 

Darrel “Curley” Youpee 

Ft. Peck Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

Poplar, MT 

10.3 State Agency Officials 

Richard Currit 

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

Cheyenne, WY 

10-3 
Distribution List 

Mary Hopkins 

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

Cheyenne, WY 

Don McKenzie 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Cheyenne, WY 

Mark Rogaczewski 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Sheridan District 

Sheridan, WY 

10.4 Local Agency Officials 

Gerald Fink 

Johnson County Commissioners 

Buffalo, WY 

Robert Palmer 

Campbell County Commissioners 

Gillette, WY 

10.5 Other Organizations and Individuals 

Shannon Anderson 

Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Sheridan, WY 

Geoffrey Fettus 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Washington, DC 

Sarah Fields 

Sierra Club–Glen Canyon Group 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Eric Jantz 

New Mexico Environmental Law Center 

Santa Fe, NM 

Jim Jones 

Hulett, WY 

Steve Jones 

Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Lander, WY 

 

10-4 
Distribution List 

10-5 

Cori Lombard 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Washington, DC 

Marion Loomis 

Wyoming Mining Association 

Cheyenne, WY 

Wayne Prindle 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 

Laramie, WY 

Christopher Pugsley, Esq. 

Thompson & Simmons, PLLC on behalf of the National Mining Association 

Washington, DC 

Jonathan Ratner 

Western Watersheds Project 

Pinedale, WY 

Michael Thomas 

Uranerz Energy Corporation 

Casper, WY 

Jay and Wilma Tope 

Tope Ranches 

Aladdin, WY 

Pam Viviano 

Ranchers & Neighbors Protecting Our Water 

Sheridan, WY

APPENDIX A 

CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE 

A–i 

CONTENTS 

Section Page 

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

A–iii 

TABLE 

Section Page 

A–1 Chronology of Consultation Correspondence ............................................................... A–1

A–1 

A CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966, as amended, require that federal agencies consult with applicable state and federal 

agencies and groups prior to taking action that may affect threatened and endangered species, 

essential fish habitat, or historical and archaeological resources. This appendix contains 

consultation documentation related to these federal acts. 

Table A–1. Chronology of Consultation Correspondence 

Author Recipient Date of Letter 

ADAMS 

Accession 

Number 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (G. Suber) 

Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office (M. Hopkins) 

July 1, 2008 ML081760693 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (G. Suber) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (B. 

Kelly) 

July 3, 2008 ML081820857 

Wyoming State Parks and 

Cultural Resources (R. Currit) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (G. Suber) 

July 25, 2008 ML082270716 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(B. Kelly) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (G. Suber) 

August 15, 2008 ML082840332 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (G. Suber) 

Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department (T. Christiansen) 

October 29, 2008 ML082960565 

Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department (T. Christiansen) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (I. Yu) 

November 3, 2008* N/A 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (G. Suber) 

Shoshone Business Council 

(I. Posey) 

December 24, 2008 ML083260467 

Northern Cheyenne Tribal 

Historic Preservation Office (C. 

Fisher) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (I. Yu) 

February 12, 2009 ML090440030 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (I. Yu, B. Shroff, 

and A. Bjornsen) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (A. Kock) 

March 2, 2009 ML090500544 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (A. Kock) 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (C. Vaughn) 

August 24, 2009 ML092321010 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (A. Kock) 

Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office (M. Hopkins) 

August 26, 2009 ML092320627 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (B. Balsam and I. 

Yu) 

File (teleconference summary of 

phone call with U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service [P. Ramirez]) 

November 10, 2009 ML093130107 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (B. Balsam) 

File (teleconference summary of 

phone call with U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service [P. Ramirez]) 

March 25, 2010 ML100760621 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (K. Hsueh) 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

(I. Posey) 

April 23, 2010† ML100880084 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (A. Bjornsen) 

Ft. Peck Assiniboine/Sioux Tribe 

(D.C. Youpee) 

May 12, 2010 ML101370725 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (A. Bjornsen) 

Three Affiliated Tribes (P. Brady) May 12, 2010 ML101370749 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (A. Bjornsen) 

Oglala Sioux Tribe (M. Catches 

Enemy 

May 13, 2010 ML101370688 

 
Appendix A 

A–2 

Table A–1. Chronology of Consultation Correspondence (continued) 

Author Recipient Date of Letter 

ADAMS 

Accession 

Number 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (A. Bjornsen) 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (J. 

Brings Plenty) 

May 13, 2010 ML101370683 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (A. Bjornsen) 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

(C. Fisher) 

May 13, 2010 ML101370646 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (A. Bjornsen) 

Blackfeet Tribe (J. Murray) May 13, 2010 ML101370610 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (A. Bjornsen) 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe (V. Hill) May 13, 2010 ML101370754 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (A. Bjornsen) 

Northern Arapaho Tribe 

(D. Conrad) 

May 13, 2010 ML101370564 

Oglala Sioux Tribe (M. Catches 

Enemy 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (A. Bjornsen) 

May 14, 2010 ML101370519 

Ft. Peck Assiniboine/Sioux 

Tribe (D.C. Youpee) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (A. Bjornsen) 

May 17, 2010 ML101370510 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (A. Bjornsen) 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe (V. Hill) May 17, 2010 ML101370555 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (K. Hsueh) 

Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office (R. Currit) 

June 15, 2010 ML101310126 

Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office (R. Currit) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (K. Hsueh) 

July 8, 2010 ML102000147 

Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office (R. Currit) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (K. Hsueh) 

July 19, 2010 ML102020089 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (D. Skeen) 

Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office (M. Hopkins) 

et al.‡

July 22, 2010 ML101600535 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (K. Hsueh) 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (R. Nelson) 

July 30, 2010 ML101680673 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (R. Wallace) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (K. Hsueh) 

August 4, 2010 ML102210205 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (K. Hsueh) 

Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office (R. Currit) 

August 9, 2010 ML102090620 

TRC Environmental 

Corporation (J. Lowe) 

Uranerz Energy Corporation (M. 

Thomas) 

August 17, 2010 ML102310186 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (K. Hsueh) 

Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office (R. Currit) 

October 15, 2010 ML102700045 

Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office (R. Currit) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (K. Hsueh) 

November 3, 2010 ML103081008 

*

This correspondence is nonpublic due to sensitive information on the Greater sage-grouse. 

†Similar letters were sent to eight other tribes listed in Section 1.7.3.3. 

‡In addition to the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office, this letter was sent to the U.S. Bureau of Land ManagementWyoming State Office and Buffalo Field Office, Uranerz Energy Corporation, and 8 or the 9 tribes listed in Section 1.7.3.3. 

 
 Appendix A

A–3 

 
Appendix A 

A–4 
 Appendix A

A–5 
Appendix A 

A–6 
 Appendix A

A–7 
Appendix A 

A–8 
 Appendix A

A–9 
Appendix A 

A–10 
 Appendix A

A–11 
Appendix A 

A–12 
 Appendix A

A–13 
Appendix A 

A–14 
 Appendix A

A–15 
Appendix A 

A–16 
 Appendix A

A–17 
Appendix A 

A–18 
 Appendix A

A–19 
Appendix A 

A–20 
 Appendix A

A–21 
Appendix A 

A–22 
 Appendix A

A–23 
Appendix A 

A–24 
 Appendix A

A–25 
Appendix A 

A–26 
 Appendix A

A–27 
Appendix A 

A–28 
 Appendix A

A–29 
Appendix A 

A–30 
 Appendix A

A–31 
Appendix A 

A–32 
 Appendix A

A–33 
Appendix A 

A–34 
 Appendix A

A–35 
Appendix A 

A–36 
 Appendix A

A–37 
Appendix A 

A–38 
 Appendix A

A–39 
Appendix A 

A–40 
 Appendix A

A–41 
Appendix A 

A–42 
 Appendix A

A–43 
Appendix A 

A–44 
 Appendix A

A–45 
Appendix A 

A–46 
 Appendix A

A–47 
Appendix A 

A–48 
Appendix A 

A–49 
Appendix A 

A–50 
 Appendix A

A–51 
Appendix A 

A–52 
 Appendix A

A–53 
Appendix A 

A–54 
 Appendix A

A–55 
Appendix A 

A–56 
 Appendix A

A–57 
Appendix A 

A–58 
 Appendix A

A–59 
Appendix A 

A–60 
 Appendix A

A–61 
Appendix A 

A–62 
 Appendix A

A–63 
Appendix A 

A–64 
 Appendix A

A–65 
Appendix A 

A–66 
 Appendix A

A–67 
Appendix A 

A–68 
 Appendix A

A–69 
Appendix A 

A–70 
 Appendix A

A–71 
Appendix A 

A–72 
 Appendix A

A–73 
Appendix A 

A–74 
 Appendix A

A–75 
Appendix A 

A–76 
 Appendix A

A–77 
Appendix A 

A–78 
 Appendix A

A–79 
Appendix A 

A–80 
 Appendix A

A–81 
Appendix A 

A–82 
 Appendix A

A–83 
Appendix A 

A–84 
 Appendix A

A–85 

 
Appendix A 

A–86 
 Appendix A

A–87 
Appendix A 

A–88 
 Appendix A

A–89 
Appendix A 

A–90 
 Appendix A

A–91 
Appendix A 

A–92 

 
 Appendix A

A–93 
Appendix A 

A–94 
 Appendix A

A–95 
Appendix A 

A–96 
 Appendix A

A–97 
Appendix A 

A–98 
 Appendix A

A–99 
Appendix A 

A–100 
 Appendix A

A–101 
Appendix A 

A–102 
 Appendix A

A–103 
Appendix A 

A–104 
 Appendix A

A–105 
Appendix A 

A–106 
 Appendix A

A–107 
Appendix A 

A–108 

 
 Appendix A

A–109 
Appendix A 

A–110 

 
Appendix A 

A–111 

APPENDIX B 

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU RECOVERY 

PROJECT IN CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING, AND NRC 

RESPONSES 

Appendix B 

B–i 

CONTENTS 

Section Page 

TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... iv 

ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... v 

B PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT FOR THE NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT IN 

CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING, AND NRC RESPONSES ........... B–1

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–2

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–6

B.5.1 General Opposition ....................................................................................... B–6

B.5.1.1 References ..................................................................................... B–8

B.5.2 General Support ........................................................................................... B–9

B.5.3 General Environmental Concerns ................................................................. B–9

B.5.4 NEPA Process ............................................................................................ B–10

B.5.4.1 GEIS/SEIS .................................................................................... B–10

B.5.4.2 Adequacy of Impact Assessment ................................................. B–11

B.5.4.3 Range of Reasonable Alternatives ............................................... B–17

B.5.4.4 References ................................................................................... B–18

B.5.5 Purpose, Need, and Scope of the SEIS/GEIS ............................................ B–18

B.5.5.1 Description of the SEIS/GEIS Purpose and Need ........................ B–18

B.5.5.2 Use of the GEIS in Site-Specific Environmental Reviews ............ B–20

B.5.5.3 Scope of the SEIS/GEIS ............................................................... B–22

B.5.5.4 Reference ..................................................................................... B–23

B.5.6 Scoping Process and Scoping Report ........................................................ B–23

B.5.6.1 References ................................................................................... B–24

B.5.7 SEIS/GEIS Methods and Approach ............................................................ B–24

B.5.7.1 Consideration of Compliance History in Assessing Impacts ......... B–24

B.5.7.2 Reliance on Regulatory Compliance to Limit Impacts .................. B–26

B.5.7.3 Methods for Defining Use of Milling Regions ................................ B–26

B.5.7.4 General Comments on GEIS Structure, Methods, and 

Approaches .................................................................................. B–27

B.5.7.5 References ................................................................................... B–28

B.5.8 Public Involvement ...................................................................................... B–29

B.5.8.1 References ................................................................................... B–30

B.5.9 Regulatory Issues and Process .................................................................. B–30

B.5.9.1 NRC as a Regulatory Authority .................................................... B–30

B.5.9.2 NRC Policies and Practices .......................................................... B–31

B.5.9.3 Adequacy of NRC Regulations and Practices .............................. B–32

B.5.9.4 Applicable Rulemaking Efforts ...................................................... B–35

B.5.9.5 NRC NEPA Process Implementation ........................................... B–35

B.5.9.6 NRC Licensing Process ................................................................ B–36
Appendix B 

B–ii 

B.5.9.7 Consideration of ISR Facility Safety Record and Compliance 

History ........................................................................................ B–37

B.5.9.8 Groundwater Restoration Criteria and Methods ........................... B–38

B.5.9.9 References ................................................................................... B–44

B.5.10 Credibility of NRC ....................................................................................... B–45

B.5.10.1 Reference ..................................................................................... B–46

B.5.11 Federal and State Agencies ....................................................................... B–46

B.5.11.1 Roles of Federal, Tribal, State, and Local Agencies..................... B–46

B.5.11.2 Effects of Changes to Federal or State Regulations on the 

SEIS ........................................................................................ B–47

B.5.11.3 Clarification of Other Federal/State Regulations and 

Practices ....................................................................................... B–48

B.5.11.4 References ................................................................................... B–49

B.5.12 Cooperating Agencies and Consultations ................................................... B–49

B.5.12.1 References ................................................................................... B–51

B.5.13 SEIS Schedule ............................................................................................ B–51

B.5.13.1 References ................................................................................... B–52

B.5.14 ISR Process Description ............................................................................. B–52

B.5.14.1 Overview ....................................................................................... B–52

B.5.14.2 Preconstruction and Construction ................................................ B–52

B.5.14.3 Operations .................................................................................... B–54

B.5.14.4 Aquifer Restoration ....................................................................... B–54

B.5.14.5 Gaseous or Airborne Particulate Emissions ................................. B–55

B.5.14.6 Operational History ....................................................................... B–56

B.5.14.6.1Historic Operational Experience: Spills and Leaks ..... B–56

B.5.14.6.2 Historic Operational Experience: Excursions ............. B–57

B.5.14.7 Requests for Detailed Information About All ISR Facilities ........... B–57

B.5.14.8 References ................................................................................... B–58

B.5.15 Financial Surety .......................................................................................... B–58

B.5.15.1 References ................................................................................... B–59

B.5.16 Alternatives ................................................................................................. B–59

B.5.16.1 References ................................................................................... B–61

B.5.17 Land Use .................................................................................................... B–61

B.5.17.1 Ownership Issues, Surface, and Mineral Rights ........................... B–61

B.5.17.2 Amount of Land Affected and Type, Degree, and Duration of 

Potential Impacts .......................................................................... B–62

B.5.17.3 Mitigation and Reclamation Issues ............................................... B–64

B.5.17.4 References ................................................................................... B–65

B.5.18 Transportation ............................................................................................. B–66

B.5.18.1 References ................................................................................... B–67

B.5.19 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................... B–68

B.5.19.1 Soil Disturbance Concerns ........................................................... B–68

B.5.19.2 References ................................................................................... B–68

B.5.20 Groundwater Resources ............................................................................. B–69

B.5.20.1 General Concerns About ISR and Groundwater 

Contamination .............................................................................. B–69

B.5.20.2 Importance of Water and Consumptive Use ................................. B–73

B.5.20.2.1 Site Characterization ................................................... B–77

B.5.20.2.2 Aquifer Exemption and Baseline Water Quality .......... B–78

B.5.20.2.3 Control of Operational Impacts, Excursions of 

 ISR Solutions, and History .......................................... B–78
Appendix B 

B–iii 

B.5.20.3 Aquifer Restoration and Decommissioning: Methods and 

Operational Experience ................................................................ B–82

B.5.20.4 Miscellaneous Groundwater Comments ....................................... B–83

B.5.20.5 References ................................................................................... B–84

B.5.21 Surface Water Resources ........................................................................... B–85

B.5.21.1 Surface Water Resources and Ecology ........................................ B–85

B.5.21.2 Impacts to Surface Drainages and Surface Water ....................... B–85

B.5.21.3 Wetlands ....................................................................................... B–88

B.5.21.4 General Water Resource Concerns ............................................. B–88

B.5.21.5 Impacts of Operations and Aquifer Restoration on Surface 

Water...... ...................................................................................... B–89

B.5.21.6 References ................................................................................... B–89

B.5.22 Ecology ....................................................................................................... B–89

B.5.22.1 Concerns About the Sage-Grouse ............................................... B–89

B.5.22.2 General Comments on Threatened and Endangered 

Species ........................................................................................ B–93

B.5.22.3 Concerns About Mitigation and Timing ......................................... B–93

B.5.22.4 Habitat Loss and Fragmentation .................................................. B–95

B.5.22.5 Comments on Migratory Birds ...................................................... B–96

B.5.22.6 General Vegetation Comments .................................................... B–97

B.5.22.7 Traffic and Noise Impacts ............................................................. B–97

B.5.22.8 Impacts to Terrestrial Ecology and Wildlife Discussion ................ B–98

B.5.22.9 References ................................................................................. B–100

B.5.23 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality ................................................ B–101

B.5.23.1 Permitting and Regulations ........................................................ B–101

B.5.23.2 Climatology and Meteorology ..................................................... B–102

B.5.23.3 Baseline Air Quality .................................................................... B–103

B.5.23.4 Impact Assessment .................................................................... B–103

B.5.23.5 References ................................................................................. B–109

B.5.24 Historical and Cultural Resources ............................................................ B–110

B.5.24.1 Potential Impacts to Cultural, Historical, and Sacred Places ...... B–110

B.5.24.2 License Conditions To Address Potential Impacts to 

Historical and Cultural Resources .............................................. B–111

B.5.24.3 General Historic and Cultural ..................................................... B–112

B.5.24.4 References ................................................................................. B–115

B.5.25 Visual and Scenic Resources ................................................................... B–115

B.5.26 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................ B–116

B.5.26.1 Reference ................................................................................... B–117

B.5.27 Public and Occupational Health ................................................................ B–117

B.5.27.1 Impacts to Members of the General Public ................................ B–117

B.5.27.2 Impacts from Off-Normal Operations or Accidents ..................... B–119

B.5.27.3 General ...................................................................................... B–119

B.5.27.4 References ................................................................................. B–120

B.5.28 Waste Management .................................................................................. B–120

B.5.28.1 General Waste Management Comments ................................... B–120

B.5.28.2 Scope of the Assessment of Waste Management Impacts ........ B–122

B.5.28.3 Characteristics of Wastes Generated by ISR ............................. B–122

B.5.28.4 Waste Treatment and Disposal Methods.................................... B–123

B.5.28.5 Regulation of Wastes and Disposal Methods ............................. B–126

B.5.28.6 References ................................................................................. B–127 

B.5.29 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................... B–128
Appendix B 

B–iv 

B.5.29.1 General Comment: The SEIS Does Not Adequately 

Address Cumulative Effects ....................................................... B–128

B.5.29.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ..... B–130

B.5.29.3 Specific Document Changes or Action Requests ....................... B–131

B.5.29.4 Significance ................................................................................ B–132

B.5.29.5 Other ...................................................................................... B–134

B.5.29.6 References ................................................................................. B–136

B.5.30 Environmental Justice ............................................................................... B–136

B.5.30.1 Reference ................................................................................... B–137

B.5.31 Best Management Practices ..................................................................... B–137

B.5.31.1 Enforcement of Mitigation Measures and Best Management 

Practices ..................................................................................... B–137

B.5.31.2 Completeness of the Mitigation Measures and Best 

Management Practices ............................................................... B–140

B.5.31.3 General Comments Related to Best Management Practices 

and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ B–141

B.5.31.4 References ................................................................................. B–142

B.5.32 Monitoring ................................................................................................. B–142

B.5.32.1 References ................................................................................. B–143

B.5.33 Editorial ..................................................................................................... B–144

B.5.33.1 Grammatical Editorial ................................................................. B–144

B.5.33.2 Technical Editorial ...................................................................... B–144

B.5.33.3 Programmatic Editorial ............................................................... B–146

B.5.33.4 References ................................................................................. B–147

TABLES 

Table Page 

B.3-1 Public Commenter Names with Affiliation and Comment Document Number ............... B–4 

B.3-2 Comment Document Number with Commenter Name and Affiliation ........................... B–5 

B.3-3 Group Names, Individuals in Group, and Affiliation for Comment Letters Generated 

 by Multiple Individuals or Organizations ........................................................................ B–6

 
Appendix B 

B–v 

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS 

ACL alternate concentration limit 

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

AEA Atomic Energy Act 

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

BMP best management practice 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBM coal bed methane 

CCPW Campbell County Public Works 

CCS Center for Climate Strategies 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CESQG conditionally exempt small quantity generator 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

DSEIS Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FR Federal Register 

FSEIS Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

HDPE high-density polyethylene 

HRI Hydro Resources, Inc. 

ISL In-Situ Leach 

ISR In-Situ Recovery 

LQD Land Quality Division 

MCL maximum contaminant level 

MIT mechanical integrity test 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

 
Appendix B 

B–vi 

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS (continued) 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NCDC National Climatic Data Center 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NOA Notice of Availability 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PA Programmatic Agreement 

PRI Power Resources International 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

PVC polyvinyl chloride 

RAI Request for Additional Information 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

SER Safety Evaluation Report 

SERP Safety and Environmental Review Panel 

SGIT Sage Grouse Implementation Team 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SUNSI Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information 

TCP Traditional Cultural Property 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TEDE total effective dose equivalent 

UCL upper control limit 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

UIC Underground Injection Control 

UMTRCA Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 

USDW underground source of drinking water 

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

WQD Water Quality Division 

W.S. Wyoming Statute 

WUS waters of the United States 

WYNDD Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 

WYPDES Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
B–1 

B PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE NICHOLS RANCH 

IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT IN CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON 

COUNTIES, WYOMING, AND NRC RESPONSES 

B.1 OVERVIEW 

On December 11, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff published a 

notice in the Federal Register (FR) requesting public review and comment on the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Nichols Ranch In-Situ Uranium Recovery (ISR) Project 

in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for In-Situ Leach (ISL) Uranium Milling Facilities (SEIS) (74 FR 65808) in accordance 

with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51), Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions. The NRC 

staff initially established February 1, 2010, as the deadline for submitting public comments 

on the draft SEIS. The NRC staff subsequently extended this deadline to March 3, 2010 

(75 FR 6066). Twenty documents (i.e., email, mail, and facsimiles) were submitted to NRC 

containing comments on the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. In addition to the public 

comment period, the public also had the opportunity to request a hearing {June 16, 2008 

[73 FR 34052]}. The deadline to request a hearing expired on August 15, 2008. No requests 

for a hearing were submitted. 

B.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

Public participation is an essential part of the NRC environmental review process. This section 

describes the public participation process during the NRC staff development of the SEIS. 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 as part of 

a site visit to gather site-specific information. Including an extension to the public comment 

period, NRC provided an 81-day public comment period for agencies, organizations, and the 

general public to review the draft SEIS 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 SEIS in the Federal Register 

(74 FR 39116) on August 5, 2009, in accordance with NRC regulations. 

B.2.2 Public Participation Activities 

As described in SEIS Sections 1.4.2 and 1.7.3, the NRC staff met with Federal, State, and local 

agencies and authorities during the course of an expanded visit to the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project site and vicinity. The purpose of this visit and these meetings was to gather 

additional site-specific information to conduct the Nichols Ranch ISR Project environmental 

review. As part of this information gathering effort, the NRC staff also contacted potentially 

interested Native American tribes and local authorities, entities, and public interest groups in 

person and via email and telephone. Additional opportunities for public participation in the 

licensing process for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are described in Section B.5.8 of 

this appendix. 
Appendix B 

B–2 

B.2.3 Issuance and Availability of the SEIS 

On December 11, 2009, in accordance with NRC regulations, the NRC staff published a Notice 

of Availability (NOA) of the draft SEIS in the Federal Register (74 FR 65808). In this notice, the 

NRC staff provided information on how to either access or obtain a copy of the SEIS. Electronic 

versions of the SEIS and supporting information were made accessible through the NRC 

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) database on the NRC 

website (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/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 SEIS were also available publicly at the Campbell County and 

Johnson County public libraries. 

B.2.4 Public Comment Period 

In the publication of the NOA of the draft SEIS on December 11, 2009 (74 FR 65808), the NRC 

staff stated that public comments on the draft SEIS should be submitted by February 1, 2010. 

Members of the public were invited and encouraged to submit related comments electronically 

to the federal rulemaking website or send in comments by email or facsimile. On February 5, 

2010, the NRC staff extended the public comment period to March 3, 2010 (75 FR 6066), in 

response to public requests for an extension submitted in comment letters and e-mails. The 

81-day public comments period (i.e., from December 11, 2009, to March 3, 2010) exceeds the 

minimum 45-day comment period required under NRC regulations. The NRC staff identified 

493 comments from 20 documents commenting on the draft Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS. 

B.3 COMMENT REVIEW METHODS 

As previously discussed, the NRC staff received 493 comments from 20 documents (i.e., e-mail, 

mail, and facsimiles) during the comment period. Each of these comments are included in the 

following comment summaries and addressed in the responses provided. Each comment was 

individually identified and responded to systematically. This approach involved identifying 

individual comments from the source documents, consolidating comment information into a 

database, sorting comments by topic, and having appropriate NRC staff reviewing and 

responding to the comments. 

NRC conducted the comment period for the draft Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS simultaneously with 

the comment period for two other draft SEISs for proposed ISR facilities: Lost Creek and Moore 

Ranch. Some commenters provided a single document that included comments for two or three 

of the proposed projects. Each document NRC received was screened to determine if it applied 

only to one project or to multiple projects. For documents that commented on multiple projects, 

document copies were provided to each individual project and treated independently from that 

point forward. Each document was given a unique number based on the order in which the 

documents were received. The prefix “N” was attached to the identification number to indicate 

that this document, or document copy if originally addressing multiple projects, was for the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. For documents addressing multiple projects, commenters 

had specified which comments applied to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Sometimes 

comments were specifically directed only to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. In other 

cases, the commenter stated that the same comment applied to multiple projects. Only 

comments regarding the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, uniquely or jointly, were 

identified and processed for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project SEIS. Those comments that the 

commenter specified were for only Lost Creek or Moore Ranch were not tabulated and 

processed within the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS. 
 Appendix B 

B–3 

NRC staff reviewed all comment documents and identified, marked, and consecutively 

numbered individual, unique comments in each document. Comment numbers followed a 

two-part numbering system separated by a hyphen. The part of the comment number left of the 

hyphen is the document number. The number right of the hyphen is a consecutive unique-count 

number for each comment identified in a specific comment document. Table B.3-1 lists all 

commenter names and their affiliations, the comment document number assigned to their 

comment letter, and the ADAMS Accession Number for the commenter letter. The reader can 

use this table to electronically search for comments submitted by specific individuals or to find 

individuals associated with comments described in Section B.5. 

Table B.3-2 provides this same information only sorted by comment document number in the 

first column. A unique group name was assigned to each document signed by multiple 

individuals. Table B.3-3 identifies the individuals who compose each unique group and each 

individual’s affiliation. Readers can use these tables to electronically search for specific 

individuals’ comments or individuals associated with comments described in Section B.5. 

In addition to the numbering, each unique comment was also assigned a topic category to 

facilitate sorting and reviewing comments on similar topics. Topic categories aligned with the 

topics addressed in Section B.5. Following the initial comment identification review, the 

identified comments were entered into a database for sorting by topic and distribution to the 

NRC 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 draft 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 the same or similar comments within each topic to develop responses. This 

approach allowed multiple comments, the same or similar in nature, to be addressed with a 

single response to avoid duplication of effort and to enhance readability of this report. A 

response has been provided for each comment or group of comments. Each response 

indicates whether the draft SEIS was modified as a result of the comment. 

B.4 MAJOR ISSUES AND TOPICS OF CONCERN 

The majority of comments received specifically addressed items within the scope of the SEIS. 

Topics raised included a variety of concerns about the purpose, need, and scope of the SEIS; 

regulatory issues; NEPA-related concerns; the description of the ISR process; land use; 

groundwater; surface water; ecology; air; historical, cultural, and Native American concerns; 

socioeconomics; public health concerns; waste management; and cumulative effects. Other 

comments addressed topics and issues that are not applicable to the SEIS, including general 

support or opposition to uranium milling, legacy of past uranium mining and milling, evaluation 

of the NRC regulatory program or licensing process, comparison of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project financial assurance to previous restoration funding, compensation requests for loss 

of private water supplies, environmental impacts at disposal facilities for radioactive byproduct 

material, and comments not specifically directed toward the SEIS (e.g., comments exclusively 

directed toward the GEIS). 
Appendix B 

B–4 

Table B.3-1. Public Commenter Names with Affiliation and Comment Document Number 

Last Name First Name Affiliation 

Comment 

Document 

Number 

ADAMS 

Accession 

Number 

Anderson Shannon Powder River Basin 

Resource Council 

N003 ML100271048 

ML100271000 

ML100270998 

Currit Richard Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office 

N006 ML100341217 

Fettus Geoffrey Natural Resources 

Defense Council 

N001 ML100271002 

ML100270998 

Group A Group A Group A N013 ML100700124 

Group B Group B Group B N016 ML100690137 

Group C Group C Group C N017 ML100850378 

Group D Group D Group D N018 ML100621314 

Jantz Eric New Mexico 

Environmental Law 

Center 

N002 ML100271050 

ML100271001 

Jantz Eric New Mexico 

Environmental Law 

Center 

N011 ML100710105 

Jones Steve Wyoming Outdoor 

Council 

N005 ML100271687 

ML100271688 

ML100271689 

Loomis Marion Wyoming Mining 

Association 

N019 ML100640056 

Pugsley Christopher National Mining 

Association 

N014 ML100690165 

Ratner Jonathan Western Watershed 

Project 

N004 ML100271047 

ML100271003 

ML100270999 

Rushin Carol Environmental 

Protection Agency, 

Region 8 

N015 ML100690166 

Stewart Robert U.S. Department of the 

Interior 

N007 ML100341216 

Svoboda Larry Environmental 

Protection Agency, 

Region 8 

N020 ML100890218 

Thomas Mike Uranerz Energy 

Corporation 

N008 ML100350583 

Thomas Mike Uranerz Energy 

Corporation 

N012 ML100690177 

Viviano Pam Public N009 ML100640097 

Jones Jim Public N010 ML100640098 

 
 Appendix B 

B–5 

Table B.3-2. Comment Document Number with Commenter Name and Affiliation 

Comment 

Document Number Last Name First Name Affiliation 

N001 Fettus Geoffrey Natural Resources 

Defense Council 

N002 Jantz Eric New Mexico 

Environmental Law 

Center 

N003 Anderson Shannon Powder River Basin 

Resource Council 

N004 Ratner Jonathan Western Watershed 

Project 

N005 Jones Steve Wyoming Outdoor 

Council 

N006 Currit Richard Wyoming State 

Historic Preservation 

Office 

N007 Stewart Robert U.S. Department of 

the Interior 

N008 Thomas Mike Uranerz Energy 

Corporation 

N009 Viviano Pam Public 

N010 Jones Jim Public 

N011 Jantz Eric New Mexico 

Environmental Law 

Center 

N012 Thomas Mike Uranerz Energy 

Corporation 

N013 Group A Group A Group A 

N014 Pugsley Christopher National Mining 

Association 

N015 Rushin Carol Environmental 

Protection Agency, 

Region 8 

N016 Group B Group B Group B 

N017 Group C Group C Group C 

N018 Group D Group D Group D 

N019 Loomis Marion Wyoming Mining 

Association 

N020 Svoboda Larry Environmental 

Protection Agency, 

Region 8 
Appendix B 

B–6 

Table B.3-3. Group Names, Individuals in Group, and Affiliations for Comment Letters 

Generated by Multiple Individuals or Organizations 

Group Name Individuals in Group Affiliation 

Group A Shannon Anderson Powder River Resource Council 

Steve Jones Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Group B Jay Tope Public 

Wilma Tope Public 

Group C Geoffrey Fettus Natural Resources Defense Council 

Cori Lombard Natural Resources Defense Council 

Group D Donald McKenzie Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality-Land Quality Division 

Kelly Bott Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality-Air Quality Division 

Tom Schroeder Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality-Industrial Siting Division 

Mark Conrad Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality-Water Quality Division 

Carl Anderson Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality-Solid and Hazardous Waste Division 

John Emmerich Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

B.5 COMMENT SUMMARIES AND RESPONSES 

Detailed comment responses are provided in this section. The structure of this section is based 

on the comment topics provided. Within each topic-specific subsection, the detailed 

presentation of comment and response information includes the applicable comment 

identification numbers, comment summaries, and the NRC staff response. 

B.5.1 General Opposition 

Comments: N001-002; N002-005; N011-022; N011-068 

Some commenters found the GEIS (NRC, 2009) “wanting” and noted that the GEIS 

environmental analysis was deficient in several respects, but did not provide examples or 

citations. Another commenter stated the character of the data in the GEIS was misleading. 

One of the commenters stated that NRC should not rely on the GEIS for site-specific analyses. 

Response: The NRC staff prepared the Nichols Ranch ISR 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, 2003). Additionally, the GEIS, which this final SEIS 

supplements (see Section 1.4.1), provides a starting point for NRC NEPA analyses for sitespecific license applications for new ISR facilities, such as the Uranerz Energy Corporation’s 

application for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The GEIS provides criteria for each 

environmental resource area to help determine the significance level for potential impacts 

(e.g., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE). The NRC staff applied these criteria to the site-specific 

review at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

NRC recognizes some commenters do not support the development of either the GEIS or the 

SEIS. NRC held a 103-day public comment period for the draft GEIS from July 28, 2008, 

through November 7, 2008, at which time members of the public were invited to provide 
 Appendix B 

B–7 

comments, including eight public scoping meetings. NRC considered and responded to 

comments received on the draft GEIS in Appendix G of the final GEIS [see NOA published in 

the Federal Register on June 5, 2009 (74 FR 27052)]. Therefore, comments on the GEIS are 

beyond the scope of the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS. 

Comments: N009-001; N010-001 

Some commenters were adamantly opposed to granting a permit to the proposed project. 

Another commenter stated that the ISR process was an injustice to the people of Wyoming. 

Response: NRC recognizes some commenters are not supportive of in-situ uranium milling. 

NRC has the responsibility for licensing and regulating uranium ISR facilities through the 

statutory requirements of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 and the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended. These statutes require that NRC ensure 

source material, as defined in AEA Section 11(z) and byproduct material, as defined in AEA 

Section 11e.(2) is managed to conform with applicable regulatory requirements. NRC will not 

issue a license to a facility that does not comply with its statutory and regulatory requirements. 

These comments are beyond the scope of the SEIS. 

Comment: N010-006 

One commenter stated that the long-term effects of ISR sites on the environment are unknown. 

Response: NRC does not agree that long-term effects are unknown. The GEIS (NRC, 2009), 

which this SEIS supplements (see Section 1.4.1), provides information about the operating 

histories of a number of ISR facilities, and this informs the staff’s determination of potential 

long-term impacts. Specifically, GEIS Section 2.11 discusses historical NRC-licensed ISR 

operations and references specific facilities in Wyoming, Nebraska, and New Mexico. This 

section describes the issues that have historically resulted in potential impacts at ISR facilities 

and provides a range of conditions that may be expected for each of the four phases of ISR 

activities considered in the GEIS. Specifically, the GEIS addresses spills and leaks, excursions, 

groundwater use, aquifer restoration, and socioeconomic effects. The NRC staff used this 

historical information in its generic evaluation of potential environmental impacts (including 

those that can have long-term effects) from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning of an ISR facility in specific geographic regions of the western United States. 

This SEIS tiers and incorporates by reference from the GEIS relevant information, findings, and 

conclusions, depending on the similarities between Uranerz’s proposed facility, activities, and 

conditions at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project site and those for the reference facility evaluated in 

the GEIS. 

No further changes have been made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in 

this response. 

Comment: N017-003 

One commenter was opposed to in-situ milling, and described it as “not a benign substitute for 

past uranium recovery,” and suggested that NRC “...examine and present to the public a 

precise history of conditions at ISR uranium mining operations...” pre- and post-operation. 

Response: NRC recognizes that some commenters do not support uranium milling. GEIS 

Chapter 2 provides information on uranium recovery using the ISR process. Information 

regarding operational experience at ISR facilities is discussed in Section 2.11 of the final GEIS. 

These comments are beyond the scope of the SEIS. 
Appendix B 

B–8 

Comment: N017-033 

A commenter urged the withdrawal of both the draft SEIS and the final GEIS (NRC, 2009), on 

the basis of failing to meet the NEPA requirements. The commenter stated the document was 

legally deficient because it failed to address a number of substantive matters, take a hard look 

at the proposed action, consider a reasonable range of alternatives, and analyze cumulative 

impacts of ISR uranium mining in the region of the proposed action. 

Response: NRC recognizes some commenters do not support the development of either the 

SEIS or GEIS. As previously noted, NRC held a 103-day public comment period for the draft 

GEIS from July 28, 2008, through November 7, 2008, which included eight scoping meetings. 

NRC considered and responded to comments received on the draft GEIS in Appendix G of the 

final GEIS [see NOA published in the Federal Register on June 5, 2009 (74 FR 27052)]. 

Therefore, comments on the GEIS are beyond the scope of the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS. 

The Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS was prepared in accordance with NRC guidance in NUREG–1748 

(NRC, 2003) and regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 which implement NRC’s NEPA provisions. The 

GEIS, which this final SEIS supplements (see Section 1.4.1), provides a starting point for NRC’s 

NEPA analyses for site-specific license applications for new ISR facilities. The GEIS provided 

information on ISR technology and four geographic areas and then evaluated the potential 

impacts for various environmental resource areas from an ISR facility being located in one of 

these geographic areas. The NRC staff then used site-specific information to supplement the 

GEIS analysis when preparing the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project SEIS. 

Chapter 2 of the SEIS describes the proposed action and a range of alternatives that NRC 

considers to be reasonable for this proposed licensing action. Chapter 5 analyzes the 

cumulative impacts from licensing the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. SEIS Section 5.1.1 

discusses past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future ISR mining activities within 

the Powder River Basin. Table 5-1 lists uranium recovery sites near the proposed 

Nichols Ranch project. 

As discussed in the response to comment number N010-006, GEIS Section 2.11 discusses 

historical NRC-licensed ISR operations and references specific facilities in Wyoming, Nebraska, 

and New Mexico. This section describes the issues that have historically occurred at ISR 

facilities and provides a range of conditions that may be expected for each of the four phases of 

ISR activities. The cumulative impacts evaluation in SEIS Chapter 5 has been revised to clarify 

and improve the transparency of the analysis. No further changes were made to the Nichols 

Ranch ISR SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

For detailed comments and responses on topics related to those expressed in some of the 

general opposition comments, see the following sections of this comment response appendix: 

NEPA Process (B.5.4); Purpose, Need, and Scope of the SEIS/GEIS (B.5.5); Public 

Involvement (B.5.8); and Cumulative Effects (B.5.29). 

B.5.1.1 References 

10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Energy, 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: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

 
 Appendix B 

B–9 

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

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

74 FR 27052, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Notice of Availability of Final Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities.” Federal Register. 

Vol. 74, No. 107, pp. 27,052–27,054. June 5, 2009. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). NUREG–1910, “Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities.” Washington, DC: NRC. May 2009. 

NRC. NUREG–1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with 

NMSS Programs.” Washington, DC: NRC. August 2003. 

B.5.2 General Support 

Comment: N018-008 

One commenter expressed general support for the development of the SEIS and stated that it 

was a “great improvement from prior versions.” 

Response: NRC recognizes some commenters support the development of the environmental 

review for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. However, these comments are beyond the 

scope of the SEIS. 

Comment: N019-001 

One commenter expressed that the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would benefit the 

surrounding area and the State of Wyoming through the addition of jobs, tax revenues, and 

domestically produced uranium to fuel current U.S. nuclear reactors. 

Response: NRC recognizes some commenters support of the development of the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. However, these comments are beyond the scope of the SEIS. 

B.5.3 General Environmental Concerns 

Comments: N003-002; N005-002; N013-001 

Several commenting organizations stated uranium exploration and production impacts many of 

their members because these individuals live, work, or recreate in areas where such activities 

are conducted. 

Response: NRC acknowledges uranium milling activities may impact individuals who live, 

work, or recreate within and surrounding the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. The 

environmental review documented in this final SEIS addresses potential environmental impacts 

covering a variety of resource areas that can affect individuals. Because the comment was 

general in nature, no changes were made to the SEIS. 

 
Appendix B 

B–10 

B.5.4 NEPA Process 

B.5.4.1 GEIS/SEIS 

Comments: N011-022; N011-023; N011-025 

One commenter characterized the NRC staff evaluation of the impacts from spills and leaks on 

water resources in both the GEIS (NRC, 2009) and the draft Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS as relying 

on incomplete and inaccurate data, thus resulting in a misleading impact evaluation in both 

documents. The commenter also stated NRC had not conducted the requisite site-specific 

analysis of impacts from spills and leaks at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, but rather 

simply stated the site-specific conditions at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site were 

consistent with the affected environment described in the GEIS and concluded the potential 

impacts would be SMALL. 

Response: The NRC site-specific analysis of the potential environmental impacts to water 

resources from spills and leaks is found in Section 4.5 of the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS, which 

considers site-specific information provided in the license application. This section includes the 

evaluation of impacts on both potential surface water and wetlands resources and on 

near-surface groundwater resources from spills and leaks during the proposed operations for 

the Nichols Ranch ISR Project. This site-specific analysis determined that, for the Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project, the significance of potential impacts is expected to be SMALL. The 

site-specific determination draws on the evaluation found in GEIS Sections 4.2.4 and 4.3.4 

wherein criteria are provided to evaluate the significance of impacts to surface water and 

wetlands. The evaluation criteria for surface water and wetlands resources include size of a 

spill, success of remediation, use of the surface water for domestic or agricultural purposes, 

proximity of the spill to surface water, and compliance with storm water and National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by the State of Wyoming. The GEIS 

concluded that such impacts could range from SMALL to MODERATE, depending on sitespecific conditions. For potential impacts to near-surface groundwater resources, the evaluation 

criteria included proximity of the shallow aquifer to the surface, use of the shallow aquifer for 

domestic or agricultural purposes, and connection of the shallow aquifer to other locally or 

regionally important aquifers. The GEIS concluded that impacts to near-surface aquifers could 

range from SMALL to LARGE, depending on site-specific conditions. 

As discussed previously the NRC staff conducted a site-specific evaluation of impacts to water 

resources from spills and leaks, applying the GEIS criteria at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project in Section 4.5. That evaluation determined that such impacts are expected to be 

SMALL, given the proposed operations and site-specific conditions. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comments: N013-007; N013-008 

One commenter asserted the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS does not properly tier from the GEIS 

(NRC, 2009), because the final GEIS, which the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS supplements, is 

merely a report and not a final NEPA document. To support this assertion, the commenter 

quoted a phrase from Chapter 1 of the draft SEIS (wherein the NRC states that the GEIS was 

published as a “final report” in May 2009) and comments at an NRC public meeting (wherein the 

NRC staff stated the GEIS did “not make a final binding decision”). The commenter further 

noted that had the final GEIS been a final NEPA document, it would have been issued with an 

official Record of Decision pursuant to the NRC regulations at 10 CFR 51.102(a). 
 Appendix B 

B–11 

Response: As the commenter stated, 10 CFR 51.102(a) requires that a Commission decision 

on any action for which a final EIS has been prepared shall be accompanied by or include a 

concise public record of decision. NRC considers actions subject to this regulatory requirement 

to include NRC decisions on specific applications to issue, renew or amend an NRC license. 

The Commission does not consider issuance of the GEIS to be a binding decision on any action 

that triggers the 10 CFR 51.102(a) requirement to prepare a public record of decision. 

NRC developed the GEIS to determine which impacts would be essentially the same for all ISR 

facilities and which ones would result in varying levels of impacts for different facilities, thus 

anticipating a further site-specific application to renew, amend, or issue an NRC license. NRC 

uses the GEIS as a starting point for conducting its NEPA review of a site-specific ISR license 

application. NRC evaluates site-specific data and information to determine whether an 

applicant’s proposed activities and the characteristics at its site are consistent with those 

evaluated in the GEIS before determining which GEIS sections can be incorporated by 

reference, whether impact conclusions can be adopted in whole, and whether either additional 

data or analysis is needed to determine the environmental impacts for a specific resource area 

in the site-specific NEPA review. 

NRC has always considered the license (if issued to an applicant), in addition to the entire 

publicly available record for a license application, as the agency’s record of decision for a 

specific licensing action. These documents include the license application [including the 

applicant’s Environmental Report, the Commission’s Safety Evaluation Report (SER), and the 

Commission’s final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS)]. NRC evaluates 

this information to determine whether the license application complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the AEA), and the Commission’s 

regulations before granting a request to renew, amend, or issue an NRC license. If licensed, 

NRC will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing its issuance of an ISR license to 

Uranerz, and this notice will include the previous statement regarding NRC’s record of decision 

for the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS. 

No further changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

B.5.4.2 Adequacy of Impact Assessment 

Comments: N005-002; N013-042; N013-043 

One commenter noted that people live, work, and recreate near ISR facilities and that ISR 

projects in the State of Wyoming could significantly impact the environment from their 

construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning. Another commenter stated 

generally that NRC should disclose the impact on a wide variety of resources and follows this 

comment with numerous specific comments on land use, water, waste disposal, wildlife, and 

socioeconomics and enforceable measures to mitigate the potential impacts. The commenter 

further stated NRC must fully disclose the true risk of ISR projects. 

Response The Nichols Ranch SEIS discloses NRC’s analysis of the proposed ISR project 

impact on various resource areas. Some of the comments on specific topics (N013-044 through 

N013-095) are addressed in this comment-response appendix in the sections identified next. 

The SEIS, in Sections 4.2, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.10, considers the potential impact to land, water and 

wildlife and the potential socioeconomic impact if NRC grants a license. The analysis of the 

potential environmental impacts on these resource areas considered the four ISR lifecycle 

phases (construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning) of the Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project. To perform the review, NRC reviewed the license application, 
Appendix B 

B–12 

independently verified information, and conducted analyses. The potential impacts ranged from 

SMALL to MODERATE depending on the resource area and whether the applicant indicated 

that mitigative measures would be implemented. Site-specific mitigation measures are 

described by resource area in the SEIS, and Section B5.31 provides additional information on 

best management practices in response to public comment. NRC responses to comments 

regarding the topics of land use, water waste disposal, wildlife, and socioeconomics are 

provided in Section B5.17, Sections B5.20 and B5.21, Section B5.28, Section B5.22, and 

Section 5.26, respectively, of this comment-response appendix. 

No further changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N011-039 

One commenter stated the NRC analysis of groundwater impacts from restoration was 

insufficient and relied entirely on the GEIS framework (NRC, 2009). As a result, the commenter 

noted the NRC analysis was limited to impacts to consumptive use (i.e., water quantity). 

Response: The analysis of groundwater impacts from aquifer restoration at the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project followed the GEIS framework (NRC, 2009), which considered 

consumptive groundwater use and impacts from waste management practices during the ISR 

aquifer restoration phase. 

SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.3 describes the potential environmental impact on groundwater resources 

during aquifer restoration, including impacts from groundwater consumptive use, waste 

management practices, and impacts on groundwater quality from transporting restoration fluids 

through shallow piping. The discussion of groundwater impacts has been expanded to include 

a discussion of well injection impacts and a discussion of groundwater gradient and lixiviant 

plume migration if a wellfield shutdown. The analysis of potential groundwater impacts relies on 

applicant-provided information, such as aquifer measurements (e.g., permeability) and the 

results from aquifer field tests that NRC staff reviews and considers in the site-specific safety 

evaluation. The groundwater safety evaluation informs the environmental review. 

As discussed in the SEIS, the potential impact from deep well disposal is expected to be SMALL 

because of the aquifer characteristics of the proposed host formations for deep well disposal 

and adherence to the WDEQ UIC permit requirements for deep well injection. Finally, the NRC 

staff determined the potential overall impact on groundwater quality from aquifer restoration 

would be SMALL because the groundwater quality in the impacted aquifers would be restored to 

water quality standards that are protective of human health and the environment. The 

surrounding aquifers would not be impacted. 

Comment: N013-096 

One commenter stated the NRC analysis of environmental impacts from the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project is speculation at best, because the NRC analysis does not account for 

impacts that may occur after all project approvals (i.e., appropriate federal and state permits) 

have been obtained. 

Response: The Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS was prepared in accordance with NRC regulations in 

10 CFR 51.71(c) that require the status of compliance to be acknowledged in the EIS (see 

Table 1-2 of the SEIS). Under the AEA, NRC has statutory authority to issue licenses for the 

possession and use of AEA-regulated radioactive materials and particular activities involving 

this material. While NRC does not have the statutory authority to enforce other agency 

requirements, the other agencies have the necessary enforcement authority and would carry out 
 Appendix B 

B–13 

the requirements of their regulations. NRC assumes that regulations that exist are applied, as 

appropriate, by other Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies. NRC also assumes that the 

licensee would comply with regulatory requirements, license and permit conditions issued by 

these agencies when evaluating the potential environmental impacts from issuing an NRC 

license. SEIS Table 1-2 shows the required permits and approvals for the applicant to obtain 

prior to construction and operation of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N015-038 

A commenter rated the draft Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS as “inadequate” under the commenter’s 

responsibilities under NEPA and authority under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 

commenter further indicated the SEIS did not meet the purposes of NEPA and, therefore, 

should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised 

SEIS. The commenter indicated if its concerns were not addressed, then the commenter would 

consider elevating the issue for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

for resolution. 

Response: NRC disagrees with the commenter and believes that the final Nichols Ranch ISR 

SEIS adequately addresses all public comments and does not need to be reissued for public 

comment. For further information on how the SEIS tiers from the GEIS and the process of 

determining impacts, refer to Section B5.5.2 of this comment-response appendix. NRC 

recognizes EPA’s authority and responsibilities under NEPA and the CAA to rate draft 

environmental impact statements. The NRC staff has prepared the draft Nichols Ranch ISR 

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, 2003). 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.73, the NRC staff issued the draft Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS for public 

comment on December 11, 2009 (74 FR 65808), and the comment period on the document 

closed on March 3, 2010 (75 FR 6066). As discussed in Section B.2.4 of this commentresponse appendix, 493 comments from 20 documents were received on the draft Nichols 

Ranch ISR SEIS, among which were additional comments raised by the commenter. 

Consistent with 10 CFR 51.91(a), the NRC staff considered and responded to all comments 

received. 

Comment: N017-005 

One commenter expressed concern that the GEIS (NRC, 2009) and the draft Nichols Ranch 

ISR SEIS gave little attention to the recurring issues with uranium solution mines in the United 

States and other countries and the long history of evidence that environmental harms do occur. 

The commenter listed 10 environmental harms that the commenter asserted NRC failed to 

analyze in the draft SEIS, which included the potential for mining solutions to escape the 

production areas, adequate placement of monitor wells to detect potential excursions, the 

location of mine sites too close to water wells used for human consumption, high levels of 

uranium and other constituents in groundwater outside of the mining zone should an excursion 

occur, the inability to restore to premining “baseline” conditions at any commercial-scale ISL 

site, relevant regulatory agencies relaxing their cleanup standards for uranium and other 

contaminants to complete restoration, the adequacy of financial assurance, the chemical toxicity 

of uranium on the kidneys, restoration and decommissioning plans not being required, and the 

release of radon gas from injection well valves exceeding federal limits and, therefore, 

potentially contributing to unhealthy radon levels in areas where abandoned uranium mines 

have not been cleaned up. The commenter felt it was incumbent upon NRC to comprehensively 

address the environmental risks inherent in an expansion of the domestic uranium mining and 
Appendix B 

B–14 

milling industry and to have sufficient protections in the licensing process to prevent a 

recurrence of previous environmental harms to the environment and public health. 

Response: NRC evaluated historical information on NRC-licensed ISR operations (see GEIS 

Section 2.11) and considered this historical information to assess the potential environmental 

impacts from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an ISR 

facility in specific geographic regions of the western United States. The Wyoming East Uranium 

Milling Region, where the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be located, is one of 

these geographic regions (see GEIS Section 4.3). The final SEIS tiers and incorporates by 

reference from the GEIS relevant information, findings, and conclusions to the extent that the 

applicant-proposed facility, activities, and conditions are consistent with the reference facility 

activities, information, and impact conclusions described in the GEIS. 

The SEIS considers excursions and groundwater quality impacts on production and surrounding 

aquifers in Section 4.5.2.1.2.2, which also discusses the placement of monitoring wells. In 

addition, Section 6.3.1 of the SEIS describes wellfield groundwater monitoring. The location of 

nearby wells used for various purposes is described in Section 3.5.2.3.4 of the SEIS. Section 

B5.9.8 of this comment-response appendix addresses the issue of groundwater restoration at 

ISR sites; the decommissioning and reclamation process and associated activities that would 

occur during this process are discussed throughout the SEIS. The potential release of radon 

gas at wellheads is considered in both the safety evaluation and as part of the public and 

occupational health and safety impacts in Section 4.13 of the SEIS. The adequacy of financial 

assurance is evaluated as part of the NRC safety evaluation rather than as part of the 

environmental review. 

Comment: N017-007 

One commenter asserted NRC had not taken a “hard look” at environmental impacts and that 

the draft SEIS added little, if anything, to the sufficiency of the NRC analysis of environmental 

impacts from the ISR process. The commenter stated the SEIS analysis mirrored the final GEIS 

(NRC, 2009) analysis and that the lack of a discernable difference between the GEIS 

environmental impact findings and those contained in the draft SEIS clearly indicated that no 

searching analyses were performed, as required under NEPA. 

Response: As discussed in SEIS Section 1.4.1, the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS supplements the 

GEIS, which provides a starting point for the NRC site-specific analysis of potential 

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

decommissioning of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project located in the Wyoming East 

Uranium Milling Region, one of the four geographic regions evaluated in the GEIS. SEIS 

Table 1-1 shows the range of potential environmental impacts expected in the Wyoming East 

Uranium Milling Region based on the GEIS analyses. As shown in SEIS Table 1-1, the GEIS 

concluded that the significance of potential impacts on certain resource areas 

(e.g., transportation, groundwater, noise) could range, depending on site-specific conditions. 

The SEIS evaluated potential impacts in Chapter 4 and relied on the description of the proposed 

facility at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project and associated activities in Chapter 2, the description 

of the affected environment at and in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project in 

Chapter 3, and the resource area “significance” evaluation criteria identified in the GEIS to 

determine the significance of the potential environmental impact. Each resource area was 

assessed by comparing the site-specific conditions at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

to those evaluated in the GEIS, in addition to considering new information that could contribute 

to the potential environmental impacts being beyond that considered in the GEIS. Table 2-3 of 
 Appendix B 

B–15 

the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS summarizes the potential environmental impacts from 

implementing the proposed action at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

No further changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comments: N017-008; N017-012 

One commenter stated NRC should evaluate the potential impact of spills and that the failure to 

consider spills in the draft SEIS, and more notably in the GEIS (NRC, 2009), was disappointing. 

The commenter also stated the SEIS should have considered a reasonable range of the 

possible severity of spills in assessing the potential impacts to groundwater, surface water, and 

land. 

Response: The NRC analyses of the potential environmental impacts to land use, surface 

water, and groundwater from spills associated with ISR operations for the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project are discussed in SEIS Sections 4.4.1.2 and 4.5.1.1.2. The GEIS considered 

these impacts in Sections 4.3.3.2, 4.3.4.1.2, and 4.3.4.2.2.1. Table 1-1 of the Nichols Ranch 

ISR SEIS summarized the range of potential impacts to these resource areas based on the 

GEIS analyses. As discussed in Section 1.4.1 of the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS, the SEIS tiers 

and incorporates by reference from the GEIS to evaluate the site-specific environmental 

impacts. The Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS analysis determined the proposed facility, activities, and 

the site-specific conditions were comparable to the facility, activities, and conditions discussed 

in the GEIS, which included 

• Engineering controls to detect pressure changes in the wellfield piping system 

• Mechanical integrity testing of completed wells prior to their placement in service and 

subsequent retesting every 5 years 

• Alarm systems for individual wells and in header houses 

• Daily visual inspection of wellfield monitoring 

• A spill response plan to address accidental spills 

• Requirements to remediate affected areas and to remove contaminated soils for 

disposal offsite 

• Near-surface aquifer at the proposed site is not an important source for local domestic or 

agricultural water supplies 

• Near-surface aquifer is not hydraulically connected to other locally or regionally 

important aquifers. 

These systems and controls minimize the risk for a spill to occur, regardless of the spill severity. 

Furthermore, should a license be issued for ISR operations at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project, Uranerz (the applicant) would take the necessary actions to respond to reported spills 

and incidents at the facility. NRC would also conduct periodic inspections to determine 

compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, license conditions, and approved 

procedures. Potential violations and allegations would be evaluated and addressed through 

either appropriate NRC enforcement or allegation programs. 
Appendix B 

B–16 

No further changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N017-028 

One commenter stated NRC has the duty to fully explain the science, technology, and 

techniques used in the ISR process and to fully analyze and assess the environmental impacts 

of each aspect of the process. The commenter believed that an environmental review is 

impossible without historical data on the success rates of the technologies used in the ISR 

process. Only by doing so, the commenter stated, can the NEPA “hard look” requirement 

be fulfilled. 

Response: GEIS Chapter 2 (NRC, 2009) describes the ISR process used to evaluate the 

potential impacts from an ISR facility. All phases of the ISR-facility lifecycle are described, and 

information on the historical operating experience at ISR facilities is provided with respect to 

safety significance and issues of public concern such as spills, leaks, excursions, and aquifer 

restoration. GEIS Chapter 2 discusses key aspects of the ISR process common to 

NRC-licensed ISR facilities to build the foundation for the GEIS impact analyses. GEIS Chapter 

2 discusses significant issues for proposed ISR sites and their potential environmental impacts 

rather than provide a detailed description of all aspects of every NRC-licensed facility. Detailed 

information regarding the specific technologies, equipment, and operational practices and 

parameters applicable to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are provided in the 

applicant’s license application and summarized in Chapters 2 and 6 of the SEIS; explanation of 

how the information in the GEIS applies to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is also 

included. The NRC staff evaluated the adequacy of the license application with respect to 

operational safety and potential environmental impacts and determined that key aspects of the 

ISR process proposed for implementation at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project were similar to 

those described in the GEIS before incorporating by reference into the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS 

relevant GEIS information. 

While NRC guidance discusses methods that are considered acceptable to staff, NRC does not 

prescribe technology or methods that an applicant must use nor is it necessary for NRC to 

proactively evaluate all available options in either GEIS or elsewhere before applications are 

received. Past experience suggests that ISR facilities use similar technology; by focusing on 

what is common, the GEIS provides a reasonable basis for supporting future ISR license 

application reviews. If an applicant submits an application that includes unproven technology or 

methods not analyzed in the GEIS, the NRC review may require additional details and 

performance data to verify that safety would be maintained and to use such information in the 

site-specific environmental review. However, the NRC staff has determined that the key 

aspects of the ISR process proposed for use at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project were consistent 

with those described in the GEIS. 

No changes were made to the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS beyond the information provided in this 

response. 

Comments: N018-016; N018-019 

A commenter stated that the proposed project was too early in the planning stage for NRC to 

adequately address potential site-specific environmental impacts and asserted that NRC rushed 

into the NEPA review. The commenter proposed that the SEIS be rewritten with more sitespecific information and published again for public comment. 

Response: The Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS was prepared in accordance with NRC guidance in 

NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003) and is consistent with NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 which 
 Appendix B 

B–17 

implements NRC’s NEPA provisions. The environmental review of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project site was initiated by Uranerz’s submittal and NRC’s acceptance of the license 

application for detailed technical review, as discussed in Section 1.6.1 of the final SEIS. NRC 

would not have accepted the application if sufficient site-specific information either had not been 

provided in the application or was otherwise not yet available. It is common during the review of 

a license application for NRC to make a request for additional information (RAI) from an 

applicant. In some cases, multiple rounds of RAIs are needed. This iterative process is 

designed to provide the applicant the necessary feedback to supplement the application in order 

to make it complete and accurate. NRC used information from the RAI responses in 

preparation of the FSEIS and SER. There is some overlap between the safety and 

environmental reviews (e.g., this can be seen in topics such as groundwater resources). The 

NRC staff conducting the environmental and safety reviews collaborates, as necessary, as it 

conducts these reviews in parallel. The staff has determined that (i) sufficient site-specific 

information was obtained and reviewed to justify the impact conclusions in this SEIS and (ii) the 

SEIS does not need to be republished for public comment. 

B.5.4.3 Range of Reasonable Alternatives 

Comments: N011-007; N013-005 

One commenter noted while NEPA does not require NRC to consider every possible alternative 

to the proposed action, it does require NRC to consider all reasonable alternatives. The same 

commenter stated the failure to consider reasonable alternatives was a violation of NEPA. 

Another commenter noted that because NRC has no role in applicant business decisions, it 

prevents consideration of reasonable alternatives. 

Response: The proposed Federal action and the purpose and need for the proposed Federal 

action define the range of reasonable alternatives. As a regulatory agency, the proposed 

Federal action for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project is the NRC decision of whether to grant or 

deny a license. The purpose and need for the proposed Federal action does consider the 

applicant goals and objectives to extract uranium from a particular location, which helps define 

the reasonable alternatives to the proposed Federal action. 

Reasonable alternatives considered in a site-specific environmental review depend on the 

proposed action and site conditions. As discussed in SEIS Section 2.1, NRC considered 

reasonable alternatives including the proposed action, the no-action alternative (i.e., not 

approving the license application), and a modified action (i.e., licensing only the Nichols Ranch 

Unit and not the Hank Unit). 

As noted in NUREG–1508, underground mining would have more significant environmental 

impacts than ISR extraction, and the ore from underground mining would require processing at 

a conventional uranium mill to produce the final product. Significant quantities of tailings 

(residual rock materials after uranium removal) would be produced by conventional milling; 

these are normally disposed of onsite at the conclusion of the mill operating life (NRC, 1997). 

NUREG–0706, Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling (NRC, 1980), 

provides a detailed evaluation of the impacts associated with tailings disposal from conventional 

uranium milling. The environmental impacts of underground mining and conventional milling 

would be more significant than those from ISR milling at the proposed site. Therefore, 

underground mining and conventional milling are not evaluated in the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS. 

While the NRC staff considers reasonable alternatives to the proposed action in the 

environmental review, the only alternative within the NRC decisionmaking authority is to 
Appendix B 

B–18 

approve or not approve the license application. NRC has no authority or regulatory control over 

applicant selection of uranium recovery technology to use at the applicant’s selected site. 

NRC’s regulatory authority is limited to evaluating the applicant request for a license to use ISR 

technology at the site. If NRC decides to grant the license request, the applicant must comply 

with the requirements of the license, NRC regulatory requirements, and any other relevant local, 

state, or federal requirements to operate its facility. 

B.5.4.4 References 

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

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

74 FR 27052, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Notice of Availability of Final Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities.” Federal Register. 

Vol. 74, No. 107, pp. 27,052–27,054. June 5, 2009. 

74 FR 65808, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Notice of Availability of Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Nichols Ranch In-Situ Recovery (ISR) Project in 

Campbell and Johnson Counties, WY; Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities.” Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 237, 

pp. 65,808–65,810. December 11, 2009. 

75 FR 6066, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Extension of Public Comment Period on 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Nichols Ranch In-Situ Recovery Project in 

Campbell and Johnson Counties, WY; Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities.” Federal Register: Vol. 75, No. 24. 

pp. 6,066–6,067. February 5, 2010. 

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

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

NRC. NUREG–1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with 

NMSS Programs.” Washington, DC: NRC. August 2003. 

NRC. NUREG–1508, “Final Environmental Impact Statement to Construct and Operate the 

Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mine Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico.” ML082170248. 

Washington, DC: February 1997. 

NRC. NUREG–0706, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling 

Project M-25.” Washington, DC: ADAMS Nos. ML032751663, ML0732751667, ML032751669. 

September 1980. 

B.5.5 Purpose, Need, and Scope of the SEIS/GEIS 

B.5.5.1 Description of the SEIS/GEIS Purpose and Need 

Comments: N011-001; N011-003; N011-004; N011-005; N011-054; N013-002; N013-003; 

N013-004; N013-006; N017-025

Commenters indicated the statement of purpose and need in the GEIS (NRC, 2009) was too 

narrow, which resulted in a limited analysis of reasonable alternatives in the Nichols Ranch ISR 
 Appendix B 

B–19 

SEIS. Two commenters stated that because of the construct of the purpose and need in the 

GEIS, the subsequent Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS was too narrow and limited the range of 

reasonable alternatives to either grant or deny the applicant’s licensing request, and thus failed 

to satisfy the fundamental requirements of the NEPA. Other commenters further stated that by 

limiting the purpose and need scope, in essence, NRC is limiting the alternatives it will consider 

(to either license the proposed project or not). Commenters also stated that the alternatives 

analysis violated both the letter and spirit of NEPA and that if NRC had articulated a reasonable 

and legitimate purpose and need, the range of alternatives considered would likewise have 

been reasonable. 

One commenter stated that similar to the GEIS, NRC fails to discuss the public purpose and 

need for the Nichols Ranch project, including whether the uranium produced is needed as a fuel 

source for domestic nuclear power plants. 

Finally, a commenter stated that NRC should craft a statement of purpose and need in 

consultation with other involved Federal and State agencies that related the uranium recovery 

program to broad national objectives within NRC purview, such as “improving remediation of 

land and water impacts from the recovery of source or byproduct materials” or “ensuring the 

long-term isolation from the human and natural environment of harmful radionuclides and 

chemical toxins produced in the nuclear fuel cycle.” 

Response: The statement of the purpose and need is found in Section 1.3 of this final SEIS 

and is derived from the proposed Federal action. Under the AEA, NRC has statutory authority 

to issue licenses for the possession and use of AEA-regulated radioactive materials and 

particular activities involving this material. Based on NRC’s statutory authority, the proposed 

Federal action is NRC’s decision whether to grant or deny a private party’s licensing application 

to conduct ISR operations to extract uranium and produce yellowcake at a particular site. 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. As a result, NRC limits its analysis of 

alternatives to accomplishing the objective of extracting uranium from the applicant site and the 

No-Action alternative. 

The alternatives to the proposed action are discussed in Sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 of this final 

SEIS. Section 2.2.3 discusses the No-Action Alternative (i.e., denial of the license application), 

and Section 2.2.4 discusses Alternative 3 (Modified Action—No Hank Unit) in which only the 

Nichols Ranch Unit would be constructed and operated. Alternative mining and milling methods 

(conventional and heap leach discussed in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2) and alternate lixiviants 

(discussed in Section 2.3.3) were considered in the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS, but were not 

analyzed in detail. The evaluation of alternate sites analysis is limited to the occurrence of the 

subsurface ore body and could consider the placement of the wellfields. In response to public 

comments, an alternative that considered the construction and operation of only the Hank Unit 

(but not the Nichols Unit) as described in Section 2.3.4 was considered but eliminated from 

detailed analysis. Section 2.2.2 was added to this final SEIS to discuss alternative wastewater 

disposal options to the proposed action. Section 4.14.1.2 discusses the impacts from 

implementing alternative wastewater disposal options to the proposed action. NRC does not 

analyze the market conditions or business decision of a private entity to submit a license 

request as part of its licensing decision. An NRC licensing decision is based on both the safety 

evaluation and environmental review of the license application. 
Appendix B 

B–20 

NRC performs an analysis of alternative energy production methods and alternative sites in its 

environmental reviews of nuclear power plant licensing actions. In those cases, the proposed 

action involves the decision of whether to grant or deny the license of an energy production 

facility, and the facility could perform this function at other locations. Even in these 

environmental reviews, NRC notes that the decision regarding energy policy and energy 

planning, including whether to implement energy options like solar power, conservation, or even 

nuclear power, are also made by the utility and State and Federal (non-NRC) decisionmakers, 

and NRC does not have authority to make these decisions. If NRC decides to renew or grant 

an operating license to a nuclear power plant the decision of whether to operate the nuclear 

power plant or an alternative is left up to the appropriate State, utility, and Federal entities. 

In comparison, an ISR facility does not generate energy and is a fixed site based on the location 

of the ore body. As a result, alternative energy production methods and alternative site 

locations are not related to the proposed Federal action to decide whether to grant or deny an 

applicant license request to extract uranium from a particular site. NRC has not included an 

analysis of alternate geographic locations, alternative energy production methods, or market 

conditions in this final SEIS. 

Sections 2.3.4, 2.2.2, and 4.14.1.2 were added to the final SEIS to discuss the alternative of 

only constructing and operating the Hank Unit, alternative wastewater disposal options to the 

proposed action, and the analysis of alternative wastewater disposal options, respectively, in 

response to public comments.

B.5.5.2 Use of the GEIS in Site-Specific Environmental Reviews 

Comments: N002-004; N011-026; N011-039; N015-002; N018-015; N018-017; N018-018 

Several commenters expressed concerns about how information from the GEIS (NRC, 2009) 

was incorporated into the draft Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS. One commenter stated a regional 

description of the affected environment could not substitute for a meaningful description and 

analysis of the impacts on the environment from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

Another commenter stated that because the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS was one of three tiered 

from the GEIS, analysis of the relationship between the three SEISs and the GEIS was 

warranted; the commenter expressed concern about how information was incorporated from the 

GEIS. One commenter stated NRC had assured them that detailed site-specific information 

would be disclosed and analyzed in any site-specific NEPA document that tiered from the GEIS. 

However, the commenter noted the majority of statements and general analyses in the draft 

Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS appeared to have been copied and pasted from the GEIS with little 

regard to site-specific conditions or project plans. The commenter noted that verbatim 

statements inserted multiple times within the document without any additional detailed sitespecific information led the reader to question how much information was used to prepared the 

draft Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS and whether that information was analyzed. Another commenter 

was concerned that the level of site-specific detail in the individual SEIS document did not 

provide adequate information to address potential environmental impacts. The commenter 

further noted their lack of specific comments was due to a lack of site-specific information in the 

SEIS. Another commenter was concerned that the SEIS relied too heavily on the GEIS 

framework for analyzing impacts and specifically noted impacts to water quality as an example. 

Response: The relationship of the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS to the GEIS is discussed in 

Sections 1.1 and 1.4 of this SEIS. The GEIS provides a starting point for NRC’s NEPA 

analyses. The Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS tiers and incorporates by reference from the GEIS 

relevant information, findings, and conclusions concerning potential environmental impacts. 
 Appendix B 

B–21 

Chapter 3 of the SEIS describes each resource area (e.g., land use, geology and soils, water 

resources) at a regional level and then provides local and site-specific characteristics. The 

extent to which NRC incorporated GEIS impact conclusions depended on the consistency 

among the applicant’s proposed facility, activities, and conditions at the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project site and the reference facility description, activities, regional conditions, and 

information or conclusions in the GEIS. NRC determinations regarding potential environmental 

impacts and the extent to which GEIS impact conclusions were incorporated by reference are 

discussed in Chapter 4 of this SEIS. 

GEIS Sections 1.7.1 and 1.8 provide a general discussion of the NRC process for reviewing 

license applications for proposed new ISR uranium recovery projects. As discussed in GEIS 

Section 1.8, each site-specific environmental review will evaluate all information submitted in an 

applicant’s Environmental Report to ensure that sufficient information to assess environmental 

impacts has been provided. The applicant’s Environmental Report includes a detailed 

description and assessment of the proposed action, alternatives, site characterization 

information, and potential environmental impacts. If sufficient information were not provided, 

NRC would request additional information to ensure the information is complete. The GEIS 

does not relieve the applicant of the need to adequately document site-specific information in its 

application. 

The NRC staff initially relies on applicant-provided information as well as information and 

conclusions from NRC’s safety review. NRC staff confirms important attributes of the license 

application and Environmental Report through visits to the proposed site location and vicinity, 

independent research activities, and consultations with appropriate Federal, Tribal, State, and/or 

local agencies. If the NRC staff finds commonality between site conditions and those evaluated 

in the GEIS, the staff may incorporate by reference into the SEIS the applicable portions or 

conclusions from the GEIS. Whether or not the staff uses information from the GEIS in 

completing its site-specific environmental review, the conclusions in the site-specific 

environmental review documentation would be required to have sufficient technical basis. 

GEIS Section 1.8.3 describes the process by which the NRC staff uses the GEIS to help 

determine the significance of site-specific environmental impacts. The GEIS provides criteria for 

each environmental resource area to help determine the significance level of potential impacts 

(e.g., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE). The NRC staff applied these criteria to site-specific 

conditions at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project to determine the significance of potential impacts. 

Finally, the NRC staff compared the conditions of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site 

and activities under review to the conditions and aspects identified and discussed in the GEIS to 

see whether the environmental impact conclusions for a particular resource area could be 

adopted in the SEIS. The NRC staff compared whether the GEIS impact significance 

conclusions for a specific resource area could be adopted in full, only in part, or not at all. 

Chapter 4 of the SEIS discusses the extent to which the GEIS conclusions could be adopted, 

including the supporting information and data that form the basis for that determination. 

Additionally, where the GEIS conclusions could be adopted only in part or not at all, the NRC 

staff also determined the significance of environmental impacts for those resource areas and 

provided the basis for that determination. For each resource area in Chapter 4 of the SEIS, the 

NRC staff provided a conclusory statement (i.e., the one identified by the commenter), which 

followed the site-specific information and analysis to indicate the extent to which new and 

significant information affected the ability to adopt impact conclusions from the GEIS. No 

changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

 
Appendix B 

B–22 

B.5.5.3 Scope of the SEIS/GEIS 

Comments: N001-005; N011-002; N011-045; N013-009; N013-010 

Several commenters expressed concern over the scope of the SEIS and, similarly, the GEIS 

(NRC, 2009). One commenter stated that certain aspects of the GEIS, including its scope, 

appeared to be binding upon the SEIS. The commenter further noted that by improperly limiting 

the scope of the SEIS, NRC fails to analyze a number of impact areas. Another commenter 

stated additional comments on the GEIS were appropriate, given the GEIS did not apply to any 

federal plan or project and did not represent any final NRC regulatory or policy decision, which 

therefore made it impossible for any member of the public to meaningfully comment on the 

GEIS in a concrete context. The same commenter noted that despite many public comments 

on the GEIS urging NRC to consider the impacts of previous uranium mining and milling, NRC 

deemed contamination from past uranium mining and milling to be outside the GEIS scope. 

One commenter requested that the public have an opportunity to review the NRC proposed 

rulemaking on groundwater protection at ISR facilities and urged NRC to extend the draft SEIS 

comment period to allow NRC to promptly release its associated draft groundwater protection 

rule so it could be reviewed concurrently with the draft SEISs. 

Response: As discussed in SEIS Section 1.4, the NRC staff considers the GEIS scope to be 

sufficient for the purposes of defining the scope of this SEIS. In so stating, NRC considers that 

topics determined to be within scope for the GEIS were also within scope for the SEIS. NRC 

made this determination based on its review of the applicant-provided information and as a 

result of meetings with Federal, State, and local agencies and contact with potentially interested 

Native American tribes and local authorities, entities, and public interest groups in person and 

via e-mail and telephone (see SEIS Sections 1.4.2 and 1.7.3). 

Concerning public involvement in the GEIS, NRC accepted public comments on the GEIS scope 

from July 24, 2007, to November 30, 2007, and held three public scoping meetings to aid in this 

effort. Additionally, NRC held eight public meetings to receive comments on the draft GEIS 

published in July 2008. Comments on the draft GEIS were accepted between July 28, 2007, 

and November 8, 2008. Comments received during scoping and on the draft GEIS are 

available through the NRC ADAMS database on the NRC website (http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html). Transcripts of the scoping meeting and draft GEIS comment meetings are 

available at http://www.nrc.gov/materials/uranium-recovery/geis/pub-involve-process.html. A 

scoping summary report is provided in GEIS Appendix A. Based on public meeting transcripts 

and written comments received during the scoping and public comment period for the GEIS, the 

NRC staff considers that meaningful and extensive public comments were received on 

the GEIS. 

With respect to the specific comment that contamination from past conventional mining and 

milling was outside the scope of the GEIS, the NRC noted in GEIS Appendix A that such 

contamination could be assessed as part of a site-specific cumulative impacts evaluation. 

Chapter 5 of this SEIS provides NRC site-specific cumulative effects analysis. In SEIS 

Table 5-1, past uranium recovery operations, including conventional mills within the Wyoming 

East Uranium Milling Region (where the proposed site is located) are identified. The cumulative 

impacts evaluation in SEIS Chapter 5 has been revised to clarify and improve the transparency 

of the analysis. Regarding the comment concerning the proposed rulemaking on groundwater 

protection, this SEIS is based on the regulations in effect at the time of writing. This has been 

clarified in SEIS Section 1.5. Section B.5.9.4 of this appendix describes the status of the 

proposed rulemaking on groundwater protection. 
 Appendix B 

B–23 

B.5.5.4 Reference 

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

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

B.5.6 Scoping Process and Scoping Report 

Comments: N011-047; N011-049; N011-050; N011-051 

One commenter stated NRC did not conduct any public meetings regarding the scope of the 

Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS in contrast to what was done for the GEIS (NRC, 2009). The 

commenter stated that instead of public scoping meetings, NRC met with government agencies 

and groups it considered interested in the SEIS to determine scope. The commenter stated the 

failure to conduct public scoping prevented the public from raising issues, including the 

cumulative impact of past uranium mining and milling that the commenter stated should have 

been considered in the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS. The commenter stated that the NRC failure to 

conduct public scoping meetings was a violation of NEPA and the NRC should issue another 

draft SEIS for public comment after conducting scoping meetings. 

Response: NRC conducted a public scoping process for the ISR GEIS, from which the Nichols 

Ranch ISR SEIS is tiered. The scoping process included three public scoping meetings, one of 

which was in Casper, Wyoming. NRC considered public comments, along with information on 

ISR technology and regional information to identify the scope of the GEIS for ISR facilities. The 

process included identifying significant issues to be studied in depth in the GEIS to help 

evaluate potential environmental impacts to various resource areas and identify other regulatory 

and consultation requirements for ISR facilities. 

NRC considers the ISR GEIS to be a final environmental impact statement and that the 

environmental reviews for a specific license application are a supplement to the ISR GEIS. 

According to NRC regulations in 10 CFR 51.92(d), the NRC staff is required to prepare a 

supplement to a final environmental impact statement in the “same manner as the final 

environmental impact statement except that a scoping process need not be used.” 

Furthermore, even if a scoping process is conducted, NRC regulations do not require the 

scoping process to include public scoping meetings [10 CFR 51.26(b)]. 

NRC staff interacted with multiple Federal, Tribal, State, and local agencies and/or entities 

during preparation of the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS for consultation purposes and to gather 

information on potential issues, concerns, and environmental impacts related to the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project, as described in Section 1.7.3 of this SEIS. NRC staff used 

information from these interactions and other site-specific information to evaluate whether 

issues identified during the scoping process for the GEIS were adequate for the Nichols Ranch 

ISR environmental review and whether specific GEIS conclusions or findings were applicable to 

the Nichols Ranch ISR Project. This information was used to prepare the draft SEIS which was 

issued for public comment. 

Comments received on the draft SEIS were considered in the development of this final SEIS. In 

particular, the cumulative impacts analysis in Chapter 5 of the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS has 

been revised in response to public comments received on the draft SEIS and considers past 

uranium mining and milling. 
Appendix B 

B–24 

B.5.6.1 References 

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

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

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

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

B.5.7 SEIS/GEIS Methods and Approach 

B.5.7.1 Consideration of Compliance History in Assessing Impacts 

Comments: N011-029; N011-030 

One commenter stated the NRC conclusion regarding groundwater impacts disregarded the 

operational history of other ISR operations that have used the same or similar leak detection 

and well-integrity programs as proposed for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The commenter 

provided the example of the Smith Ranch Project as support for their concern. The commenter 

stated actual operational data and NRC conclusions regarding the magnitude of impacts in both 

the GEIS and the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS were fundamentally contrary to NEPA. 

Response: NRC conclusions regarding the potential environmental impacts to groundwater for 

the Nichols Ranch ISR Project are provided in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1. These impact conclusions 

are based on facility-specific process descriptions for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project and 

site-specific characteristics at the proposed site. In determining impact conclusions, the NRC 

staff reviewed information the applicant provided in its license application as amended 

(including the technical and environmental reports), information and data staff collected 

independently, and information and data provided in the GEIS (NRC, 2009a). 

GEIS Section 2.11.2 discusses leaks, spills, and excursions that have occurred at existing ISR 

facilities. Excursions and mechanical integrity failures have been reported for past and current 

ISR facilities, but in most cases they have been controlled and did not pose a threat to human 

health or the environment. Three ISRs are currently operating: two in Wyoming [Uranium One 

Irigaray and Christensen Ranch facility (formally owned by Cogema Mining, Inc.)] and the PRI 

Smith Ranch-Highland Uranium Project] and one in Nebraska (the Cameco Crow Butte Project). 

Excursion history and corrective action for all of these sites can be found in annual reports and 

correspondence between NRC and the applicants in ADAMS. 

All ISR facilities have the potential for leaks, spills, and excursions, and the purpose of the 

oversight program is to help ensure that leaks, spills, and excursions are minimized. Oversight 

activities, including inspection activities, verify that ISR facility operations, aquifer restoration, 

and decommissioning activities are being conducted according to NRC regulations. NRC 

enforcement programs and policies effectively verify whether if applicants are in compliance 

with NRC regulations and take appropriate enforcement action if a licensed facility is not 

in compliance. 

Surface containment of leaks and spills is required for all storage tanks (71 FR 77266). In 

addition, spill prevention plans are required of each ISR facility per 40 CFR Part 112. For 

chemicals stored at ISR facilities, concrete berms with containment equivalent to at least the 

volume of the tank are required. Spill reporting varies from state to state. NRC requires that a 

licensee report a spill within 24 hours if the spill meets the criteria in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 
 Appendix B 

B–25 

40.60. Otherwise, NRC typically requires, by license condition, that if a leak or spill meets State 

reporting requirements, it must also be reported to NRC. Leaks and spills must be 

characterized and cleaned up to regulatory requirements [see 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 6(6)]. 

To detect and prevent excursions to the overlying and underlying aquifers, NRC issues a 

license condition that requires operators to perform mechanical integrity testing for all injection 

and production wells (NRC, 2003). This test is conducted every 5 years to ensure that the wells 

do not develop leaks. To ensure that excursions are identified early, excursion monitoring wells 

are installed. Horizontal excursion monitoring wells are placed in a perimeter ring surrounding 

the wellfield in the production aquifer. In addition, vertical excursion monitoring wells are 

installed in the overlying and underlying aquifers (NRC, 2003). The monitoring wells are usually 

sampled twice a month for excursion indicators. When excursion indicators exceed 

predetermined upper control limits (UCLs), it may signal that production fluids are moving out of 

the wellfield boundary. If an excursion is confirmed, the applicant must begin corrective actions 

to control the excursion and must continue corrective actions until the excursion is controlled. 

The location of the excursion monitoring wells, the choice of excursion indicators, and the 

process for determining UCLs are all reviewed before a license is approved. 

Before uranium is recovered from an aquifer, EPA must declare the portion of the aquifer where 

production would occur, exempt as a USDW (see 40 CFR 146.4). In addition, if liquid byproduct 

material is to be disposed of via deep well injection, EPA must also declare the deep wellreceiving aquifer exempt. The production aquifer exemption area would be restored to the 

standards in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, whereas the injected byproduct materials fluid would 

remain in the exempted aquifer. 

NRC performs an environmental review of an applicant’s license application to determine the 

environmental effects of operating the proposed ISR facility. The Commission determined it 

would prepare a SEIS for each license application to fulfill its responsibilities under NEPA 

(see 10 CFR 51.20). NEPA requires that all Federal agencies consider environmental values in 

the conduct of their work. No changes were made to the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS beyond the 

information provided in this response. 

Comment: N011-040 

One commenter stated that the NRC conclusion that impacts to groundwater from groundwater 

restoration would be SMALL was arbitrary and unreasonable. Additionally, the commenter 

requested NRC fully disclose the ISR industry groundwater restoration history and then 

reconsider impacts to groundwater, regionally and locally, based on that history. 

Response: NRC conclusions regarding the potential environmental impacts to groundwater 

from groundwater restoration for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project are provided in 

Section 4.5.2.1.3. As discussed there, NRC analyzed impacts that could result from drawdown, 

leaks and spills from buried piping, and disposal of waste fluids via deep well injection and 

determined that such potential impacts would be SMALL. These impact conclusions are based 

on facility-specific process descriptions for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project and site-specific 

characteristics at the proposed site. In determining these impact conclusions, the NRC staff 

reviewed information the applicant provided in its license application as amended (including the 

Technical and Environmental Reports), reviewed information and data the staff independently 

collected, and considered information and data from the GEIS (NRC, 2009a). 
Appendix B 

B–26 

NRC published a summary of groundwater impacts from ISR operations at operating facilities 

that is available through the NRC ADAMS using the Accession Number ML091770402 

(NRC, 2009b). ADAMS is available on the internet at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. No changes were made to the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS beyond the information 

provided in this response. 

B.5.7.2 Reliance on Regulatory Compliance to Limit Impacts 

Comment: N013-016 

A commenter stated that NRC failed to mention it does not have the authority to enforce any 

requirements imposed (on the licensee) by other agencies and that none of the other agency 

approvals have yet been granted. Thus, the commenter concluded that NRC could not rely on 

these requirements to reduce the impact of the proposed action. 

Response: As a matter of practice, the NRC staff assumes that existing regulations are 

applied, as appropriate, to an ISR facility. NRC expects licensee compliance with regulatory 

requirements and license conditions when evaluating the potential environmental impacts of an 

ISR project. While NRC does not have the statutory authority to enforce other agency 

requirements, the other agencies have the necessary enforcement authority and would carry out 

the requirements of their regulations. The NRC staff would conduct periodic inspections to 

determine compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, license conditions, and 

approved procedures. Potential violations and allegations would be evaluated and addressed 

through appropriate NRC enforcement or allegation programs. Enforcement actions can result 

in fines, corrective actions, or injunctive relief to address violations of regulatory requirements. 

Table 1-2 of the final Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS summarizes the status of the environmental 

approvals that would be required for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. No changes 

were made to the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS in response to this comment. 

B.5.7.3 Methods for Defining Use of Milling Regions 

Comments: N018-009; N018-010 

One commenter expressed concern about the study area splits for the two mining districts in 

Wyoming and believed the socioeconomic data are questionable because these data are 

traditionally collected by political subdivisions that are not congruent or coincidental with the 

mining districts analyzed in the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS. 

Response: Delineation of the study areas in the GEIS (NRC, 2009a) and that were 

subsequently followed in the site-specific environmental reviews that tier from the GEIS were 

developed based on several factors: the location of both former and existing uranium milling 

sites and the location of potential new sites that reflect the geologic setting, the areas where the 

uranium recovery industry indicated the ISR technology would be used for uranium milling, and 

the location of historical uranium deposits. 

The commenter is correct that socioeconomic data are traditionally collected by political 

subdivisions that are not necessarily congruent with the study areas defined in the GEIS. 

However, because the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is located in a sparsely populated 

area, census geographic units cover much larger areas and the data may not be available at a 

smaller scale. The SEIS includes site-specific analysis of socioeconomic factors for the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. The SEIS uses a region of influence limited to the 

proposed project site area (Campbell and Johnson Counties). 
 Appendix B 

B–27 

No change was made to the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS beyond the information provided in 

this response. 

B.5.7.4 General Comments on GEIS Structure, Methods, and Approaches 

Comments: N001-002; N002-005; N011-038; N011-053; N011-063; N011-064; N011-065; 

N011-067; N013-014; N013-020; N017-011; N017-020 

Several commenters submitted comments on the draft SEIS for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

addressing solely the GEIS (NRC, 2009a). 

Response: The draft GEIS was published with a Federal Register Notice of Availability July 28, 

2008 (73 FR 43795). NRC held a 103-day public comment period for the draft GEIS from July 

28, 2008, through November 7, 2008. During this comment period, members of the public were 

invited and encouraged to submit related comments online, via e-mail, via regular mail, or orally 

at one of eight public meetings held on the draft GEIS. NRC considered and responded to 

comments received on the draft GEIS and included these responses in Appendix G of the final 

GEIS, Notice of Availability, which was published on June 5, 2009 (74 FR 27052). 

Because the listed comments do not directly apply to the draft SEIS or provide any site-specific 

information related to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, they are not considered further 

here. Section 1.4.1 of the SEIS describes the relationship between the GEIS and the SEIS. 

Section 1.4.1 was revised to indicate that NRC responded to comments received on the GEIS 

submitted during the GEIS comment period and that those responses are contained in GEIS 

Appendix G. 

Comment: N017-006 

One commenter stated that NRC, in its final GEIS, provided little more than a cursory response 

to comments the commenter and others submitted on the draft GEIS. The commenter 

considered this minimal response meant that NRC did not fulfill its responsibility under NEPA, 

which requires that Federal agencies respond to comments the public or cooperating agencies 

submit. The commenter further stated the NRC responses to comments on the draft GEIS were 

conclusory and nonresponsive, thereby failing a basic requirement of NEPA and the agency 

duty to supplement, modify, or improve its analyses in response to comment. 

Response: NRC disagrees with the commenter that the final GEIS responses to comments 

were inadequate. NEPA requires an agency to have a reasonable response to comments but 

does not require an agency to accept recommendations or suggestions of other agencies or 

commenters. An agency is not obligated to conduct new studies in response to issues raised in 

comments, nor is it obligated to resolve conflicts raised by opposing viewpoints. The standard 

requires that agencies identify opposing views found in the comments such that differences in 

opinion are readily apparent and there is a good faith, reasoned analysis in the response. NRC 

published the final GEIS on June 5, 2009 (74 FR 27052). The final GEIS included Appendix G, 

which was dedicated to identifying and summarizing comments submitted on the draft GEIS and 

the NRC responses to those comments. Pursuant to the NRC regulations under 10 CFR Part 

51 that implement NEPA, and specifically 10 CFR 51.91(a), NRC responses took the form of 

(i) Modification of alternatives, including the proposed action 

(ii Development and evaluation of alternatives not previously given serious consideration 

(iii) Supplementation or modification of analyses 

(iv) Factual corrections 
Appendix B 

B–28 

(v) Explanation of why comments do not warrant further response, citing sources, 

 authorities or reasons that support this conclusion 

The NRC staff considers its response to comments on the draft GEIS, as documented in the 

main text and appendices to the final GEIS, to be consistent with NRC responsibilities under its 

NEPA implementing regulations under 10 CFR Part 51. No further modification to the Nichols 

Ranch ISR SEIS has been made beyond the information provided in this response. 

B.5.7.5 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

Licensing of Source Material.” “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: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

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

40 CFR Part 112. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 112 

“Oil Pollution Prevention.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 146. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 146 

“Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards.” Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

71 FR 77266, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “EPA proposed amendments to the SPCC 

rule.” December 26, 2006. 

73 FR 43795, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Notice of Availability of Draft Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities.” Federal Register. 

Vol. 73, No. 145, pp. 43,795–43,798. July 28, 2008. 

74 FR 27052, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Notice of Availability of Final Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities.” Federal Register. 

Vol. 74, No. 107, pp. 27,052–27,054. June 5, 2009. 

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

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

NRC. Memorandum from C. Miller to Chairman Jaczko, et al “Staff Assessment of 

Groundwater Impacts from Previously Licensed In-Situ Uranium Recovery Facilities.” 

ML091770402. Washington, DC: NRC. July 10, 2009b. 

NRC. NUREG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications.” Final Report. ML032250177. Washington, DC: NRC. June 2003. 
 Appendix B 

B–29 

B.5.8 Public Involvement 

Comment: N002-002 

One commenter stated the public comment period was insufficient to allow for meaningful 

participation, inconsistent with the purpose and intent of NEPA. 

Response: Public participation is an essential part of the licensing process, and NRC 

encourages public involvement. NRC conducted an open, public SEIS development process 

consistent with the requirements of the NRC NEPA-implementing regulations. As described in 

SEIS Appendix B.2.4, NRC extended the initial comment period and the public was provided an 

81-day comment period from December 11, 2009, to March 3, 2010, which exceeds the 

minimum 45-day comment period required under NRC regulations. No change was made to the 

SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N014-015 

One commenter stated if the SEIS provided a more detailed description of the licensing process 

to include the GEIS scoping and public comment meetings (NRC, 2009), the completion of the 

SER, and the license applicant meetings with NRC staff, this would provide members of the 

public and interested stakeholders with a better understanding of how focused the NRC 

licensing process is on transparency and public participation and how extensive the process is 

on the issues of protecting public health and safety and the environment on a site-specific basis. 

Response: NRC provides multiple avenues for public observation or involvement in its 

licensing process and attempts to make the licensing and environmental review processes as 

transparent as possible. In the NRC license review process, when an application is received, 

reviewed for completeness, and accepted for detailed review, NRC formally dockets the 

application and publishes a notice in the Federal Register. The Federal Register notice 

announces the availability of the application and provides an opportunity for affected individuals 

or entities to request a hearing under the NRC formal hearing process. The NOA published in 

the Federal Register includes the relevant identifying information for the license application so 

that an interested member of the public can view the application either electronically through 

NRC ADAMS or in person by visiting the NRC Public Document Room. 

Section 1.4.2 of the SEIS describes the NRC staff's efforts to meet with the public, as well as 

tribes and Federal, State, and local agencies, to gather information for the development of this 

SEIS. This section also describes the public comment process for the draft SEIS and indicates 

that a Notice of Opportunity to request a hearing on the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR project 

was published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2008 (73 FR 34052). In response to the 

Notice of Opportunity, NRC did not receive any requests for a hearing. In addition to the 

opportunities provided through development of the SEIS, NRC provided opportunities for public 

input during the staff's safety review. Specifically, the staff held 10 meetings or teleconferences 

with the applicant from 2006 to 2010; all of these interactions included an opportunity for the 

public to listen to the meetings and ask questions. 

This SEIS also describes the opportunities to provide input that occurred throughout the 

development of the GEIS, from which the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS is tiered. As discussed in 

Section 1.4.1 of the SEIS, NRC accepted public comments on the scope of the GEIS from 

July 24, 2007, to November 30, 2007, and held three public scoping meetings, one of which was 

in the State of Wyoming. During the public comment period on the draft GEIS, NRC held eight 

public meetings to receive comments on the draft GEIS: three of these meetings occurred in 

the State of Wyoming. 
Appendix B 

B–30 

Text was added to Section 1.4.2 of the SEIS to discuss the opportunities for public involvement 

that were part of the licensing review process. 

Comments: N015-026; N015-035; N020-031 

Several commenters requested interested stakeholders be involved in the review of any 

modeling protocol for assessing air quality impacts prior to supplemental work being performed. 

The same commenter asked whether there is a public participation process associated with the 

establishment of, and the NRC decision to approve, alternate concentration limits (ACLs). 

Response: NRC provides multiple avenues for public involvement in its licensing process in 

the review of an individual ISR facility. For new ISR license applications, such as the Nichols 

Ranch ISR application, NRC publishes a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register to prepare the 

site-specific SEIS and provides information on the scope of the SEIS. NRC also publishes the 

draft SEIS for public comment and addresses stakeholder comments on the draft in its final 

SEIS. NRC may also make a draft environmental assessment and accompanying draft finding 

of no significant impact available for public comment for any related ISR licensing actions that 

do not require an SEIS. 

A licensee must apply for a license amendment for an ACL. For major licensing actions that 

may include an amendment request for an ACL, a notice is published in the Federal Register

and on the NRC webpage providing an opportunity for the public to comment and an opportunity 

to request a hearing. Further, NRC performs a safety and an environmental review (typically an 

environmental assessment) as part of evaluating the adequacy of ACLs. 

No changes were made to the final SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

B.5.8.1 References 

10 CFR Part 2. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 2, “Rules of Practice for 

Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

73 FR 34052, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Notice of License Application Request of 

Uranerz Energy Corporation Nichols Ranch In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project, Casper, 

Wyoming, Opportunity to Request a Hearing and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to 

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) for Contention Preparation.” 

Federal Register: Vol. 73, No. 116. pp. 34052–34056. June 16, 2008. 

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

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

B.5.9 Regulatory Issues and Process 

B.5.9.1 NRC as a Regulatory Authority 

Comment: N014-010 

One commenter asked for clarification about NRC and its statutory mission under the AEA and 

its approach to licensing as an independent regulatory agency. The commenter suggested that 

all references to NRC’s statutory mission in the SEISs be revised with the following language: 
 Appendix B 

B–31 

“NRC must license facilities, including ISR operations, in accordance with the AEA and the 

Commission’s implementing regulations to protect public health and safety from potential 

radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with AEA materials and operations.” 

Response: NRC was created after Congress passed the Energy Reorganization Act in 1974. 

This Act, along with the AEA of 1954, provides the foundation for NRC’s regulatory authority. 

As an independent regulatory agency, NRC reports directly to Congress. Independent agencies 

can be distinguished from executive agencies by their structural and functional characteristics. 

NRC has the responsibility to license and regulate uranium ISR facilities through the statutory 

requirements of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978 and the 

AEA, as amended. These statutes require that NRC ensure source material, as defined in AEA 

Section 11(z), and byproduct material, as defined in AEA Section 11e.(2), is managed to 

conform with applicable regulatory requirements. The text within the SEIS is correct. No 

changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

B.5.9.2 NRC Policies and Practices 

Comments: N013-055; N013-056 

One commenter stated NRC fails to discuss why averaging for baseline water quality conditions 

is allowed under NRC regulations. The commenter expressed concern that some livestock and 

domestic wells are completed within the ore zone and that averaging could prevent those 

aquifers from being restored to a level that would allow these groundwater sources to be used 

for the same premilling purposes. 

Response: NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 7A state that licensees 

are required to establish baseline water quality that is used to set the site-specific (wellfield) 

groundwater protection standards as specified in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(1). 

NUREG–1569, the Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications (NRC, 2003a), allows water quality at individual wells within a wellfield to be 

averaged as an acceptable method to establish the required baseline water quality in the 

wellfield. This average baseline water quality is used to establish (i) restoration standards that 

must be met as required in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5) and (ii) restoration 

success. 

NUREG–1569 allows wellfield averaging because the ISR process tends to homogenize water 

quality in a wellfield. However, the applicant will not necessarily average groundwater quality 

data for an entire wellfield. For example, the applicant states in Section 5.7.8.6 of the approved 

application that if water quality data vary significantly within a wellfield, the wellfield will be 

divided into subzones and restoration standards will be calculated for each wellfield subzone. 

Section 3.5.2.3.4 of the SEIS discusses domestic and livestock wells that are located within and 

near both the Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

There are no domestic wells within the Nichols Ranch ISR Project proposed licensed area. The 

nearest domestic well is 1 km [0.6 m] from the Hank Unit proposed licensed boundary. There 

are several livestock wells located within the Hank Unit proposed licensed boundary. The 

applicant has committed to abandon domestic and livestock wells within the wellfields that may 

be impacted by operations (Uranerz, 2007). The applicant has also committed to restore the 

wellfield ore zone aquifers (Uranerz, 2007) to average baseline water quality. When the wellfield 

is restored to its Commission-approved baseline water quality standard, it will have the same 

water quality and preoperational use as it did prior to operations. 

 
Appendix B 

B–32 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N014-018 

One commenter stated that the SEIS language indicates that NRC would be reviewing and 

approving all wellfield packages rather than just initial wellfield packages. The commenter went 

on to note that, in the commenter's opinion, if NRC were to review and approve all wellfield 

packages, this would be contrary and detrimental to the Commission’s policy supporting 

performance-based licensing, and that NRC staff should continue to allow Safety and 

Environmental Review Panels (SERPs) to review and approve wellfield packages under 

traditional performance-based licensing as has been done in the past. 

Response: 

NRC agrees with the need to clarify its position on review and approval of wellfield hydrologic 

data packages. Historically, NRC reviewed and approved all wellfield packages. During the 

mid-1990s, the Commission adopted a performance-based approach to licensing. A 

performance-based regulatory approach is one that establishes performance and results as the 

primary basis for regulatory decision making, and this approach incorporates the following 

attributes: (i) measurable (or calculable) parameters (i.e., direct measurement of the physical 

parameter of interest or of related parameters that can be used to calculate the parameter of 

interest) exist to monitor system, including both facility and licensee performance; (ii) objective 

criteria to assess performance are established based on risk insights, deterministic analyses, 

and performance history; (iii) licensees have flexibility to determine how to meet established 

performance criteria in ways that would encourage and reward improved outcomes; and (iv) a 

framework exists in which the failure to meet a performance criterion, while undesirable, would 

not in and of itself constitute or result in an immediate safety concern. 

Current Commission policy allows the applicant to use an in-house Safety and Environmental 

Review Panel (SERP) to review and approve wellfield packages under performance-based 

license conditions. The SERP is composed of at least three members: one with expertise in 

management, one with expertise in operations, and the radiation safety officer (RSO). NRC 

staff, however, has determined that a new licensee with no record of performance must submit 

its first wellfield package to NRC for review and approval. After NRC approval of an initial 

wellfield package, a licensee would have a template on which to model future packages. In 

wellfields where particular geologic features (e.g. faults, thin/missing aquitards) or groundwater 

flow behavior (e.g., unconfined aquifer, leakage across aquitards) require the characterization of 

local field data and testing to determine whether ISR operations can meet regulatory 

requirements, the staff may require review and approval of additional wellfield packages. As a 

result of the safety review for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, NRC has determined the 

hydrogeological conditions of the Nichols Ranch Project that would impact excursion control and 

capture require NRC to impose a license condition whereby NRC will review and approve the 

Production Area Pump Test reports for the first wellfields at the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units. 

The discussion in Section 6.3.1.2 of the final Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS was revised to clarify 

this issue. 

B.5.9.3 Adequacy of NRC Regulations and Practices 

Comments: N011-043; N013-067 

A commenter stated that the NRC staff recognizes that “class of use” is an inappropriate 

restoration goal and referred to the NRC Regulatory Issue Summary issued in 2009, which 

concluded that Criterion 5B does not provide for restoration to “class of use” standards and also 
 Appendix B 

B–33 

concluded that NUREG–1569’s discussion of groundwater restoration to “preoperational class 

of use” is not an appropriate standard for evaluating license applications (RIS 2009-05). 

Another commenter wanted to know whether the aquifers would be restored to a quality level 

that would allow them to be used for domestic and stock wells in the future. 

Response: 

The commenter is correct that in the past, NRC has applied “class of use,” a state designation 

under the Safe Drinking Water Act, as a secondary restoration goal to approve ISR restoration. 

The phrase “class of use” referred to in the GEIS as a standard for restored groundwater quality 

was based on restoration standards provided in NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003a). NRC has 

determined that the primary and secondary restoration standards in NUREG–1569 are 

inconsistent with the restoration standards in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). 

NRC has notified licensees and applicants in Regulatory Information Summary (RIS) 09-05, 

dated April 29, 2009, that the restoration standards listed in NUREG–1569, Section 6.1.3(4) are 

not consistent with those listed in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A and licensees and applicants 

must commit to achieve the restoration standards in Criterion 5B(5). 

The standards in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5) state the concentration of a 

hazardous constituent must not exceed (i) the Commission-approved background concentration 

of that constituent in ground water, (ii) the respective value in the table in paragraph 5C if the 

constituent is listed in the table and if the background level of the constituent is below the value 

listed or, (iii) an alternative concentration limit established by the Commission. An ACL is not a 

primary restoration goal and will only be considered after a licensee has demonstrated that 

primary restoration goals are not practically achievable at a specific site. Only ACLs that present 

no significant hazard may be proposed by the licensees for Commission consideration. The 

Commission may establish a site-specific ACL for a hazardous constituent as provided in 5B(5) 

if it finds that (i) the proposed limit is as low as reasonably achievable, after considering 

practicable corrective actions, and (ii) 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. NRC 

requirements for application, review, and establishment of a site-specific ACL are discussed in 

Appendix C. In addition, ACL application review procedures for NRC staff are available in the 

following documents: January 1996 Staff Technical Position: Alternate Concentration Limits for 

Title II Uranium Mills, NUREG–1620, and NUREG–1724. 

As described in Section 2.2.1.2.4.1 of the SEIS, before ISR operations can begin, the portion of 

the aquifer where ISR extraction will occur must be declared an exempt aquifer. The criteria 

EPA use for an aquifer exemption is found in 40 CFR 146.4. The regulation states that an 

aquifer or a portion thereof may be determined to be an “exempted aquifer” if it meets the 

following criteria: (i) it does not currently serve as a source of drinking water; and (ii) it cannot 

now and will not in the future serve as a source of drinking water, or (iii) the total dissolved 

solids content of the groundwater is more than 3,000 and less than 10,000mg/l and it is not 

reasonably expected to supply a public water system. Therefore, any domestic well within the 

ISR production zone aquifer must be abandoned and may not be used as a source of drinking 

water in the future. The federal regulation of exempt aquifers is enforced by EPA, which has the 

responsibility to ensure that an exempted aquifer is not used as a source of drinking water. If 

stock wells are located in the production zone aquifer and the aquifer is restored to the 

groundwater protection standards in Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5), these wells will be suitable for 

their preoperational use after restoration. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response 
Appendix B 

B–34 

Comments: N014-012; N014-013 

One commenter noted that the NRC discussion of regulatory programs applicable to ISR 

operations outside the context of the AEA should be expanded to demonstrate how highly 

regulated the ISR industry is in the United States. The same commenter further noted the NRC 

should specify all of the regulatory programs that apply to ISR operations and not limit the 

discussion in the final SEIS to only 10 CFR Part 51 regulations. A commenter noted the SEIS 

states that ISR operations are subject to the AEA and NEPA with no mention of other statutory 

programs such as the SDWA, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Endangered 

Species Act, as implemented in accordance with various State programs. Commenters stated 

that the final SEIS should clarify the extent of the regulatory oversight for ISR operations. 

Commenters noted that multiple agencies oversee ISR operations, often resulting in two or even 

three layers of financial assurance for each ISR project; a commenter stated this more than 

assures that adequate site-specific decommissioning and decontamination would be performed. 

Response: NRC has to comply with all applicable Federal environmental laws and regulations, 

including its own regulations (in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations) and those 

promulgated by other federal agencies, so long as compliance would not be inconsistent with 

other statutory requirements. GEIS Section 1.6 (NRC, 2009a) identifies agencies involved in a 

uranium ISR facility, and Section 1.7 discusses the licensing and permitting process for an ISR 

facility. Section 1.6 of the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS discusses the status of licensing and 

permitting and associated consultations that pertain to the ISR licensing review at the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The SEIS was prepared in accordance with NEPA requirements 

and the NRC-implementing regulations at 10 CFR Part 51. 

Furthermore, GEIS Appendix B summarizes other Federal statutes, implementing regulations, 

and Executive Orders potentially applicable to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

licensing review. The agencies responsible for implementing these programs describe 

regulatory programs applicable to ISR operations, and readers should consult the responsible 

agencies for clarification of their regulations and programs. ISR applicants are ultimately 

responsible for understanding and complying with all Federal, State, and local permits and 

regulations whether described in the GEIS or not. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N017-026 

One commenter stated that for NRC to craft an appropriate “Purpose and Need for Agency 

Action,” the agency must work with its Federal colleagues at EPA, U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE), and U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to develop a regulatory framework for uranium 

recovery cleanup and licensing that protects public health and the environment. The 

commenter asserted that the NRC has refused to issue a draft groundwater protection rule for 

nearly 5 years and that it is past time for NRC to develop a coherent set of protective 

environmental requirements for ISR processes; the commenter stated that developing a draft 

groundwater rule would be a start. 

Response: NRC has announced it is working on a rulemaking specific to groundwater 

protection at ISR facilities but has not yet completed that rulemaking. The analysis in the 

Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS is based on existing regulations at the time the final SEIS is published. 

NRC reviews applications using regulations in place at the time of review. 

As background, COMJSM-06-001 (NRC, 2006) directed the staff to focus on eliminating dual 

regulation of groundwater by NRC and EPA. The Commission stated that the NRC should 
 Appendix B 

B–35 

retain its jurisdiction over the wellfield and groundwater under its AEA authority, but should defer 

active regulation of groundwater protection programs to either EPA or to the EPA-authorized 

state through the EPA UIC program. The status of ongoing rulemaking activities is provided on 

the NRC public website at www.nrc.gov. Because no proposed rule is available to discuss, no 

changes were made to the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS beyond the information provided in this 

response. 

B.5.9.4 Applicable Rulemaking Efforts 

Comment: N011-044 

One commenter stated NRC has an ad hoc approach to ISR regulation and asserted that the 

“class of use” restoration standard used in both the GEIS and the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS 

indicated a fundamental problem with the NRC regulatory framework. The commenter was also 

concerned that the GEIS (NRC, 2009a) would become the proxy for ISR regulations. The 

commenter stated NRC does not have regulations specifically relevant to ISR operations but 

rather has adapted some of the conventional milling regulations to apply to ISR operations and 

“filled in the remaining gaps with license conditions,” the standard review plan for ISR facilities, 

and the GEIS. 

Response: NRC has announced it is working on a rulemaking specific to groundwater 

protection at ISR facilities but has not yet completed that rulemaking. The analysis in the 

Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS is based on existing regulations at the time the final SEIS is published. 

The NRC reviews applications using regulations in place at the time of the review. 

As background, COMJSM-06-001 (NRC, 2006) directed the staff to focus on eliminating dual 

regulation of groundwater by the NRC and the EPA. The Commission stated that the NRC 

should retain its jurisdiction over the wellfield and groundwater under its AEA authority, but 

should defer active regulation of groundwater protection programs to either EPA or to the 

EPA-authorized state through the EPA UIC program. The status of ongoing rulemaking 

activities is provided on the NRC public website at www.nrc.gov. 

B.5.9.5 NRC NEPA Process Implementation 

Comment: N001-007 

One commenter stated that absent a sense of the timing, scope, and coverage of the NRC 

proposed in-situ leach groundwater rule and associated NEPA process, an early February 2010 

date for the close of the comment period on the draft Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS placed a 

tremendous burden on the public and arbitrarily separated two documents that should be 

considered together. 

Response: NRC is currently working on a proposed rulemaking specific to groundwater 

protection at ISR facilities. At the time of this writing, this rulemaking effort is still in progress 

and no proposed rule has been submitted for public comment. 

The analysis of the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS is based upon the current regulations in 10 CFR 

Part 40. Until and if the proposed rulemaking is made final, license applications will continue to 

be reviewed and approved in accordance with current regulations. 

Section B.5.9.4 of this appendix provides additional detail on this rulemaking effort. 

Section B.5.13 of this appendix discusses extension of the public comment period on the draft 

Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS in response to public comments. 
Appendix B 

B–36 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N017-002 

One commenter noted that without vigorous compliance with NEPA requirements and 

adherence to strict environmental protections, the environmental history of uranium mining 

could be repeated. 

Response: NRC understands and recognizes there are serious legacy issues resulting from 

decades of mining activities from the 1940s through the 1970s when waste from uranium mines 

was not cleaned up after mines were shut down. NRC regulation of ISR facilities includes 

ensuring ISR operators take necessary measures to confine mobilized uranium and other 

constituents within the wellfield where the facility is operating, ensuring monitoring programs are 

in place to provide early detection of any migration of process fluids away from the wellfield, and 

ensuring the public is protected by enforcing necessary corrective actions to prevent uranium 

from contaminating adjacent water sources. 

The Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS was prepared in accordance with NRC guidance in NUREG–1748 

(NRC, 2003b) and is consistent with NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 that implement NEPA. 

Because the comment was general in nature, no changes were made to the Nichols Ranch ISR 

SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

B.5.9.6 NRC Licensing Process 

Comment: N014-009 

One commenter requested a more complete description of the NRC licensing process be 

provided for those not familiar with that process. The commenter stated the process included 

NRC review of the entire license application (including the technical and environmental reports), 

NRC RAIs, and a public participation process. The commenter further stated the SEIS should 

clarify the link between the NRC environmental and safety reviews. 

Response: SEIS Section 1.6 discusses in general the NRC licensing process for the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. This section refers to GEIS Section 1.7.1 (NRC, 2009a), which 

contains a more complete discussion of the NRC licensing process. Further, as stated in SEIS 

Section 1.6.1, the NRC detailed technical review of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project license 

application contains two parallel reviews: a safety review and an environmental review. The 

safety review focuses on assessing compliance with the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 

Parts 20 and 40 and Appendix A to Part 40, while the environmental review is conducted in 

accordance with the regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. The results of these two detailed reviews 

support the NRC licensing decision. GEIS Figure 1.7-1 provides a general flow diagram of the 

NRC licensing process, including the safety and environmental reviews. 

It is common during the detailed technical review of a license application for NRC to request 

additional information from the applicant to ensure the application is complete. In some cases, 

multiple rounds of RAIs are needed. For applications that are not complete, this iterative 

process is designed to provide the applicant the necessary feedback to supplement the 

application so it is complete and accurate. The public participation process for this SEIS is 

discussed in Section 1.4.2 of the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS. 

As the commenter indicates, there is some overlap between the safety and environmental 

reviews. This is most clearly seen in topics such as groundwater resources and protection and 

radiological dose to workers and members of the public. The NRC staff conducting the 
 Appendix B 

B–37 

environmental and safety reviews collaborates, as necessary, as it conducts these reviews in 

parallel. 

Throughout the SEIS, NRC has used the term “license application” to be inclusive of all aspects 

of the application, including the applicant’s Technical Report and Environmental Report and the 

responses to NRC RAIs. The reference sections following Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the 

SEIS reflect the reliance on all aspects of the application, as described previously. 

No further changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

B.5.9.7 Consideration of ISR Facility Safety Record and Compliance History 

Comments: N009-002; N010-002; N013-019; N013-050; N016-009, N017-001 

A number of commenters expressed views on the safety record and compliance history of ISR 

facilities, and some recommended specific factors be evaluated in the SEIS. Several 

commenters noted that currently operating ISR facilities in Wyoming have histories of leaks, 

spills, and excursions. One commenter expressed the opinion that these currently operating 

ISRs seemed to be more experimental facilities than truly operational facilities. Another 

commenter wanted to know how NRC would address the issues of past leaks, spills, and 

excursions at operating facilities and recommended NRC develop a strong range of mitigation 

measures that would prevent or minimize these problems. One commenter expressed the 

opinion that uranium mining has had a “dreadful environmental history” and is likely to be 

repeated without meaningful oversight. 

Response: Operations at an ISR facility have the potential to affect water resources. NRC 

reviews each license application following the detailed review procedures in NUREG–1569 to 

evaluate whether the facility can be constructed and operated in compliance with applicable 

NRC regulations. This includes review of design specifications for effluent control systems for 

liquids and solids, review of the applicant’s proposed groundwater and surface water monitoring 

programs, and review of the effects from accidents to ensure the applicant has procedures in 

place to respond to postulated accident conditions (including leaks in lixiviant piping). If a 

license is granted, NRC oversight of operations, including inspection activities, verifies that 

compliance is being maintained during the operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning 

phases. NRC has existing enforcement programs and policies that effectively verify whether 

licensees are in compliance with NRC regulations and NRC takes appropriate enforcement 

action if a licensed facility is not in compliance. 

Before uranium is recovered from an aquifer, EPA must declare a portion of an aquifer where 

production will occur exempt as a USDW (59 FR 47384). In addition, if liquid byproduct material 

is to be disposed of via deep well disposal, EPA must also declare the receiving aquifer exempt. 

The production aquifer exemption area would be restored to the standards in 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A, whereas the injected byproduct material fluid would remain in the deep wellexempted aquifer. 

GEIS Section 2.11.2, from which the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS is tiered, discusses spills, leaks, 

and excursions that have occurred at existing ISR facilities. Excursions and mechanical 

integrity test (MIT) failures have been reported for past and current ISR facilities, but in most 

cases they have been controlled and did not pose a threat to human health or the environment. 

Three ISRs are currently operating: two in Wyoming [the Uranium One Irigaray and 

Christensen Ranch facility (formally owned by Cogema Mining, Inc.) and the PRI Smith Ranch–

Highland Uranium Project), and one in Nebraska (the Cameco Crowe Butte Project]. Excursion 
Appendix B 

B–38 

history and corrective action for all of these sites can be found in annual reports and 

correspondence between the NRC and the licensees in the NRC Public Document Room. 

To detect and prevent excursions to the overlying and underlying aquifers, NRC issues a 

license condition that requires operators to perform MITs for all injection and production wells 

(NRC, 2003a). This test is conducted every 5 years to ensure that the wells do not develop 

leaks. To ensure that excursions are identified early, excursion monitoring wells are installed. 

Horizontal excursion monitoring wells are placed in a perimeter ring surrounding the wellfield in 

the production aquifer. In addition, vertical excursion monitoring wells are installed in the 

overlying and underlying aquifers (NRC, 2003a). The monitoring wells are usually sampled 

twice per month for excursion indicators. When excursion indicators exceed predetermined 

upper control limits (UCLs), it may signal that production fluids are moving out of the wellfield 

boundary. If an excursion is confirmed, the licensee must begin corrective actions to control the 

excursion and must continue corrective actions until the excursion is controlled. The location of 

the excursion monitoring wells, the choice of excursion indicators, and the process for 

determining the UCLs are all reviewed before a license is approved. 

Surface containment of spills is required for all storage tanks (40 CFR Part 112). In addition, 

spill prevention plans are required of each ISR facility (59 FR 47384). For chemicals stored at 

ISR facilities, concrete berms with a containment equivalent to at least the volume of the tank 

are required. Spill reporting varies from state to state. NRC requires that a licensee report a 

spill within 24 hours if it meets the criteria in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 40.60. Otherwise NRC 

requires, by license condition, that if a spill meets State reporting requirements, it must also be 

reported to NRC. Spills must be characterized and cleaned up to regulatory requirements 

[see 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6)]. 

If an applicant proposed the use of surface impoundments (including ponds), they would be 

designed to have sufficient capacity to hold the anticipated volume of liquids and would be 

operated and maintained to prevent overtopping from normal operations, rainfall, and equipment 

malfunctions. Monitoring wells (both upgradient and downgradient) would be installed in 

addition to requiring a liner under each surface pond (NRC, 2008). The liner must be 

constructed of materials that have sufficient physical properties and strength to withstand the 

anticipated physical stresses and environmental conditions. Liners are typically constructed 

with leak detection systems to identify and repair leaks. The leak detection systems would be 

checked for the presence of liquids on a regular basis. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

B.5.9.8 Groundwater Restoration Criteria and Methods 

Comments: N009-005; N010-005; N011-016; N011-033; N015-030; N017-021 

One commenter noted NRC has not restored groundwater to baseline values for all 

groundwater constituents in any ISR wellfield to date. Multiple commenters asserted that 

restoration has only been accomplished by lowering the standards. Two commenters stated 

restoration to either background levels or MCL standards has been aspirational rather than a 

reality, and all regulators, whether NRC or Agreement States, have allowed for ACLs rather 

than restoration of all parameters. The commenter asserted that restoration standards have 

been a moving target for all ISR sites and that NRC has made it nearly impossible for a reader 

to analyze environmental impacts because of the lack of a detailed and comprehensive history 

of ISR restoration operations and the failure to restore the groundwater quality of contaminated 
 Appendix B 

B–39 

aquifers. The commenter asserted that the issuance of waivers and (aquifer) exemptions 

should be part of the analysis and that NRC must analyze the impact of the waivers and 

exemptions from meaningful standards in a comprehensive way. The commenter stated that by 

not doing this, both the GEIS (NRC, 2009a) and SEIS fail the NEPA “hard look” standard. 

Response: The commenters are correct that, to date, restoration to background water quality 

for all constituents has not proven to be practically achievable at licensed NRC ISR sites 

(NRC, 2005, 2004, 2003c). In the past, NRC has applied “class of use,” a state designation 

under the SDWA, as a secondary restoration goal to approve these restorations. The “class of 

use” standard for restored groundwater quality was based on restoration standards provided in 

NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003a). The “class of use” standard was therefore neither treated nor 

approved as an ACL by NRC. 

NRC has since determined that the primary and secondary restoration standards in 

NUREG–1569 are inconsistent with the restoration standards in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 5B(5). NRC has notified licensees and applicants in Regulatory Information Summary 

(RIS) 09-05 (NRC, 2009b) that the restoration standards listed in NUREG–1569, 

Section 6.1.3(4) are not consistent with those listed in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, and the 

licensee must commit to achieve the restoration standards in Criterion 5B(5). 

NRC requires submission of a license amendment for a licensee to request establishment of an 

ACL for any constituents that do not meet the primary baseline standards. NRC performs a 

safety evaluation and an environmental review to evaluate the request for the license 

amendment after the licensee demonstrates it is not practically achievable to restore the 

wellfield to either background or MCLs for a particular constituent. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comments: N011-015; N011-034; N011-037 

One commenter asserted that the NRC practice of averaging poor groundwater quality with 

good groundwater quality to characterize preextraction groundwater quality misrepresents the 

impacts from groundwater restoration. The commenter stated NRC tied groundwater 

restoration in the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS to the average of poor groundwater quality in the 

immediate ore zone with good groundwater quality outside the ore zone but within a mine area. 

The commenter stated SEIS Tables 3-4 and 3-5, which summarize the water quality in the 

Nichols Ranch and Hank Units, respectively, gave the impression that the groundwater in the 

aquifer within the proposed mine boundary exceeded EPA and Wyoming water quality 

standards for several constituents, but elsewhere in the SEIS the NRC disclosed that there were 

wells with good quality water. The commenter asserted that the practice of averaging good 

groundwater quality with poor groundwater quality is incomplete and misleading and skewed the 

impact analysis to minimize potential groundwater impacts from ISR projects in general and the 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project in particular. The commenter stated that NRC uses a “mathematical 

artifice” that inflates premining contaminant levels within a proposed project boundary to create 

the impression that baseline groundwater conditions are poor and that restoration is possible. 

Finally, the commenter stated that if groundwater quality in and outside of an ore zone were 

analyzed separately and not averaged, then the adverse impact on groundwater outside of the 

ore zone would be substantially larger. 

Response: The commenter is referring to the need to establish a baseline for groundwater 

quality in the proposed license area before ISR operations begin. As part of the site 

characterization to obtain a license, the applicant is required to determine the average 
Appendix B 

B–40 

preoperational water quality for all aquifers in, above, below, and outside the proposed area. 

However, this general preoperational average is not the same as the average baseline water 

quality of the uranium-bearing aquifer for a specific wellfield. The average baseline water 

quality for a specific wellfield is determined only from water quality measured in wells installed 

within the production ore zone aquifer in each licensed wellfield, and it is this specific average 

that is used to determine groundwater restoration target values in individual wellfields. 

NUREG–1569 provides guidance on establishing baseline water quality. Contrary to the 

comment, this average baseline water quality does not include wells “outside the ore zone.” 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comments: N011-041; N011-042 

One commenter stated it appears NRC evaluates groundwater restoration impacts assuming 

that if baseline groundwater quality is not achieved, “class of use” quality would be achievable 

and that this analysis ignores NRC regulations governing ISR groundwater restoration that 

make no mention of “class of use” as a restoration standard. The commenter stated that NRC 

regulations mandate that groundwater must be restored to background or the MCLs listed in 

10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5D. 

Response: The commenter is correct that NRC has used “class of use,” a state designation 

under the SDWA, as a restoration goal. The “class of use” standard for restored groundwater 

quality was based on restoration standards provided in NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003a). NRC has 

determined that the primary and secondary restoration standards in NUREG–1569 are 

inconsistent with the restoration standards in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). 

NRC notified licensees and applicants in RIS 09-05 (NRC, 2009b) that the restoration standards 

listed in NUREG–1569, Section 6.1.3(4) are not consistent with those listed in 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A. NRC requires licensees to commit to achieve the restoration standards in Criterion 

5B(5). A licensee can apply for a license amendment for an ACL only after showing that 

restoration to the background level or MCL is not practically achievable for a particular 

constituent. NRC reviews the ACL request using the criteria articulated in 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A, Criterion 5B(6). The State designation of “class of use” for an aquifer can be one 

of the factors that is considered during NRC review of the ACL request. The additional 10 CFR 

40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(6) ACL requirements are presented in Appendix C. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comments: N013-052; N013-053 

One commenter stated NRC assumes groundwater would be restored to “acceptable limits” but 

then fails to disclose what the limits might be. The commenter stated that the past history of 

ISR sites demonstrates that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to restore a wellfield to its 

premining water quality condition. The commenter was particularly concerned about mobilized 

heavy metals, including uranium and its progeny radioisotopes, thorium, radium, and radon, in 

addition to the nonradioactive constituents, arsenic, vanadium, zinc, selenium, and 

molybdenum. The commenter stated that NRC failed to disclose how these elements would be 

returned to premining conditions or if that was impossible, what ACLs would be allowed, and, 

therefore, what water quality impacts would result from these operations. 

Response: NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5) establish 

hazardous constituent standards for groundwater restoration. The regulations require that 

groundwater be restored so the concentration of a hazardous constituent does not exceed (i) 

the Commission-approved background concentration of that constituent in groundwater; (ii) the 
 Appendix B 

B–41 

respective value in the table in paragraph 5C if the constituent is listed in the table and if the 

background level of the constituent is below the value listed; or (iii) an alternate concentration 

limit established by the Commission. These primary standards of either background or MCL are 

the acceptable restoration standards for hazardous constituents in a wellfield. Under Criterion 

5B(5), requests for ACLs would only be considered after an applicant has demonstrated that 

restoring the hazardous constituent at issue to background or MCL values is not practically 

achievable at a specific wellfield. 

The commenter is correct that the ACL secondary standard does not set an initial “acceptable 

limit” for a constituent. Licensees may propose a constituent ACL that presents no significant 

hazard for a specific site for Commission consideration. The Commission may establish a sitespecific ACL for a hazardous constituent as provided in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 

5B(5) if it finds that the proposed limit is as low as reasonably achievable, after considering 

practicable corrective actions and determining the constituent would not pose a substantial 

present or potential future hazard to human health or the environment as long as the ACL is not 

exceeded. The NRC requirements for application, review, and establishment of a site-specific 

ACL for a constituent are discussed in Appendix C of this SEIS. In addition, NRC staff ACL 

application review procedures are described in the following documents: January 1996 Staff 

Technical Position, Alternate Concentration Limits for Title II Uranium Mills (NRC, 1996); 

NUREG–1620 (NRC, 2003d); and NUREG–1724 (NRC, 2000). 

In an application for an ACL, the NRC staff would review proposed limits for heavy metals, 

including uranium and its progeny radioisotopes, thorium, radium, and radon, in addition to the 

nonradioactive constituents, arsenic, vanadium, zinc, selenium, and molybdenum. The ACL 

process evaluates whether the proposed restoration standard for a particular hazardous 

constituent is as low as reasonably achievable, after considering various factors including 

practicable corrective actions and determining the constituent would not pose a substantial 

present or potential future hazard to human health or the environment as long as the ACL is not 

exceeded. Appendix C of the SEIS, Alternate Concentration Limits, further discusses the 

ACL process. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comments: N009-004; N010-004; N015-005; N015-028; N015-029; N015-032; N016-007; 

N016-008 

Several commenters were concerned with the potential establishment of ACLs as groundwater 

restoration targets before adequate restoration is complete and stated the draft SEIS did not 

fully assess the operational requirements and constraints associated with restoration activities. 

One commenter noted the SEIS should evaluate methods that could be used to meet 

restoration goals for all constituents mobilized during the ISR process. Another commenter 

noted that although the SEIS acknowledged the water quality goal in the portion of the aquifer 

where extraction occurs is pre-ISR baseline conditions, the discussion concluded by stating that 

the demonstration of restoration must comply with the requirements in 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A, which allows for restoration target values that do not meet the pre-ISR baseline. 

The commenter noted that although EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 192 allow NRC to use this 

practice, ACLs are above baseline or MCL values. Another commenter asked what the 

definition of “reasonable restoration efforts” meant and whether this implied an additional year, 

5 more years, 10 years, or perhaps more. This commenter noted at the end of restoration in 

2004, at the Highland A-Wellfield, most parameters were above the baseline, with several 

exceeding over 2,500 percent; uranium and selenium were 7,060 and 7,000 percent above the 

baseline from the start of operations. The commenter noted this was accepted as restored. 
Appendix B 

B–42 

Response: Under NRC regulations, the licensee must restore the groundwater quality in the 

production zone aquifer to the water quality standards listed in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 5B(5). Specifically, under Criterion 5B(5), the concentration of a hazardous constituent 

must not exceed (i) the NRC-approved background concentration of that constituent in 

groundwater; (ii) the respective MCL value in the table in paragraph 5C if the constituent is 

listed in the table and if the background level of the constituent is below the value listed; or 

(iii) an alternate concentration limit the NRC established. 

Under Criterion 5B(6), requests for ACLs would only be considered after a licensee has 

demonstrated that restoring the constituent at issue to background or MCL values is not 

practical to achieve at a specific site. Licensees may propose only ACLs that present no 

significant hazard for NRC consideration. NRC may establish a site-specific ACL for a 

hazardous constituent if it finds that the proposed limit is as low as reasonably achievable after 

considering practicable corrective actions, and that the constituent would not pose a substantial 

present or potential hazard to human health or the environment as long as the ACL is not 

exceeded. Additional 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(6) requirements for ACLs are 

discussed in Appendix C of the SEIS. In addition, ACL application review procedures for NRC 

staff are described in the following documents: January 1996 Staff Technical Position, Alternate 

Concentration Limits for Title II Uranium Mills; NUREG–1620 (NRC, 2003d); and NUREG–1724 

(NRC, 2000). 

To determine whether a licensee has undertaken “reasonable restoration efforts,” NRC would 

consider the aquifer restoration methods applied and their efficacy to achieve restoration goals 

at a specific site. If NRC concludes practicable corrective actions were not applied, the licensee 

would be required to continue restoration efforts until this has been demonstrated. Historically, 

NRC has not applied a time limit to the length of restoration at its licensed ISR sites. 

The commenter is correct that Mine Unit A at PRI Highlands ISR was approved for restoration 

with several constituents at concentrations above the accepted background primary standard 

using a “class of use” secondary restoration standard for this licensee. In the past, NRC has 

allowed “class of use,” a state designation under the SDWA, as a secondary restoration goal. 

The “class of use” term, referred to in the GEIS (NRC, 2009a) as a standard for restored 

groundwater quality, was based on restoration standards provided in NUREG–1569 

(NRC, 2003a). NRC has determined that the primary and secondary restoration standards in 

NUREG–1569 are inconsistent with the restoration standards in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 5B(5). NRC has notified licensees and applicants in RIS 09-05 (NRC, 2009b) that the 

restoration standards listed in NUREG–1569, Section 6.1.3(4) are not consistent with those 

listed in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, and licensees and applicants must commit to achieve the 

restoration standards in Criterion 5B(5). 

Appendix C, Alternate Concentration Limits, of the SEIS discusses the ACL process. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N011-017; N017-023 

Commenters stated standards have been repeatedly relaxed because no aquifer has ever been 

returned to baseline (i.e., premining conditions). One commenter cited an NRC memorandum 

to the Commission which stated that more than 60 percent of the constituents in three ISR 

mining facilities located in Nebraska and Wyoming had been returned to their preoperational 

concentrations, implying that 40 percent of measured constituents could not be restored to 

baseline conditions, and further stated, “concessions to the licensee were made.” The 
 Appendix B 

B–43 

commenter also referred to a study by Southwest Groundwater Consulting that evaluated 

restoration at in-situ uranium mines located in south Texas. This study found that mining 

operations in south Texas were consistently unable to meet original restoration standards and 

more lenient amended restoration standards were routinely granted. 

Response: The commenter is correct that NRC-approved restorations to date have not met the 

restoration goal to achieve background water quality for all constituents. In the past, NRC has 

applied “class of use,” a State designation under the SDWA, as a secondary restoration goal to 

approve these restorations. The term “class of use,” referred to in the GEIS (NRC, 2009a) as a 

standard for restored groundwater quality, was based on restoration standards provided in 

NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003a). NRC has determined that the primary and secondary restoration 

standards in NUREG–1569 are inconsistent with the restoration standards in 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). NRC has notified licensees and applicants in RIS 09-05 

(NRC, 2009b) that the restoration standards listed in NUREG–1569, Section 6.1.3(4) are not 

consistent with those listed in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, and licensees and applicants must 

commit to achieve the restoration standards in Criterion 5B(5). 

Under Criterion 5B(5), the concentration of a hazardous constituent must not exceed (i) the 

NRC-approved background concentration of that constituent in groundwater; (ii) the respective 

MCL value in the table in paragraph 5C if the constituent is listed in the table and if the 

background level of the constituent is below the value listed; or (iii) an alternate concentration 

limit the NRC established. Under Criterion 5B(6), requests for ACLs would only be considered 

after a licensee has demonstrated that restoring the constituent at issue to background or MCL 

values is not practical to achieve at a specific site. Licensees may propose only ACLs that 

present no significant hazard for NRC consideration. NRC may establish a site-specific ACL for 

a hazardous constituent if it finds that (i) the proposed limit is as low as reasonably achievable 

after considering practicable corrective actions and (ii) the constituent would not pose a 

substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment as long as the ACL 

is not exceeded. Additional 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(6) requirements for ACLs 

are discussed in Appendix C of the SEIS. In addition, ACL application review procedures for 

NRC staff are described in the following documents: January 1996 Staff Technical Position, 

Alternate Concentration Limits for Title II Uranium Mills; NUREG–1620 (NRC, 2003d); and 

NUREG–1724 (NRC, 2000). 

In the past, the “class of use” standard for restored groundwater quality was based on 

restoration standards provided in NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003a). The “class of use” standard 

was therefore neither treated nor approved as an ACL by NRC. In the future, the State 

designation of “class of use” for an aquifer may be one of the factors that is considered during 

NRC review of an ACL request. 

NRC is aware that restoration of aquifers in Texas has not achieved the primary background 

restoration standard for some constituents. Texas, however, is an agreement state and has 

regulatory authority over ISR facilities, and would set the restoration standards for a particular 

ISR facility in Texas. NRC does not review or approve Texas regulatory decisions at a 

particular ISR facility. NRC’s oversight of the Texas program consists of periodic reviews of the 

State’s entire regulatory program for AEA materials. States have some flexibility in how they 

implement their regulatory program as long as NRC finds the State program is adequate to 

protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC’s regulatory program. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 
Appendix B 

B–44 

B.5.9.9 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

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

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

Licensing of Source Material.” “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: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

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

40 CFR Part 112. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 112 

“Oil Pollution Prevention.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 146. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 146 

“Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards.” Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 192. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 192 

“Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings.” 

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

59 FR 47384, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “ National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Pollution Contingency Plan; Final Rule.” Federal Register. Vol. 59, p. 47384. September 15, 

1994.

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

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

NRC. “Regulatory Information Summary (RIS) 09-05, Uranium Recovery Policy Regarding: 

(1) The Process For Scheduling Licensing Reviews of Applications For New Uranium Recovery 

Facilities And (2) The Restoration Of Groundwater At Licensed Uranium In-Situ Recovery 

Facilities.” ADAMS No. ML083510622. April 29, 2009b. 

NRC. Regulatory Guide 3.11, “Design, Construction, and Inspection of Embankment Retention 

Systems at Uranium Recovery Facilities.” Revision 3. Washington, DC: November 2008. 

NRC. Memorandum from A. Vietti-Cook, Secretary to L. Reyes, Executive Director for 

Operations. Subject: Staff Requirements – COMJSM-06-0001–Regulation of Groundwater 

Protection at In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Facilities.” ML060830525. March 24, 2006. 

NRC. “Technical Evaluation Report: Review of Cogema Mining Inc.’s Irigaray Mine Restoration 

Report, Production Units 1 Through 9,” Source Materials License SUA-1341, ADAMS No. 

ML062570181. 2005. 
 Appendix B 

B–45 

NRC. “Review of Power Resources, Inc’s A- Wellfield Ground Water Restoration Report for the 

Smith Ranch –Highland Uranium Project,” ML041840700. June 29, 2004. 

NRC. NUREG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications.” Final Report. Washington, DC: NRC. ML032250177. June 2003a. 

NRC. NUREG–1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with 

NMSS Programs.” Washington, DC: NRC. August 2003b. 

NRC. Letter and Attachments from D. Gillen, Branch Chief, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, to M. Griffin, Manager, Crow Butte Resources, Inc. Subject: License 

Amendment 15, Crow Butte Resources In-Situ Leach facility, License No. SUA-1534, Wellfield 

#1 Restoration Acceptance (40-8943). ML030044055. February 12, 2003c. 

NRC. NUREG–1620, “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.” 

Revision 1. Washington, DC: NRC. ML032250190. June 2003d. 

NRC. NUREG–1724, “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 Radiation Control Act”. Revision 1. Washington, DC: NRC. ML003731007. 

June 2000. 

NRC. Staff Technical Position Alternate Concentration Limits for Title II Uranium Mills. 

Washington DC: NRC. ML9604050096. January 1996. 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. Casper, 

Wyoming: 2007. 

B.5.10 Credibility of NRC 

Comments: N001-006; N011-010 

Several commenters questioned NRC’s credibility in their submitted comments. A commenter 

asserted NRC turned a “blind eye” to the cumulative impact from the project and its potential 

effect on climate change. The commenter referred to the GEIS analysis (NRC, 2009) and 

asserted that NRC made sweeping pronouncements about potential impacts. The commenter 

stated NRC evaded performing meaningful analysis of impacts to surface waters at the 

proposed site because the analysis disregarded the close proximity of coal bed methane mining 

operations in the vicinity of the proposed site. The commenter further asserted NRC had 

evaded performing meaningful analysis of cumulative impacts. Another commenter stated the 

groundwater protection rule had “fallen off the table” for the benefit of an industry that wished to 

proceed with materials licensing under a less-than-protective regulatory framework. 

Response: With regard to the general comment made regarding NRC’s credibility, NRC is an 

independent federal agency that has no ownership of any nuclear or ISR facility. NRC regulates 

licensees by conducting a thorough and independent review of each application for a license 

consistent with its congressional mandate and NRC regulations for safety and environmental 
Appendix B 

B–46 

review. Once a license is granted, NRC enforces its regulations and license conditions by 

conducting regular inspections of operating facilities. If inspections detect noncompliance, fines 

and other punitive measures can be taken depending on the severity of the infraction. 

With regard to the specific comments that are related to the commenter’s views of NRC’s 

credibility, it should be noted that (i) the analysis of cumulative impacts in Chapter 5 of the final 

Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS was revised in response to public comments; (ii) Section 3.5.1.6 was 

added to the final SEIS to discuss CBM operations in the area, (NRC staff notes that all of the 

active outfalls for CBM operations are located outside and hydrologically downgradient of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project; therefore, they would be unlikely to impact water quality at 

the site); (iii) Section 5.5.1 of the SEIS discusses the cumulative effect on surface water from 

both the proposed licensing of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project and the other activities occurring 

in the area, including CBM operations; and (iv) the status of the proposed rule with new 

standards applicable to ISL facilities is discussed in Section B.5.9.4 of this comment response 

appendix. 

As noted previously, Section 3.5.1.6 was added to the final SEIS to provide additional detail on 

CBM operations in the area. 

B.5.10.1 Reference 

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

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

B.5.11 Federal and State Agencies 

B.5.11.1 Roles of Federal, Tribal, State, and Local Agencies 

Comment: N007-001 

One commenter noted that the Wyoming State Office of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) had provided comments on the NRC draft GEIS (NRC, 2008) and that the roles and 

responsibilities of NRC and BLM under different regulatory frameworks are duly recognized. 

Response: NRC coordination with BLM during the preparation of this SEIS is discussed in 

Section 1.7.3.1 of the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS, which was revised to more clearly recognize 

BLM’s responsibilities and NRC’s coordination with BLM on this review. 

Comments: N007-002; N014-008 

Two commenters stated the SEIS should reflect finalization of the Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) between NRC and BLM. One commenter further noted although NRC 

did not recognize BLM as a cooperating agency on the draft Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS, the MOU 

would allow the two agencies to work more closely on ISR uranium recovery projects in states 

where NRC has the licensing authority and BLM has administrative responsibilities for surface 

management or minerals. The same commenter also stated the intent of the MOU is to improve 

interagency communications; facilitate the sharing of special expertise and information; and 

coordinate the preparation of studies, reports, and environmental documents. Finally, the same 

commenter further encouraged NRC to coordinate with the BLM Buffalo, Wyoming, Field Office 

on site-specific conditions to be included in the NRC license for the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project. 
 Appendix B 

B–47 

Response: SEIS Section 1.7.3.1 discusses NRC coordination with BLM during the preparation 

of the SEIS. As the commenter indicated, the MOU between NRC and BLM was finalized 

November 30, 2009 (NRC, 2010a). BLM was not a cooperating agency on the Nichols Ranch 

ISR SEIS. 

Comment: N014-008 

One commenter requested that tables in the SEIS detailing applications or requests that have 

been or would be filed by the applicant for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project be updated in the final 

SEIS. The MOU formalizes the types of interactions and coordination already occurring 

between NRC and BLM. 

Response: NRC contacted the applicant on April 29, 2010 and on October 4, 2010, and asked 

for an updated status for the approvals identified in Table 1-2 in the draft SEIS (NRC, 2010b; 

Uranerz, 2010b). The applicant reviewed and updated the information (Uranerz, 2010a, 2010b). 

Table 1-2 was updated to reflect the current status of permits and applications for the 

proposed project. 

Comment: N008-019 

One commenter stated industrial safety aspects associated with the use of hazardous 

chemicals are now regulated by the Wyoming Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) and not by the Wyoming State Mine Inspector. 

Response: Sections 3.12.3 and 4.13.1.2.3 of the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS have been modified 

to reflect this change in regulatory oversight. 

Comment: N014-019 

One commenter stated WDEQ conducts detailed reviews of all ISR wellfield packages in 

Wyoming. Additionally, the commenter considers that the NRC review of one or more wellfield 

packages is unnecessary and duplicative. 

Response: To confirm that the hydrogeology of a proposed site is suitable to ISR operations 

and these operations will not impact the public health, safety and environment, NRC may 

require that a licensee provide some or all wellfield packages for NRC review and approval prior 

to lixiviant injection. Because these comments address details about the NRC licensing and the 

State of Wyoming permitting processes, NRC considers the comments to be beyond the scope 

of this SEIS. No changes were made to the SEIS. 

B.5.11.2 Effects of Changes to Federal or State Regulations on the SEIS 

Comments: N018-002; N018-003; N018-004; N018-005; N018-006 

One commenter noted EPA has made revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for lead and nitrogen dioxide and has proposed revisions to the primary sulfur dioxide 

NAAQS and the 8-hour standard for ozone. Additionally, the commenter stated the State of 

Wyoming has not adopted all NAAQS, as is stated in the SEIS. The commenter clarified that 

the State of Wyoming has developed stricter standards for annual and 24-hour sulfur dioxide, 

but has not yet entered into rulemaking to revise the standards for annual fine particulate or 

24-hour fine particulate. However, the commenter stated that the SEIS should still note these 

standards. 

Response: SEIS Section 3.7.2 has been revised to reflect the EPA revisions to the NAAQS for 

lead and nitrogen oxide. This section has also been modified to reflect the stricter Wyoming 
Appendix B 

B–48 

standards for annual and 24-hour sulfur dioxide. Finally, as necessary, NRC has reanalyzed air 

quality impacts in Chapter 4 to reflect these EPA and Wyoming standards. 

NRC does not reflect the proposed standards in the SEIS. The SEIS is written to reflect the 

regulations in effect at the time of its writing. Should the proposed standards be finalized, NRC 

would reference the final air quality standards in future environmental reviews, as appropriate. 

Comment: N018-007 

One commenter noted Table 1-2 in Section 1.6.2 should be revised to include the air quality 

permit Uranerz obtained for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

Response: WDEQ has approved and issued an air quality permit for the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project (Uranerz, 2009). SEIS Table 1-2 was revised accordingly. 

B.5.11.3 Clarification of Other Federal/State Regulations and Practices 

Comment: N006-007 

One commenter stated the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is subject to the requirements 

of NHPA Section 106 because it is a Federal undertaking per 36 CFR 800.16(y). The 

commenter referenced Section 5.9 of the draft SEIS and stated that the requirements of 

Section 106 apply regardless of land ownership and that minimization/mitigation of adverse 

effects is required. 

Response: NRC agrees with the commenter that the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is a 

Federal undertaking per 36 CFR 800.16(y) and is, therefore, subject to the requirements of 

NHPA Section 106. A Federal undertaking is defined as a project, activity, or program funded in 

whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those 

carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial 

assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit, license, or approval. 

The section that the commenter references, analyzes cumulative impacts to historic and cultural 

resources within the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The discussion of 

cumulative impacts includes Federal undertakings as well as non-Federal projects and 

activities, per 36 CFR 800.16(y). Note that NHPA Section 106 may not apply to all projects or 

activities discussed in this section of the SEIS. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the 

information provide in this response. 

Comment: N007-014 

One commenter stated the SEIS incorrectly states that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

would be in place before project operations begin. The commenter requested that NRC correct 

this to state the plan must be in place before the “first dirt” is turned in the construction phase. 

Response: NRC acknowledges a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be in place 

before the first dirt is turned in the construction phase, per WDEQ regulations. However, the 

commenter is incorrect in their interpretation of the draft SEIS language. The draft SEIS says a 

storm water management plan would be implemented in accordance with WDEQ, which is a 

correct statement. The Executive Summary and Section 4.5.1.1.2 of the SEIS were revised to 

change the plan description from “storm water management plan” to “Storm Water Pollution 

Prevention Plan” to be consistent with the WDEQ terminology. However, no additional changes 

were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 
 Appendix B 

B–49 

B.5.11.4 References 

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

NRC. “Notice of Availability of a Memorandum of Understanding Between the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission and the Bureau of Land Management.” Federal Register. Vol. 75. 

p. 1088. January 8, 2010a. 

NRC. E-mail from B. Balsam, Project Manager, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to 

M. Thomas, Environmental, Safety, and Health Manager, Uranerz Energy Corporation. Subject: 

Request: Updates to Nichols Ranch SEIS Table 1-2. ML101190181. April 29, 2010b. 

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

Milling Facilities—Draft Report for Comment.” Washington, DC: NRC. June, 2008. 

Uranerz. E-mail from M.P. Thomas, Uranerz, Energy Corporation to B. Balsam, Project 

Manager, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. 

“Updates to Nichols Ranch SEIS Table 1-2.” ML101190200. April 29, 2010a. 

Uranerz. E-mail from M.P. Thomas, Uranerz, Energy Corporation to I. Wu, Project Manager, 

Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. “Nichols 

Ranch SEIS Table 1-2.” ML102800050. October 6, 2010b. 

Uranerz. 2009. “Uranerz Receives Air Quality Permit for ISR Mine Construction.” 

<http://www.uranerz.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=368879&_Type=NewsReleases&_Title=Uranerz-Receives-Air-Quality-Permit-for-ISR-Mine-Construction> 

(6 May 2010). 2009. 

B.5.12 Cooperating Agencies and Consultations 

Comment: N007-005 

One commenter stated NRC should consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to discuss 

potential impacts of the project on bald and golden eagles, per the rule permitting eagle takes 

published September 11, 2009 (74 FR 46836). The commenter also noted that Chapter 1 of the 

SEIS, which contains a list of agency consultations, should be revised to include consultation 

with FWS regarding eagle take permit requirements. 

Response: NRC acknowledges consultation with FWS concerning the eagle take permit rule is 

appropriate for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. NRC contacted FWS on March 15, 

2010, to discuss whether an eagle permit would be appropriate for the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project (NRC, 2010). FWS concluded that NRC does not need to further pursue 

consultation regarding bald eagles and would not need to obtain an eagle take permit at this 

time. Accordingly, Section 4.6.1.1.3 has been updated to reflect this new information. Because 

NRC did not need to enter into consultation with FWS regarding an eagle take permit, this 

consultation will not be added to the description of agency consultations in Section 1.7. 

However, the memorandum summarizing the teleconference with FWS (NRC, 2010) has been 

added to Appendix A of the final SEIS and Section 4.6.1.1.3 has been updated to reflect the 

information described in this comment response. 
Appendix B 

B–50 

Comment: N013-097 

One commenter stated NRC needed to coordinate and consult with other agencies and 

specifically noted BLM was not a cooperating agency on the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS. The 

commenter stated BLM would have to do its own NEPA analysis and, therefore, the impacts 

would not be looked at holistically. 

Response: SEIS Section 1.7.3 discusses NRC coordination with other agencies during the 

preparation of the SEIS and describes NRC’s coordination with BLM staff during the document 

preparation. In addition, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) of which BLM is an agency 

within provided comments on the draft SEIS (see commenter ID N007) and recognized in its 

comment letter that, while BLM is not a cooperating agency for this SEIS, NRC and BLM have 

established a memorandum of understanding to work closely together in reviewing proposed 

ISR projects in states where NRC has primacy for licensing. 

NRC recognizes BLM will conduct its own NEPA analysis when approving the applicant’s Plan 

of Operations according to BLM’s regulatory requirements. BLM can use the information in 

NRC documents to prepare its environmental review. The NRC staff can also be a cooperating 

agency or comment on BLM’s environmental review documents. SEIS Section 1.7.3 was 

updated to reflect coordination and consultation activities that have occurred since the draft 

SEIS was issued. 

Comments: N020-007; N020-008; N020-009 

One commenter suggested a reference to coordination with the tribes should be included in 

Section 1.7.2 of the SEIS. The commenter also suggested that the discussion of the NHPA in 

Section 1.7.2 should identify which parties have been determined to be consulting parties under 

36 CFR 800.2(c). The commenter stated that no rationale is provided for the selection of the 

nine tribes contacted for consultation. 

Response: NRC agrees that a reference to coordination with tribes as well as identification of 

consulting parties under 36 CFR 800.2(c) should be included in SEIS Section 1.7.2. These 

changes have been made in the final SEIS. Regarding the selection of the tribes contacted, an 

explanation of how these nine tribes were selected is described in SEIS Section 1.7.3.1. NRC 

contacted the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (WY SHPO) and the BLM Buffalo 

Field Office to obtain a list of tribes with known interest in the Pumpkin Buttes Traditional 

Cultural Property. The BLM provided a list of tribes on February 21, 2008, via e-mail 

(BLM, 2008), and as a result, the nine tribes in SEIS Section 1.7.3.3 were identified. No 

changes were made to the SEIS in response to this portion of the comment beyond the 

information provided in this response. 

Comments: N020-033; N020-034 

One commenter stated that because NHPA consultation is ongoing, completion of the 

consultation process should be documented in the final SEIS. The commenter also stated that 

the final SEIS should include a more detailed discussion of resolution of the identified adverse 

historic and cultural effects in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6. 

Response: The commenter is correct that Section 106 consultation under the NHPA is ongoing 

for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The commenter should note that Section 106 

consultation must be completed “prior to the approval of the expenditure of any federal funds on 

the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license” [36 CFR 800.1(c)]. Therefore, NRC 

must complete Section 106 consultation before it issues a license, though not necessarily 

before it issues the final SEIS. Regarding the resolution of adverse effects (36 CFR 800.6), the 
 Appendix B 

B–51 

final SEIS Executive Summary; Sections 1.7, 3.9, 3.10, 4.9, and 4.10, and Appendix A have 

been updated to document updates to the Section 106 process between publication of the draft 

and final SEIS. 

B.5.12.1 References 

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

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

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

74 FR 46836. “Eagle Permits; Take Necessary To Protect Interests in Particular Localities.” 

Federal Register: Volume 74, No. 175, pp. 46,836–46,879. September 11, 2009. 

BLM. E-mail from C. Crago, Archaeologist, BLM Buffalo Field Office, to R. Linton, Project 

Manager, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Reply to Request for Assistance – 

Native American Consultation Pumpkin Buttes. ML091600074. February 21, 2008. 

NRC. Memorandum from B. Balsam, Project Manager, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

to File. Subject: Summary of Teleconference with Pedro Ramirez, Wyoming Field Office, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regarding Eagle Take Rule for the Proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project (Docket No. 040-09067) and the Proposed Moore Ranch ISR Project 

(Docket No. 040-09073). ML100760621. March 25, 2010. 

B.5.13 SEIS Schedule 

Comments: N001-001; N002-001; N003-001; N004-001; N005-001 

Several commenters requested the comment period on the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS be 

extended to provide interested stakeholders sufficient time to review the SEIS adequately. 

Some commenters referred to the large size of the draft Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS and the need 

for more time to read and collect referenced information. Commenters also noted the 

comment period overlapped with seasonal holidays in December, thus reducing the time to 

review the document. 

Response: On December 11, 2009, the NRC staff published a Federal Register notice (74 FR 

65808) requesting public review of and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming, Supplement 2 

to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities. In 

publishing the NOA for the draft SEIS, the NRC staff stated that the public comment period 

closed on February 1, 2010. On February 5, 2010, the NRC staff published a notice in the 

Federal Register (75 FR 6066) extending the public comment period to March 3, 2010, in 

response to public requests for extension received via comment letters and e-mail. The 81-day 

period for public comment (i.e., from December 11, 2009, to March 3, 2010) exceeds the 

minimum 45-day comment period required under NRC regulations. By letter and e-mail, 

20 documents containing 493 comments were submitted on the draft Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS. 
Appendix B 

B–52 

B.5.13.1 References 

74 FR 65808, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Notice of Availability of Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Nichols Ranch In-Situ Recovery (ISR) Project in 

Campbell and Johnson Counties, WY; Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities.” Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 237, 

pp. 65,808–65,810. December 11, 2009. 

75 FR 6066, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Extension of Public Comment Period on 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Nichols Ranch In-Situ Recovery Project in 

Campbell and Johnson Counties, WY; Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities.” Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 24, 

pp. 6,066–6,067. February 5, 2010. 

B.5.14 ISR Process Description 

B.5.14.1 Overview 

Comment: N008-001 

One commenter stated that uranium is not technically leached from solution, but removed. 

Response: NRC agrees with this comment. SEIS text in the Executive Summary was revised 

to accurately describe this uranium milling process. 

Comment: N018-057 

One commenter noted the identification and characterization of wastes is the responsibility of 

the operator. 

Response: SEIS Sections 2.2.1.6, 3.13, and 4.14 discuss operator obligations regarding waste 

management and the impacts from managing anticipated waste streams. Because the SEIS 

discussion is appropriate, no changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided 

in this response. 

B.5.14.2 Preconstruction and Construction 

Comments: N007-007; N007-017 

One commenter stated the well installation techniques were not fully explained and 

recommended that well casings be cemented back to ground surface to protect groundwater. 

Another commenter requested clarification of whether analysis has been completed regarding 

the potential for the lixiviant to corrode existing steel-cased wells, jeopardize the integrity of the 

wellbore, and increase the potential for groundwater contamination. 

Response: GEIS Section 2.3.1.1 (NRC, 2009a) describes well drilling and construction at ISR 

facilities. Standard drilling techniques, such as mud rotary drilling, are used to develop 

wellfields at ISR facilities. Geologic units above the aquifer of interest at ISR facilities are 

typically sealed with steel, fiberglass, or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing grouted in place to 

prevent groundwater leakage from and to overlying aquifers. The annular space between the 

well casing and geologic units above the aquifer of interest is typically grouted to ground surface 

with a mixture of cement, bentonite, and water. The applicant selects inert casing materials with 

respect to the lixiviant, based on the depth of the well and anticipated well pressures. PVC and 

fiberglass casings are generally used in wells less than 300 m [1,000 ft] deep (NRC, 2003). 
 Appendix B 

B–53 

Wells deeper than 300 m [1,000 ft] or those subjected to high-pressure grouting techniques are 

subject to collapse. In these instances, steel or fiberglass casing is generally used. Oxidizing 

lixiviants have the potential to corrode steel-cased wells and compromise wellbore integrity. 

Periodically all injection and production wells at ISR facilities undergo mechanical integrity 

testing (MIT) to verity that the well casing is sound (i.e., does not leak). MITs are designed to 

detect and mitigate the potential for groundwater contamination from casing degradation 

and damage. 

Construction and testing of injection, production, and monitoring wells at the Nichols Ranch and 

Hank Units are described in SEIS Section 2.2.1.2.4.4. The applicant proposes the use of 

fiberglass, PVC, or high-density polyethylene (HDPE) well casing. These casing materials are 

inert to the proposed lixiviant to be used at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The 

lixiviant is described in SEIS Section 2.2.1.3.1.1 and consists of a dilute carbonate/bicarbonate 

solution fortified with oxygen or hydrogen peroxide. The applicant has not proposed the use of 

existing steel-cased wells as injection or production wells at either unit during ISR operations. 

The Nichols Ranch Unit ore zone is approximately 91 to 210 m [300 to 700 ft] below ground 

surface, and the Hank Unit ore zone is approximately 61 to 180 m [200 to 600 ft] below ground 

surface (SEIS Section 3.4.1). To strengthen and stabilize the well casing, each well will be 

sealed with neat cement slurry and/or sand-cement grout meeting Wyoming State requirements. 

The applicant also proposes to use a cement slurry and/or sand–cement grout to seal and plug 

the annulus of the hole to prevent the vertical migration of solutions. In response to public 

comments, SEIS Section 2.2.1.2.4.3 of the SEIS was revised to describe the drilling technique 

to be used to develop wellfields at the proposed project and to clarify that the annular space 

between the well casing and geologic units above the ore-bearing aquifer would be sealed and 

plugged to ground surface to prevent vertical migration of solutions. 

Comment: N008-012 

A commenter stated they may use PVC or HDPE pipelines, whereas SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.1 

states that PVC would be used. 

Response: SEIS Section 2.2.1.2.4.4 identifies a variety of materials that could be used for the 

wellfield distribution pipelines, including HDPE and PVC. All references to pipeline materials 

have been revised in SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.1 to reflect the potential range of compositional 

materials. 

Comment: N018-033 

One commenter recommended the use of portable tanks and closed loop mud systems to 

reduce the amount of surface disturbance created by digging and reclaiming hundreds of 

mud pits. 

Response: Mud pits are commonly used during drilling activities to control the spread of fluids, 

minimize the potential area of soil contaminated by used drilling fluids and cuttings, and 

enhance evaporation (SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.1). Section 4.4.1.1 of the SEIS identified that mud 

pits would be constructed by removing the topsoil from a designated pit area, placing it in a 

separate location, then excavating the subsoil to the desired depth and depositing it next to the 

pit area. After drilling was complete and the mud pit was no longer needed (typically within 

about 30 days from the initial excavation), the excavated subsoil would be used to fill in the pit 

and the topsoil would be replaced on top. Given the brief period of time each mud pit is used, 

the limited size of each construction area, and the implementation of best management 

practices to restore and revegetate the topsoil in the filled-in pits, the SEIS concluded that the 

potential environmental impacts to soils from mud pits would be SMALL. The NRC staff 
Appendix B 

B–54 

acknowledge that, as an alternative to excavated mud pits, the use of portable tanks and closed 

loop mud systems is a viable construction technique that would further mitigate the 

environmental impact of soil disturbance in the project area for the large number of wells 

(approximately 834) that the applicant proposes to drill in developing Wellfields 1 and 2. 

However, the difference in technology would not affect the conclusion that the proposed drilling 

activities would be expected to have a small impact on soils in the proposed project area. No 

changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

B.5.14.3 Operations 

Comment: N008-007 

The applicant noted draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.6.1 states there would be uranium particulate 

emissions from yellowcake drying. The applicant stated that because a rotary vacuum dryer 

would be used, there would be zero to near-zero particulate emissions from yellowcake drying. 

Response: The applicant is correct that rotary vacuum drying produces near-zero particulate 

emissions under normal operations (i.e., nonaccident conditions). In response to this comment, 

SEIS Section 2.2.1.6.1 was revised to accurately characterize the yellowcake drying particulate 

emissions for the proposed action. 

Comments: N013-057; N013-068 

One commenter stated that the SEIS does not fully disclose what chemicals would be injected 

into the aquifer and wanted to know whether a plan has been established. The commenter 

asserted that the impact analysis related to this issue must be improved in the final SEIS. 

Response: The lixiviant chemistry to be used at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is 

described in SEIS Section 2.2.1.3.1.1. The applicant plans to use a lixiviant solution composed 

of dilute carbonate/bicarbonate solution fortified with oxygen or hydrogen peroxide to oxidize the 

uranium in the ore-bearing aquifer. In addition, a small amount of chlorine (approximately 3 

mg/L) or sodium hypochlorite may be added during injection to prevent bacterial plugging of the 

wells. Carbon dioxide would be added to keep the pH around neutral and provide another 

source of carbonate and bicarbonate ions. The text describing the lixiviant chemistry in SEIS 

Section 2.2.1.3.1.1 has been clarified in response to this comment. 

B.5.14.4 Aquifer Restoration 

Comment: N008-006 

The applicant commented that during aquifer restoration monitoring, sampling would be limited 

to the production wells that were used to determine baseline restoration target values. The 

commenter suggested that the description in Section 2.1.1.4.4 of the draft SEIS may lead the 

reader to believe that all production wells would be sampled before and after milling. 

Response: NRC acknowledges that the comment is consistent with the information describing 

the proposed action in the applicant’s environmental and technical report (Uranerz, 2007). SEIS 

Section 2.2.1.4.4 was revised to clarify that sampling would be limited to the production wells 

that were used to determine baseline restoration target values for monitoring during 

aquifer restoration. 

 
 Appendix B 

B–55 

Comment: N015-034 

One commenter requested the SEIS explain at what point in the process NRC would make the 

decision to set ACLs. 

Response: NRC does not decide when to set ACLs. The applicant would make an internal 

determination that the concentrations of hazardous constituents are as low as reasonably 

achievable and would submit a license amendment request to NRC to establish ACLs for those 

constituents that do not meet the standards in 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 5B(5) i and ii. 

This amendment request would be evaluated based on the standards in 10 CFR 40, 

Appendix A, Criterion 5B(6). 

Under Appendix A, Criterion 5B(6), requests for ACLs would only be considered by NRC after a 

licensee has demonstrated that restoring the constituent at issue to background or MCL values 

is not practical to achieve at a specific site. To determine whether a licensee has undertaken 

“reasonable restoration efforts,” NRC would consider the aquifer restoration methods applied 

and their efficacy to achieve restoration goals at a specific site. If NRC concludes reasonable 

efforts were not applied, the licensee would be required to continue restoration efforts until this 

has been demonstrated before a request for an ACL could be submitted. Additional 10 CFR 

Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(6) requirements for ACLs are discussed in Appendix C of the 

SEIS. In addition, ACL application review procedures for NRC staff are described in the 

following documents: January 1996 Staff Technical Position, Alternate Concentration Limits for 

Title II Uranium Mills; NUREG–1620 (NRC, 2003d); and NUREG–1724 (NRC, 2000). 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N020-012 

One commenter requested a more detailed discussion of aquifer restoration activities, including 

groundwater transfer (including discussion of why it is acceptable to transfer water from one 

aquifer to another), groundwater sweep, and groundwater treatment. 

Response: SEIS Chapter 2 describes aquifer restoration activities. Note that groundwater 

transfer during aquifer restoration does not involve the transfer of water from one aquifer to 

another. During this process groundwater is exchanged between one area of the production 

aquifer (beginning restoration) and another area of the production aquifer (beginning ISR 

operations). This process is efficient and conserves groundwater consumption during 

restoration activities. The descriptions of the aquifer restoration activities were modified in SEIS 

Chapter 2 to provide clarification and additional detail. 

B.5.14.5 Gaseous or Airborne Particulate Emissions 

Comments: N015-015; N015-016; N015-023; N020-015; N020-028 

One commenter stated the air quality analyses was not adequate because detailed emission 

inventories for drill rig engines, fugitive dust, and facility operations are not presented. The 

commenter indicated the emission inventories are needed so that it can evaluate compliance 

with CAA regulations could be evaluated. Additional detailed comments from the same 

commenter requested clarification of how fugitive dust and diesel emissions were estimated on 

p. 2-23 of the draft SEIS and that a detailed emission inventory should be provided in the impact 

analysis discussion in draft SEIS pages 4-43 to 4-45. 
Appendix B 

B–56 

Response: The draft SEIS included emissions estimates for fugitive dust but did not provide 

detailed drilling rig or operational emissions estimates. In response to public comments, the 

staff updated the SEIS with additional information on the fugitive dust calculations and provided 

emissions estimates for diesel-powered drilling and construction equipment. Diesel emissions 

calculations are summarized in a new Appendix D in the final SEIS. The staff also provided 

more details regarding emissions from facility operations in SEIS Section 2.2.1.6.1. Section 4.7 

of the final SEIS, the air quality impact analysis, was revised to incorporate by reference the 

revised emissions information that was added to Section 2.2.1.6.1. The more detailed 

emissions estimates support the conclusions in the GEIS and SEIS that ISR facilities are not 

major sources of airborne emissions, and draft SEIS impact conclusions were not changed. 

B.5.14.6 Operational History 

B.5.14.6.1 Historic Operational Experience: Spills and Leaks 

Comment: N011-021 

One commenter stated the water resource impact analysis relies heavily on the leak and spill 

surveys presented in two documents that are incomplete and inaccurate. The two documents 

the commenter identified are the GEIS (NRC, 2009a) and the NRC memorandum Staff 

Assessment of Groundwater Impacts from Previously Licensed In-Situ Uranium Recovery 

Facilities (NRC, 2009b). 

Response: NRC conclusions regarding the potential environmental impacts to water resources 

for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are provided in SEIS Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2. In 

determining impact conclusions, NRC staff reviewed information the applicant provided in its 

license application as amended (including the Technical and Environmental Reports), 

information and data NRC independently collected and information, and data from the GEIS and 

the NRC memorandum (NRC, 2009b). The intent of the GEIS and NRC memorandum is not to 

provide an exhaustive listing of site-specific information, but rather to provide an accurate 

understanding of the types and magnitudes of impacts that have been encountered at 

NRC-licensed facilities. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in 

this response. 

Comment: N011-024 

One commenter stated that for water resource impacts, NRC acknowledges the record of ISR 

operations spills and leaks to a certain extent. The commenter provided the example of the 

Smith Ranch Project as support for their concern over the limited explanation. 

Response: NRC conclusions regarding the potential environmental impacts to water resources 

for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are provided in SEIS Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2. 

These impact conclusions are based on facility-specific process descriptions for the Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project and site-specific characteristics at the proposed site. In determining impact 

conclusions, the NRC staff reviewed information the applicant provided in its license application 

as amended (including the Technical and Environmental Reports), information and data NRC 

independently collected, and information and data provided in the GEIS (NRC, 2009a). GEIS 

Section 2.11 presents an historical discussion of ISR operations (including the Smith Ranch 

Project), and Section 2.14 references specific facilities in Wyoming, Nebraska, and New Mexico. 

The information in these sections of the GEIS was intended to inform the reader about issues 

that have historically resulted in potential impacts at ISR facilities and provide a range of 

conditions that may be expected for each of the four ISR phases. No changes were made to 

the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 
 Appendix B 

B–57 

B.5.14.6.2 Historic Operational Experience: Excursions 

Comment: N013-051 

One commenter stated the SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.2.2 discussion on historical groundwater 

impacts from excursions and the two-page document it references do not provide the data 

or detailed basis for determining that in the cases examined, none resulted in 

environmental effects. 

Response: The commenter is referring to the memorandum entitled Safety Assessment of 

Groundwater Impacts from Previously Licensed In-Situ Uranium Recovery Facilities; dated 

July 10, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML091770402). This memo summarizes an 

accompanying document, Data on Groundwater Impacts at the Existing ISR Facilities 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML091770385). 

These documents were developed in response to Commission direction in a staff requirements 

memorandum to assess the available data on groundwater impacts at uranium recovery 

facilities. The staff reviewed all data available in ADAMS on groundwater issues at existing ISR 

sites with a focus on groundwater restoration, excursions, and MIT failures. In all cases, the 

data indicate that the impacts were investigated and chemical constituents were found to be 

either at levels protective of human health and safety or the environment, or corrective actions 

were performed to reduce the concentration of chemical constituents to levels protective of 

human health and safety or the environment, or the excursion status for a well was short-lived 

with a low potential for risk as determined by previous non-site-specific studies (e.g., 

NUREG/CR-6733, NUREG/CR-3967, and NUREG-3709). However, if an excursion were to 

occur at a licensed site, NRC would evaluate the potential impact upon receipt of the licensee’s 

wellfield restoration report.

B.5.14.7 Requests for Detailed Information About All ISR Facilities 

Comment: N004-002 

One commenter stated that its organization had not received all of the reports and analyses it 

requested. 

Response: NRC staff considers this request to be beyond the scope of the SEIS. 

Comment: N011-036 

One commenter stated instead of disclosing the average groundwater concentrations, the SEIS 

should provide all groundwater sampling data and written lab reports, including details like 

constituent concentrations and sampling data and locations. The commenter also stated if this 

information was not available, the SEIS should disclose that fact. 

Response: As described in NRC guidance (NRC, 2003), an applicant, in support of its license 

application, should provide site baseline information including groundwater quality at and in the 

vicinity of the site. An NRC-accepted list of constituents to be sampled for determining baseline 

water quality is provided in this guidance, as are methods for the applicant to propose a list of 

constituents that is tailored to a particular location. NRC guidance states that to determine 

background groundwater quality conditions, at least four sets of samples, spaced sufficiently in 

time, should be collected and analyzed for each constituent. The applicant provided this 

summary groundwater quality information, as discussed in SEIS Section 3.5.2.3.3 and 

Chapter 6 of the SEIS discusses the information to be collected as part of the groundwater 
Appendix B 

B–58 

monitoring program. Detailed information, such as the type the commenter requested, that 

shows constituent concentrations and sampling data and locations, is provided in the applicant’s 

Environmental and Technical Reports (Uranerz, 2007). 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

B.5.14.8 References 

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

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

NRC. Memorandum from C. Miller, Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs, to G. Jaczko, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, et al. Subject: Staff Assessment of Groundwater Impacts from Previously 

Licensed In-Situ Uranium Recovery Facilities. ML091770402. July 10, 2009b. 

NRC. NUREG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications.” Final Report. Washington, DC: NRC. ML032250177. June 2003. 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. Casper, 

Wyoming: 2007. 

B.5.15 Financial Surety 

Comment: N014-021 

One commenter requested the SEIS financial assurance discussion be more descriptive, noting 

that financial assurance is a key component of ISR facility licensing and has been a contentious 

issue in the past. The commenter provided examples of additional topics to be discussed, such 

as (i) the types of financial assurance instruments available to licensees; (ii) how financial 

assurance cost estimates are developed; (iii) when a financial assurance cost estimate needs to 

be approved and posted with the agency; and (iv) when the cost estimate is to be updated. The 

commenter considered financial assurance an excellent example of a mitigation measure to 

protect against licensee potential financial difficulties. 

Response: The Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS discusses financial assurance in Section 2.2.1.8, 

which references NRC financial assurance requirements in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 9 and GEIS Section 2.10 (NRC, 2009) that provide the detail the commenter 

requested. Furthermore, the NRC staff reviews financial surety in detail as part of its safety 

evaluation, which is conducted in parallel with the environmental review. Section 2.2.1.8 of the 

Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS has been modified to direct the reader to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A 

and to GEIS Section 2.10 for further details about financial assurance. 

Comment: N017-024 

One commenter stated the draft SEIS failed to analyze the applicant financial assurance and 

decommissioning plans and it lacked a comparison of the current applicant financial assurance 

and decommissioning plans with previous restoration funding in terms of dollars, plan, and 

likely results. 
 Appendix B 

B–59 

Response: The Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS discusses financial assurance in Section 2.2.1.8, 

stating an initial surety estimate is required to cover the first year of operation and NRC and 

WDEQ would require annual revisions to the surety estimate to reflect existing operations and 

planned construction or operations the following year. The discussion in Section 2.2.1.8 also 

notes a detailed review of the initial surety estimate is part of the NRC safety evaluation. The 

commenter request for a comparison to previous restoration funding is beyond the purpose and 

scope of the SEIS; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information 

provided in this response. 

B.5.15.1 References 

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

Licensing of Source Material.” “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: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

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

B.5.16 Alternatives 

Comments: N011-006; N017-027

Two commenters stated NRC should reevaluate the alternatives analyzed in both the GEIS and 

the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS because the SEIS did not evaluate a reasonable range of 

alternatives. A commenter stated that the scope of the SEIS (and the GEIS) forestalled viable 

alternatives by assuming that uranium mining will occur, the ISL process will be used, and that 

the proposed location for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project is appropriate, and that this does not 

satisfy the rigorous exploration regulations required. Another commenter stated that the SEIS 

did not evaluate a true phased development alternative that would require each wellfield to be 

restored and reclaimed prior to proceeding to the next wellfield. 

Response: NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider alternatives to their proposed Federal 

actions as well as to their environmental impacts. Alternatives can be divided into two classes: 

primary alternatives, which are alternatives that can substitute for the agency-proposed action to 

accomplish the action in another manner, and secondary alternatives, which allow the proposed 

action to be carried out in a different manner. The previous comments concern both primary 

and secondary alternatives to the proposed Federal action. 

Reasonable alternatives for a particular Federal action are defined by the proposed Federal 

action and the purpose and need for the proposed Federal action. As a regulatory agency, the 

proposed Federal action for the site is an NRC decision to grant or deny the license application 

of a private party. The purpose and need for the proposed Federal action does consider the 

applicant goals and objectives to extract uranium from a particular location, which helps define 

reasonable alternatives to the proposed Federal action. 

Reasonable alternatives considered in a site-specific environmental review depend on the 

proposed action and site conditions. As discussed in Section 2.1 of the final SEIS, NRC 

considered reasonable alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative, not approving the 

license application, the alternative of approving the application, and an alternative that 
Appendix B 

B–60 

considered licensing only the Nichols Ranch Unit, but not the Hank Unit. Section 2.2 of the final 

SEIS discusses of alternatives that were considered but were eliminated from detailed study 

and the reasons for their elimination. These alternatives included conventional mining and 

milling, conventional mining and heap leaching, alternate lixiviants, and licensing the Hank Unit 

but not the Nichols Ranch Unit. These alternatives were eliminated from detailed study 

because they would cause greater environmental impacts than the proposed action. 

Section 2.2.2 of the final SEIS discusses alternative wastewater disposal options. 

While the NRC staff considers reasonable alternatives to the proposed action in the 

environmental review, the only alternative within NRC’s decisionmaking authority is to approve 

or not approve the license application. NRC has no authority or regulatory control over the 

applicant selection of uranium recovery technology to be used at the site. NRC’s regulatory 

authority is limited to evaluating the applicant’s request for a license to use ISR technology at 

the site. If NRC decides to grant the license request, the applicant must comply with the 

license, NRC regulatory requirements, and any other relevant local, State or Federal 

requirements to operate its facility. 

 

Section B.5.5.1 discusses the relationship between the statement of purpose and need and the 

development of alternatives for evaluation in the SEIS. With respect to the comment that the 

GEIS range of alternatives should be reevaluated, the final GEIS was published on 

June 5, 2009 (74 FR 27052). Refer to Section B.5.7.9 of this appendix for more specific details 

on the NRC assessment of GEIS-specific comments. 

Comment: N011-008

One commenter noted NRC considered the alternative of not licensing the Hank Unit but did not 

consider the reasonable alternative of not licensing the Nichols Ranch Unit, because of the 

potential impacts on groundwater and surface water. The commenter noted that because the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site is located near an ephemeral stream and the applicant 

is proposing to install injection and production wells in this area, an alternative that excluded the 

Nichols Ranch Unit should have been considered to mitigate surface water impacts. The 

commenter further noted the proposed production aquifer is under artesian conditions, therefore 

potentially complicating a complex hydrological system. The commenter also noted that altering 

the footprint of the proposed facility could potentially reduce the potential for surface water 

impacts and impacts to shallow groundwater, in addition to eliminating impacts on the Pumpkin 

Buttes Traditional Cultural Property. The commenter stated NRC failed to consider these and 

potentially other reasonable alternatives. 

Response: In response to public comments, the alternative of only licensing the Hank Unit but 

not the Nichols Ranch Unit was considered but was eliminated from detailed analysis because it 

would have had greater ecological and cultural resource impacts than either the proposed 

action or if only the Nichols Ranch Unit were licensed. Under this alternative, the central 

processing plant and supporting structures (e.g., administrative buildings) would be located at 

the Hank Unit. The Hank Unit is located within a 3.2 km [2-mi] radius of nine Greater sagegrouse leks, and because of their close proximity, the applicant would not be able to 

reasonably maintain the best management practices discussed in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.3 to 

mitigate potential impacts to sage-grouse {for example, limiting human activity within 1 km [0.6 

mi] of a lek}. Furthermore, there would be a cultural resources impact to the viewshed of the five 

identified TCPs including the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. Finally, because BLM administers 113 ha 

[280 ac] of the surface rights at the Hank Unit, the applicant would be required to adhere to 

specific BLM requirements regarding building and structure placement in accordance with the 

Programmatic Agreement. 
 Appendix B 

B–61 

The placement of wellfield infrastructure (wells, pipeline) is dictated in part by the location of the 

subsurface ore body; therefore, alternatives regarding well and pipeline placement are limited. 

With respect to the commenter’s concern regarding potential surface water impacts, the 

applicant has proposed to avoid well installation in the ephemeral drainages to minimize 

potential damage from erosion and to wellfield infrastructure from peak flows as discussed in 

the safety evaluation report. The applicant has stated that if a well had to be installed in an 

ephemeral drainage, appropriate erosion protection controls such as grading and contouring, 

culvert installation, low-water crossings constructed of stone, water contour bars, and 

designated traffic routes would be implemented to minimize the potential impact. 

Section 2.2.4 was added to the final SEIS to discuss the alternative of licensing only the Hank 

Unit and why this alternative was not considered for detailed analysis. 

Comments: N015-001; N015-010 

A commenter stated that the consideration of only Class I UIC injection wells as the waste 

disposal method was inadequate. The commenter noted other waste disposal alternatives 

should have been considered in the SEIS, such as (i) treatment and disposal via a Class V 

injection well; (ii) treatment and discharge to surface waters under a NPDES permit; and 

(iii) other potential wastewater disposal methods, such as land disposal and evaporation ponds. 

Response: In response to public comments, the final Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS was revised to 

expand the discussion of alternative wastewater disposal options that the license applicant did 

not propose. Section 2.2.2 of the final SEIS discusses the previously referenced waste disposal 

options, Table 2-3 compares the options, and Section 4.14.1.2 discusses the potential impacts 

from implementing the alternative wastewater disposal options. If licensed, the licensee would 

have to request a license amendment before using one of these alternative wastewater disposal 

options. NRC would perform an environmental and safety review on the proposed wastewater 

disposal method before deciding whether to grant a license amendment request. 

B.5.16.1 References 

74 FR 27052, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Notice of Availability of Final Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities.” Federal Register. 

Vol. 74, No. 107, pp. 27,052–27,054. June 5, 2009. 

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

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

B.5.17 Land Use 

B.5.17.1 Ownership Issues, Surface, and Mineral Rights 

Comment: N008-008 

The applicant commented they have surface use agreements with all the landowners within the 

proposed project area, whereas the SEIS Section 3.2 states agreements have been formed with 

most of these landowners. 

Response: SEIS Section 3.2 was revised in response to this comment to reflect the current 

status of surface use agreements at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 
Appendix B 

B–62 

Comment: N018-014 

One commenter indicated the Industrial Siting Council may require a permit for the ISR facility. 

Response: As indicated in SEIS Section 1.6.2, a new uranium in-situ recovery milling site 

would need several WDEQ permits. NRC acknowledges the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project may require a permit from the WDEQ Industrial Siting Council. This council works with 

the Industrial Siting Division to determine whether a Section 109 Permit pursuant to Wyoming 

Statute (W.S.) § 35-12-109 of the Industrial Development Information and Siting Act would be 

required. According to this Division, permits are required of all projects with a construction cost 

of $175.5 million or more, and some business types need the permit regardless of the 

construction cost. Because the WDEQ has not yet determined whether such a permit would be 

required, no changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

B.5.17.2 Amount of Land Affected and Type, Degree, and Duration of 

Potential Impacts 

Comment: N013-033 

One commenter indicated that well spacing, fencing, and other issues related to wellfields were 

not discussed in land use impacts. 

Response: The land use description and construction-related impacts are presented in SEIS 

Sections 3.2, 4.2.1, and 4.2.3.1. Well spacing is discussed in the SEIS, but as the spacing 

ranges from 15 to 46 m [50 to 150 ft], the overall effect on the construction impact analysis is 

small. Of the total disturbed area, approximately 24 to 32 ha [60 to 80 ac] would be fenced off 

at the Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant and 12 to 16 ha [30 to 40 ac] at the Hank 

Unit satellite plant, thus restricting access to these portions of land to cattle grazing and other 

activities for the duration of the proposed project. The land disturbance in the wellfields caused 

by drilling; grading; trenching; and construction of header houses, pipelines, trenches, and 

eventual fences is considered at the scale of an entire wellfield, and further information on these 

impacts can be found in SEIS Section 4.2. Additionally, SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.1 addresses 

terrestrial ecology habitat loss impacts. 

Because this response addresses the comment by providing confirmation and clarification with 

information already included in the SEIS and consistent with the analysis of the GEIS, no 

changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comments: N013-044; N013-045 

A commenter indicated the construction of all the facilities would require large amounts of land 

and impacts to the land use would be significant. This commenter requested the SEIS describe 

in greater detail the amount of impacted land. 

Response: A detailed description of construction activities of all the facilities proposed for this 

project, including wellfields, number of wells, and their spacing, are provided in SEIS 

Section 2.2.1.2. The land use description and construction-related impacts are presented in 

SEIS Sections 3.2, 4.2.1, and 4.2.3.1. 

Information presented in these sections described the total land area for the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project as approximately 1,365 ha [3,371 ac]. Of this, approximately 120 ha 

[300 ac] of land, or 8.8 percent of the total surface area, would be affected by the proposed ISR 

construction and operations. The Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit, located approximately 

6.8 km [4.2 mi] apart, would have approximately 24 to 32 ha [60 to 80 ac] or 1.7 to 2.3 percent 
 Appendix B 

B–63 

of the total land surface fenced, preventing grazing and other activities at any given time during 

the proposed project life. The wellfields and associated disturbance areas would also represent 

small percentages of the total land surface: approximately 3.3 percent or 46 ha [113 ac] for the 

Nichols Ranch Unit and approximately 4.6 percent or 63 ha [155 ac] for the Hank Unit. For this 

project, the noncontiguous Nichols Ranch Unit and Hank Unit wellfields would not be fenced. 

Based on the small percentage of land that would actually be affected by the proposed project 

and the approximate 9 month to 1 year duration of construction per unit, the NRC staff 

concluded the impacts from the construction of the proposed project would be temporary 

and SMALL. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response.

Comments: N016-013; N016-014; N016-015 

One commenter indicated potential decrease in land value due to increased traffic and noise, 

and decreased water availability, along with potential compensation for such land value 

decrease. 

Response: NRC acknowledges land values may change if an ISR facility is built. The SEIS 

includes impact analyses for transportation in Section 4.3, noise in Section 4.8, water resources 

in Section 4.5, and socioeconomics in Section 4.11. However, NRC would consider it 

speculation at this time as to whether the value would either increase or decrease if the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project was built. In addition, compensation to land owners is not 

a socioeconomic factor that is generally considered in NRC environmental reviews because ISR 

applicants need to reach agreements separately with each individual landowner to obtain 

consent to access, explore, construct, and operate their ISR facilities and find appropriate 

mitigation or compensation measures for impacts. These impacts, mitigation, and 

compensation measures are to be defined and implemented between the landowners and the 

ISR operator and are not negotiated by NRC staff. As documented in SEIS Sections 3.2 and 

4.5.2.1.2.2, the applicant formed surface use agreements with all proposed project area 

landowners. Also, the applicant indicated these agreements addressed potential impacts to 

access and free-flowing wells. Because the SEIS discussion is appropriate, no changes were 

made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comments: N018-028 

One commenter indicated that the construction design should account for natural features of the 

land (i.e., topography and drainage) so natural drainage would not be disrupted. 

Response: The applicant has committed to use best management practices to ensure site 

construction will be designed and conducted to minimize disruption to and avoid blockage of 

natural surface water drainage features (Uranerz, 2007). For the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project, the NRC staff finds that, based on the information the applicant provided on its limited 

construction area, its limited and intermittent number of surface water and wetlands features on 

site, and its implementation of best management practices, the potential impacts to natural 

surface water drainage features and to wetlands associated with the construction of roads, the 

installation of power lines, the construction of wells and pipelines, building of the plant, and the 

related vehicular traffic are SMALL, which is consistent with the GEIS (NRC, 2009) findings. 

For example, during construction of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, two new 0.32-km 

[0.2-mi]-long access roads would be constructed entirely in uplands, and sedimentation and 

erosion control devices would be placed during construction to minimize sediment transfer to 
Appendix B 

B–64 

surface waters. Additional temporary access roads would cross ephemeral channels at the 

natural streambed elevation and at shallow-water locations perpendicular to flow at two 

locations on the Nichols Ranch Unit and at three locations on the Hank Unit. Thus, the 

applicant does not expect that fill material would be needed for these roads. (Uranerz, 2007) 

The applicant would also use proper sedimentation and erosion control measures (e.g., grading 

and contouring, placement of hay bales, culvert installation, sedimentation breaks, or placement 

of water contour bars, and berms) to minimize sedimentation into the channels and to reseed 

disturbed soil. (Uranerz, 2007) 

Due to the topography of the land surface immediately above the ore bodies, if wells needed to 

be drilled in ephemeral channels, appropriate erosion protection controls will be applied to 

minimize damage to the drainage. Controls included grading and contouring, culvert installation, 

low-water crossing constructed of stone, water contour bars, and designated traffic routes. 

(Uranerz, 2007)

PVC pipelines that would need to bisect ephemeral channels would be buried perpendicular to 

the channels during the dry season with excavating equipment. Excavated native soil would be 

used to backfill the trenches to restore the preexisting grade of the natural channel. Reseeding 

and mulching would be implemented to stabilize the soil. (Uranerz, 2007) 

Finally, the central processing plant and satellite facility would be constructed away from 

ephemeral channels and above peak flow elevation. The applicant has also committed in its 

application to construct a ditch and berm on the upgradient side of both the central processing 

plant and satellite facility to divert flow around the structures. 

No changes were made to the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS beyond the information provided in 

this response. 

Comment: N018-029

One commenter indicated that concentrated runoff that could cause erosion should be avoided 

by appropriately designing roads, pipelines, and other structures. 

Response: As detailed in the NRC staff response to related comment N018-028, the NRC staff 

finds that for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, the applicant information on construction 

design and planned construction activities would account for the presence and characteristics of 

the natural features of the land so that natural drainage would not be disrupted and surface 

runoff from roads, pipelines, corridors, and other structures would not be concentrated to 

potentially cause additional erosion. 

Because this response refers to the detailed response provided for related comment N018-028 

and because confirmation and clarification is provided in this response with information already 

in the SEIS, no changes to the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS were made beyond this response. 

B.5.17.3 Mitigation and Reclamation Issues 

Comment: N013-046 

One commenter requested the estimated time for reclamation be discussed. 

Response: A detailed description of construction activities of all facilities proposed for the 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project, including the estimated schedule, is provided in SEIS Section 2.2.1. 
 Appendix B 

B–65 

This schedule also shows the estimated time for operations, decommissioning, and reclamation 

of the two Nichols Ranch Unit wellfields and the two Hank Unit wellfields. The estimated 

wellfields and site reclamation efforts are estimated at 3 years from approximately 2016 to 2019 

at the Nichols Ranch Unit and for 2 1⁄2 years from 2018 to 2020 at the Hank Unit. 

This response addresses the comment by providing confirmation and clarification with 

information already included in the SEIS. Therefore, no changes to the SEIS were made 

beyond this response. 

Comment: N014-016 

The commenter states the draft SEIS structure indicates aquifer restoration is separate from the 

surface reclamation stage of an ISR facility lifecycle. The commenter seeks clarification on 

whether 10 CFR 40.42, Expiration and Termination of Licenses and Decommissioning of Sites 

and Separate Buildings or Outdoor Areas, can be applied to groundwater restoration. The 

commenter also seeks clarification on the timeline in which a decommissioning plan is required 

to be submitted to NRC. 

Response: According to the Commission decision regarding Hydro Resources, Inc. (HRI) 

(NRC, 2000), the NRC staff is required to review a decommissioning plan prior to 

issuing a license. NUREG–1569 Section 6.5 (NRC, 2003) contains staff guidance for reviewing 

decommissioning plans. SEIS Sections 6.1 through 6.4 address the 

decommissioning/restoration activities to be included in the application, including groundwater 

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 addresses full facility build-out for the life of the facility. 

Unlike other facilities, the precise as-built conditions for an ISR facility 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. Regarding financial assurance, the 

Commission stated in the HRI decision that a surety is not required prior to licensing, but one is 

required prior to operations. 

As stated in letters to licensees dated July 7, 2008 (NRC, 2008), the timeliness and 

decommissioning regulations apply to ISRs; therefore, alternate schedules must be submitted if 

restoration/decommissioning would require more than 2 years. Because the timeliness in 

decommissioning rule applies to not only entire facilities but portions thereof, restoration 

schedules apply to individual wellfields. This response is considered sufficient to address the 

comment; therefore, no change was made to the SEIS. 

B.5.17.4 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

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

 
Appendix B 

B–66 

NRC. Letter from K. McConnell, Deputy Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to 

M. Collings, President, Power Resources, Inc. Subject: Compliance with 10 CFR 40.42’s 

Timely Decommissioning Requirements. ML081480259, ML081480293, ML081490589, and 

ML081490590. July 7, 2008. 

NRC. NUREG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications.” Final Report. Washington, DC: NRC. ML032250177. June 2003. 

NRC. Commission Memorandum and Order in the Matter of Hydro Resources, Inc. CLI-00-08. 

ML003718672. May 25, 2000. 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. Casper, 

Wyoming: 2007. 

B.5.18 Transportation 

Comment: N013-076 

One commenter wanted to know the impacts of transporting solid waste byproduct material to 

the disposal site. 

Response: Final SEIS Section 2.2.1.6.3 was revised to include that up to five byproduct 

material shipments would occur annually. The impact analyses in final SEIS Section 4.3.1.2 

were revised to state that the transportation of byproduct material poses a small potential for 

environmental impact in the event of an accident. This conclusion is based on the low number 

of shipments expected annually and the risks relative to concentrated yellowcake product 

shipments that were evaluated in the SEIS and the GEIS (NRC, 2009). 

Comment: N018-012 

One commenter, referring to Sections 3.2.2 and 3.3.2, stated transportation routes would be 

determined by the Wyoming Department of Transportation District Engineer. 

Response: While the comment is not specific, NRC staff has interpreted the comment as 

referring to sections in the GEIS (NRC, 2009) that describe the affected environment for 

transportation in the Wyoming milling regions. This is because there are no such discussions in 

the draft Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS Section 3.2.2 and there is no Section 3.3.2 in the SEIS. 

While the comment period for the GEIS has ended, NRC staff understands that individual states 

can specify routes that are acceptable to them for hazardous material transportation. For 

yellowcake shipments that travel through multiple states, NRC licensees and their carriers are 

required to comply with all applicable State laws, in addition to the applicable NRC 

transportation regulations in 10 CFR Part 71 and the U.S. Department of Transportation 

regulations in 49 CFR 171 to 189. Because the comment was not specific to the material in the 

draft SEIS, no changes to the draft SEIS were made in response to the comment. 

Comments: N018-038; N018-053 

One commenter suggested the transportation impacts were trivialized because the SEIS did not 

account for hauling all waste generated from all phases including construction, operations, 

restoration, and decommissioning. The commenter also expressed (referring to the Executive 
 Appendix B 

B–67 

Summary, p. xxiii, in particular) the volume of contaminated soil that would need to be shipped 

offsite for disposal could be significant. The commenter also indicated the SEIS did not provide 

waste volumes for decommissioning wastes. 

Response: Sections 2.2.1.7 and 4.3 of the draft SEIS discussed of the estimated magnitude of 

traffic generated by the proposed action. Section 4.3, in particular, includes tabulated estimates 

of traffic generated for each phase of the proposed project. The traffic estimates in Section 4.3 

include shipments of both and municipal solid wastes. In response to this and other comments, 

annual and cumulative waste volume estimates for the decommissioning phase were added to 

Section 2.2.1.6.3 (solid waste) and decommissioning waste shipment estimates were added to 

Section 2.2.1.7 (transportation). The decommissioning waste volumes were based primarily on 

information submitted in the applicant surety estimate (Uranerz, 2007), which includes a 

complete accounting of decommissioning costs, including costs to excavate contaminated soil 

and ship the soil to a licensed facility for disposal as byproduct material. The staff also added 

an estimate of the contaminated soil volumes that could be generated in wellfields from leaks 

and spills during operations based on information included in an existing licensee-approved 

surety estimate (PRI, 2007). Because a significant proportion of the decommissioning waste is 

from wellfields and the wellfields are planned to be decommissioned using a phased approach 

over a 5-year period, the expected annual average daily waste transportation equates to 

approximately one shipment per day. NRC staff calculated that the annual average daily 

shipping activity for decommissioning activities is comparable to the applicant’s estimate for 

truck traffic during construction and operations that was summarized in the draft SEIS in Section 

2.1.1.7 (referring to approximately six trucks per week). Because the proposed 

decommissioning activities do not overlap with construction or operations phases, the overall 

magnitude of expected average annual daily traffic generated by the proposed action has not 

changed based on the addition of more detailed estimates generated in response to these 

comments. As mentioned previously in this comment response, SEIS Sections 2.2.1.6.3 and 

2.2.1.7 were revised. 

B.5.18.1 References 

10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 1, “Packaging and 

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

49 CFR Parts 171 to 189. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

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

Power Resources International (PRI). Letter from J. McCarthy, Environmental, Health, and 

Safety Manager, Power Resources International, to G. Janosko, Branch Chief, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. Subject: Smith Ranch: 2007–2008 Surety Estimate 

Revision. ML072210876. June 29, 2007. 

 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. Casper, 

Wyoming: 2007. 
Appendix B 

B–68 

B.5.19 Geology and Soils 

B.5.19.1 Soil Disturbance Concerns 

Comment: N007-012 

One commenter suggested pipeline installation should be done with a plowing technique 

utilizing specialized equipment, rather than conventional trenching, to reduce surface 

disturbance, reduce the interim reclamation level of effort, and potentially increase reclamation 

success. 

Response: During decommissioning, all buried pipelines would be excavated using 

conventional trenching techniques (Uranerz, 2007). SEIS Section 2.2.1.4.4 describes the 

applicant’s commitment to segregate topsoils and subsoils during excavation and to backfill 

trenches with subsoil first followed by topsoil. NRC staff notes that the plowing technique 

described by the commenter would reduce surface disturbance during pipeline installation 

because it does not rely on traction for propulsion, thereby reducing the potential impact to 

surface grasses and soils. However, NRC cannot require the applicant to use this potential 

mitigation measure. The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed site construction activities and 

determined the potential impacts to vegetation and geology and soils as SMALL because of the 

relatively short duration of ISR activities at a given wellfield (approximately 5–6 years refer to 

SEIS Figure 2-1) and the fact that the applicant would reseed soil and place it in areas where 

the soil had been stripped. Once the vegetation has become reestablished in reclaimed areas, 

the land could be returned to a condition that could support the preextraction land uses of 

wildlife habitat and livestock grazing. 

No further changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comments: N018-031; N018-083 

One commenter suggested additional detail be provided regarding restoration of surface soils 

disturbed by site activities. 

Response: SEIS Sections 3.4.3 and 4.4 discuss surface soils, while Sections 2.2.1.5.5, 

3.6.1.1, and 4.6 discuss revegetation. The SEIS currently contains discussions of both shortand long-term measures that would be taken to preserve the soil profile and restore vegetative 

cover. Additional details may be included in the site reclamation plan, which the licensee would 

submit at least 12 months before any planned final site decommissioning begins. Because the 

discussion in the SEIS is considered appropriate, no changes were made to the SEIS. 

B.5.19.2 References 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. Casper, 

Wyoming: 2007. 
 Appendix B 

B–69 

B.5.20 Groundwater Resources 

B.5.20.1 General Concerns About ISR and Groundwater Contamination 

Comments: N011-031; N011-032; N011-035; N014-011; N017-004; N017-022 

Several commenters raised concerns about the NRC assessments for operational impacts of 

ISR activities on groundwater by noting that the assessments are not consistent with existing 

data. A few commenters asked for clarification on groundwater restoration standards. A 

commenter pointed out that for cases in which baseline levels are not recovered after 

restoration, potential effects on surrounding USDWs are not evaluated in the SEIS. Another 

commenter expressed disbelief on proper contamination containment after aquifer restoration, 

allegedly based on historical data. A commenter asked for additional information on historical 

analysis of aquifer restoration at ISR sites. Several commenters disagreed with the NRC 

assessment that the impact to groundwater is small and temporary after restoration and noted 

aquifers used for ISR operations have never been restored to baseline/premining conditions. 

One commenter asserted that NRC’s characterization of restoration history implies impacts are 

smaller than they actually are. 

Response: 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 the concentration of a 

hazardous constituent must not exceed—(a) The Commission approved background 

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 level of the 

constituent is below the value listed; or (c) An alternate concentration limit is established by the 

Commission. 

To establish the preoperational nonradiological and radiological groundwater baselines within 

the proposed permit boundaries and adjacent properties, the applicant would be required to 

collect samples over a period of at least 1 year, from at least four sets of groundwater samples 

sufficiently spaced in time. To establish the baseline water quality for a specific wellfield within 

the license area, an acceptable set of samples should include all wellfield perimeter monitor 

wells, all lower and upper aquifer monitor wells, and at least one production/injection well per 

acre in each wellfield. Baseline samples are collected with a sampling density of not less than 

one for every 16,187 m2

 [4 ac]. The applicant has proposed to sample one well per 1.6 ha [4 

ac]. Because the applicant is required to collect baseline water quality before ISR operations 

begin, the baseline sampling procedure outlined previously would provide adequately unbiased 

preoperational groundwater quality measures at a proposed ISR site. Wellfield groundwater 

monitoring at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, including preoperational and baseline 

wellfield groundwater sampling, is described in Section 6.3.1 of the SEIS. 

All ISR restorations approved to date under NRC regulations have met approved restoration 

standards. In the past, NRC has allowed “class of use,” a state designation under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act, as a secondary restoration goal. The text “class of use,” referred to in the 

GEIS as a standard for restored groundwater quality, was based on restoration standards 

provided in NUREG-1569. The NRC has determined that the primary and secondary 

restoration standards in NUREG-1569 are inconsistent with the restoration standards in 10 CFR 

Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B (5). The NRC has notified licensees and applicants in 

Regulatory Information Summary, RIS 09-05, dated April 29, 2009 (NRC, 2009b), that the 

restoration standards listed in NUREG-1569, Section 6.1.3(4) are not consistent with those 

listed in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A and licensees and applicants and licensees must commit 

to achieve the restoration standards in Criterion 5B (5). These standards state the 
Appendix B 

B–70 

concentration of a hazardous constituent must not exceed (a) the Commission approved 

background concentration of that constituent in groundwater; (b) the respective value in the 

table in paragraph 5C if the constituent is listed in the table and if the background level of the 

constituent is below the value listed or; (c) an alternative concentration limit established by the 

Commission. An ACL is not a primary restoration goal and will only be considered after a 

licensee has demonstrated that primary restoration goals are not practically achievable at a 

specific site. ACLs that present no significant hazard may be proposed by the licensees for 

Commission consideration. The Commission may establish a site-specific ACL for a hazardous 

constituent as provided in 5B(5) if it finds that the proposed limit is as low as reasonably 

achievable, after considering practicable corrective actions and 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. A discussion of the NRC requirements for application, review and 

establishment of a site-specific ACL is presented in Appendix C. In addition, ACL application 

review procedures for NRC staff are available in the following documents: January 1996 Staff 

Technical Position: Alternate Concentration Limits for Title II Uranium Mills, NUREG-1620, and 

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 Radiation 

Control Act, NUREG-1724. 

Examples of successfully completed restoration or delayed restoration activities are discussed 

in GEIS Section 2.11.5 (NRC, 2009a). The process to establish an ACL is detailed in Appendix 

C of the SEIS. Additional costs incurred because of groundwater restoration delays would be 

addressed in financial sureties NRC review annually. 

Based on past examples of successful restoration and remediation activities under NRC 

regulations and aquifer restoration standards, the GEIS concluded the potential impacts on 

groundwater resources at ISR facilities could range from SMALL to MODERATE based on 

site-specific conditions. The analysis conducted for the safety evaluation and incorporated into 

Section 4.5.2 of the SEIS concluded the potential impact on groundwater resources from the 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be SMALL. 

Because the discussion in the SEIS is considered appropriate, no changes were made to 

the SEIS. 

Comments: N013-047; N013-048, N013-049 

One commenter stated the SEIS conclusion that ground and surface water impacts would be 

SMALL to MODERATE was based on flawed assumptions that the applicant would implement 

practices to avoid or remediate spills, leaks, and excursions, and the commenter requested 

these be corrected in the final SEIS. The commenter further noted that the SEIS failed to 

discuss what practices would be used to avoid or remediate spills, leaks, and excursions. 

Response: As a matter of practice, NRC staff assumes regulations would be applied, as 

appropriate, to an ISR facility. NRC expects licensee compliance with regulatory requirements 

and license conditions when evaluating the potential environmental impacts of an ISR uranium 

recovery facility. As described in GEIS Section 1.7.1 (NRC, 2009a), NRC staff would conduct 

periodic inspections to determine compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, license 

conditions, and approved procedures. 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 

requirements violations. The impact analyses presented in SEIS Section 4.5 and GEIS 

Chapter 4 are informed by historical information presented in GEIS Chapter 2. Depending on 
 Appendix B 

B–71 

the affected resource area and the phase in the facility lifecycle, potential impacts may range 

from SMALL to LARGE. Based on site-specific information, NRC staff has determined surface 

water and groundwater impacts for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be SMALL. 

An applicant is required to obtain construction and industrial storm water (NPDES) permits from 

the state (through WDEQ) prior to commencing ISR activities. As part of this permit, the 

applicant would implement best management practices (BMPs) such as a spill prevention and 

cleanup plan to minimize potential impacts on soil and groundwater due to leaks and spills on 

the ground surface (GEIS Sections 7.4 and 4.3.4.2.1). 

If the facility was licensed, the applicant would be required to establish a detection monitoring 

program to protect underground sources of groundwater from potential spills and leaks, in 

compliance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 7A and 40 CFR 144.54. Once a facility 

is licensed, the applicant is also required to implement corrective actions to prevent movement 

of any spills or leaks into USDWs, in compliance with 40 CFR 144.55. 

To comply with these regulations, the applicant would conduct mechanical integrity tests (MITs) 

of each well to check for leaks or cracks in the casing (detailed information on MITs is provided 

in GEIS Section 2.4.1.3), in compliance with 40 CFR 146.8, and install meters and control 

valves in individual well lines to monitor and control flow rates and pressures for each well to 

maintain water balance and to aid in identifying leaks (detailed discussion is provided in GEIS 

Section 2.3.1.1). The applicant would measure and record pipeline pressure to monitor for 

potential leaks and spills that might result from failure of fittings and valves (this process is 

detailed in GEIS Section 2.4.1.2). The applicant would implement corrective actions to prevent 

movement of spills or leaks into USDWs. Under these circumstances, potential impacts on 

surface water and groundwater due to spills and leaks could range from SMALL to 

MODERATE. 

The applicant stated in their license application that measures to minimize potential impacts 

include proper well construction procedures and well testing procedures, including the 

verification of well casing integrity and proper cementing of the Class I injection wells. 

Monitoring wells completed in the aquifers above and below the ore zone at the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be routinely sampled for excursions of lixiviant. If a well 

casing failure were to occur, the applicant would be required to clean up any contamination in a 

USDW. To protect surface water, each injection and production well would be equipped with a 

monitoring device that would sound an alarm if a change in flow pressure indicated a potential 

leak as described in Section 6.3.3 of the SEIS. 

As shown in Table 1-2 of the SEIS, the applicant is preparing a construction and industrial storm 

water (NPDES) permit application for submittal to WDEQ prior to commencing ISR activities. 

To comply with the WDEQ permit, the applicant would implement BMPs including a spill 

prevention and cleanup plan to minimize potential impact on surface water and groundwater 

from leaks and spills on the ground surface. GEIS Section 7.4 also discusses BMPs that have 

been used at ISR facilities (NRC, 2009a). 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comments: N016-005; N016-006 

A commenter expressed concern regarding the proposed schedules for completion of the ISR 

phases at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project and noted that the SEIS states that 

production at each unit could range from 1.25 to 2.5 years. However, at another Wyoming site 
Appendix B 

B–72 

(Power Resources), the licensee had estimated 3 years, but in actuality production lasted for 

about 10 years. The commenter also noted that at the end of 10 years of aquifer restoration, 

the groundwater quality was similar to what the groundwater quality had been at the end of the 

operations phase even though the licensee had estimated restoration would have taken five 

years. The commenter stated this was reflective of the ISL history in Wyoming and this was not 

addressed in the SEIS. 

Response: The commenter is correct that historically ISR production operations have required 

a longer production schedule than originally estimated. NRC, however, does not regulate or 

limit the production schedule for a wellfield at a licensee’s facility. In general, a licensee 

determines its production schedule for a particular wellfield based on economics and other 

factors (e.g., liquid effluent disposal capacity, recovery efficiencies), which may vary as 

production progresses. The applicant estimated that the total production time for the Nichols 

Ranch Unit would be 3–4 years and the Hank Unit would be 4–5 years. The shorter timelines 

presented by the commenter were for the individual production areas within each unit, as shown 

in Figure 3.12 of the applicant’s technical report (Uranerz, 2007). NRC staff considers the time 

periods provided for production reasonable initial estimates.

 

Furthermore, NRC regulations require that a licensee initiate wellfield restoration immediately 

after production is complete [10 CFR 40.42 (d)] and set an initial restoration duration of less 

than 24 months. If the licensee cannot meet those regulatory timeframes, it must submit 

documentation for noncompliance and request a NRC-approved alternate schedule. Ultimately, 

a licensee will have to submit a license renewal in 10 years from the date the license was 

issued and NRC staff will scrutinize the compliance and operational history of the facility. 

Uranerz estimated a time period of 4 years for restoration of the Nichols Ranch Unit and 6 years 

for the restoration of the Hank Unit. NRC regulations require that restoration activities must 

restore the production aquifer to the groundwater protection standards in 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5), no matter the actual duration of the restoration. GEIS Section 2.5 

and Section B.5.9.8 of this appendix provide additional information on groundwater restoration 

at ISR sites. 

No change was made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comments: N016-012; N013-072 

One commenter wanted to know how ISR milling could be conducted safely at a location 

where the aquifer was unconfined. Another commenter stated NRC should not license an ISR 

project at a location where the aquifer is unconfined unless the NEPA analyses demonstrate 

that water resource impacts can be prevented through enforceable and effective mitigation 

measures. 

Response: The commenters are correct that the production zone F Sand aquifer at the Hank 

Unit is an unconfined aquifer. An unconfined aquifer is one where the water level is below the 

overlying aquitard as described in SEIS Section 4.5.2 and shown in Figure 4-1. At the Hank 

Unit, the water levels in the F Sand fall below the base of the overlying aquitard in the northern 

portion of the Hank Unit and slightly above in the southern portion. The term “unconfined 

aquifer” does not mean the overlying aquitard, which acts as the top confining layer to the 

production ore zone, is missing. At the Hank Unit, the overlying GF aquitard, which confines the 

top of the F Sand production zone, is continuous across the entire site. Aquifer testing at the 

Hank Unit has not indicated leakage from either the overlying G Sand or the underlying B Sand. 

Specifically, the applicant provided the results of two multiwell pumping tests (URZHF-1 and 
 Appendix B 

B–73 

URZHF-5) that included pumping the F Sand coupled with monitoring the F Sand, the overlying 

G Sand aquifer, and the underlying B Sand aquifer (Uranerz, 2007). Neither test indicated a 

hydraulic connection (drawdown) between the F Sand and the G Sand or B Sand. 

 

The reason for specifically addressing the unconfined F Sand aquifer is that the groundwater 

flow behavior of an unconfined aquifer is different than a confined aquifer where the water 

level in the aquifer rises above the overlying aquitard. This difference can impact the ability of 

the licensee to prevent and control excursions. It can also affect the ability of the groundwater 

to sweep all parts of the aquifer, which impacts the effectiveness of the restoration. To ensure 

operations can be conducted safely in the F Sand unconfined aquifer at the Hank Unit, NRC 

will require a site-specific license condition that the applicant perform a hydrogeologic test to 

quantify the unconfined groundwater flow behavior of the F Sand aquifer. NRC will require 

another license condition for the licensee to provide the Production Area Pump Test reports 

from the Nichols Ranch ISR Project, including the first production area at the Hank Unit, for 

NRC review and approval before operations may begin. The report for the Hank Unit will 

describe the F Sand unconfined aquifer characteristics and communication of the wellfield 

production wells with monitoring wells in the aquifer. This information will enable NRC staff to 

evaluate the ability of the licensee to conduct ISR operations in the F Sand safely and with 

minimal impact on the environment. 

License conditions are enforceable and therefore similar to the “enforceable and effective 

mitigation measures” the commenter suggests. SEIS Section 4.5.2.1 was modified to clarify on 

the construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning impacts at the 

Hank Unit. 

B.5.20.2 Importance of Water and Consumptive Use 

Comment: N007-015 

One commenter requested the SEIS explain the source and volume of water used for drilling 

wells and identify any impacts to the aquatic environment. 

Response: As noted in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.1, most water used for construction, including well 

drilling at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, would be pumped from wells screened in 

surficial aquifers, which are described in SEIS Section 3.5.2.2. As described in SEIS Section 

4.5.2.1.1, the consumptive water use during well drilling would be SMALL based on the limited 

nature of groundwater use during the construction phase (dust suppression, mixing cements, 

and drilling support) and the applicant’s implementation of WYPDES permit requirements and 

BMPs to protect soils and shallow groundwater. The volume of drilling fluids and muds used 

during well installation would be limited, and BMPs would be used to prevent, identify, and 

correct potential impacts to soils and surficial aquifers at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project. Drilling fluids and muds would be placed in mud pits to control the spread of the fluids, 

minimize the area of soil contamination, and enhance evaporation. Section 4.5.2.1.1 of the 

SEIS was revised to clarify the potential impact on groundwater from well construction. 

Comments: N007-016; N016-011; N020-041 

One commenter noted Uranerz has confidential surface water agreements in place with 

landowners addressing mitigation if a free-flowing well is impacted by the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project and wanted to know how long this mitigation would be in place. This 

commenter also wanted to know whether other wells would likely be impacted, what the 

mitigation plan for these wells would be, and what happens if water levels do not recover. 

Another commenter wanted to know what would happen if the ISR activity decreased the flow 
Appendix B 

B–74 

rate of area wells; specifically, whether and how local landowners would be compensated. 

Another commenter requested clarification on whether the applicant would certify water 

well agreements with potentially impacted landowners including those outside the ore 

zone perimeter. 

Response: As noted in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.2.2, the applicant indicated that flowing wells 

located within the 3 m [10 ft] drawdown contour could be impacted, which includes wells located 

outside of the ore zone perimeter. Within an 8-km [5-mi] radius of the Nichols Ranch Unit, 

10 flowing wells screened within the A Sand (i.e., the ore zone aquifer at the Nichols Ranch 

Unit) could be affected by ISR operations (Uranerz, 2007). The applicant has “confidential 

surface use agreements in place with the landowners” that detail mitigation measures that 

would be implemented if production from a free-flowing well was impacted by the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The compensation terms and duration of surface use agreements 

are negotiated between the applicant and landowners. Uranerz has agreed to work with the 

landowners if a well were to be affected by drawdown during ISR operations; potential actions 

the applicant could take include installing pumps in artesian/flowing wells that ceased flowing or 

drilling a new well for the landowner (Uranerz, 2007). SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.2.2 was revised to 

clarify the predicted drawdown impacts and the coverage area for surface use agreements. 

Comments: N009-003; N010-003 

One commenter stated the NRC should not grant a license for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project because of the large consumptive water uses during ISR operations and restoration that 

would deplete an important and valuable water resource along with other competing uses 

(oil drilling, coal-bed methane) in a drought prone area. Another commenter stated ISR’s large 

consumptive water use should be considered a significant impact for the same reasons stated 

by another commenter. 

Response: Analyses and estimates of consumptive water used during ISR operations at the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are described in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.2.2. Assuming a 

production rate of 13,250 Lpm [3,500 gpm] and a 1 percent bleed rate, a groundwater 

withdrawal rate of 133 Lpm [35 gpm] was estimated during ISR operations at the Nichols Ranch 

Unit. Assuming a production rate of 9,470 Lpm [2,500 gpm] and a 3 percent bleed rate, a 

groundwater withdrawal rate of 284 Lpm [75 gpm] was estimated during ISR operations at the 

Hank Unit. The additional consumptive groundwater use that would accompany aquifer 

restoration would increase these withdrawal rates. As noted in Section 4.5.2.1.2.2, the 

projected consumptive groundwater use of water at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

during operations and aquifer restoration is a small fraction of the water currently stored in the 

ore-bearing aquifers (i.e., the A Sand at the Nichols Ranch Unit and the F Sand at the Hank 

Unit) in the Powder River Basin. After production and restoration are complete and 

groundwater withdrawals cease at the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units, groundwater levels would 

recover, as discussed in Section 4.5.2.1.2.3 of the SEIS. Thus, the potential long-term 

(approximately 10 years) environmental impact from consumptive groundwater use during 

operations and aquifer restoration at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be SMALL. SEIS 

Sections 4.5.2.1.2.2 and 4.5.2.1.2.3 were revised to clarify the potential impact from 

consumptive groundwater use during operations and aquifer restoration. 

The cumulative impact on groundwater resources considering the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project, oil and gas production, and coalbed methane (CBM) production are evaluated in 

Section 5.5.2 of the SEIS. As described in Section 5.5.2, the cumulative impact on the same 

aquifer resulting from the interaction between ISR and CBM activities would be unlikely because 

CBM production and ISR activities are conducted in different aquifers that are separated 
 Appendix B 

B–75 

stratigraphically by approximately 120 m [400 ft]. No further oil and gas development is 

expected within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Furthermore, oil 

wells are completed at greater depths than the targeted aquifers for ISR operations. As 

mentioned in Section 3.2.3, oil and gas production in the region typically occurs at 

approximately 1,220 to 4,116 m [4,000 to 13,500 ft]. Therefore, the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project would have a SMALL incremental impact on groundwater resources when added to 

the SMALL to MODERATE cumulative impact from other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions including oil and gas and CBM production. SEIS Section 5.5.2 was 

revised to clarify the cumulative impact on groundwater resources. 

Comments: N013-064; N013-065 

One commenter wanted to know how many previously existing wells in the proposed project 

area and within the ore-bearing zone would need to be abandoned and whether the well owners 

be compensated. This same commenter asked that if wells needed to be redrilled into another 

formation, what the water quality and quantity of that formation would be. 

Response: SEIS Section 3.5.2.3.4 details all permitted wells within the Nichols Ranch and 

Hank Units and within a 4.8-km [3-mi] radius of each unit. Within the Nichols Ranch Unit, nine 

existing wells were identified, excluding aquifer testing and monitoring wells. All of these wells 

are used for stock watering. Several of these wells are completed in the ore-bearing sands and 

would need to be abandoned or converted to monitoring wells. Six permitted wells were 

identified within 0.8 km [0.5 mi] of the Hank Unit, and all of these wells are used for stock 

watering. Several of these wells are completed in the ore-bearing sands and would need to be 

abandoned or converted to monitoring wells. The applicant has committed to mitigate the 

impact to owners who may experience loss of use of any wells (Uranerz, 2007). Owners of wells 

that need to be abandoned would have to negotiate the compensation or well replacement 

terms with the applicant to their satisfaction. 

NRC does not regulate the installation, groundwater yield, or appropriate use of new water 

wells. Replacement water wells would require a permit from the Wyoming State Engineers 

Office (WSEO), which sets the yield and acceptable use of groundwater for wells completed in a 

particular aquifer. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N018-022 

One commenter stated that the Fort Union Formation is pumped heavily for CBM production, 

whereas SEIS Section 3.5.2.4 states this formation is not extensively used. 

Response: SEIS Section 3.5.2.4 notes that the Fort Union Formation is an important aquifer for 

regional water supply. SEIS Section 3.5.4.2 also notes, based on the applicant’s survey and 

NRC’s confirmation of water wells located within a 4.8-km [3-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project, that water supply wells are generally completed within 300 m [1,000 ft] of 

the ground surface in the Wasatch Formation. Based on this survey, the Fort Union Formation 

is not extensively used for local water supply, because sufficient groundwater is available from 

the overlying Wasatch Formation. SEIS Section 3.4.1 notes the Fort Union Formation is the 

target formation for CBM extraction operations in the Powder River Basin and in the vicinity of 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. In response to this comment, Section 3.5.2.4 of the 

SEIS was revised to clarify that the Fort Union Formation is not extensively used for water 

supply but is the target formation for CBM extraction operations. 
Appendix B 

B–76 

Comment: N020-038 

One commenter noted regulatory agencies should have the opportunity to review confidential 

agreements with landowners regarding free-flowing water supply wells, with assurance that 

details of individual contracts would not be divulged to other landowners, to ensure that 

information regarding potential environmental impacts is not being withheld from the 

regulatory agencies. 

Response: As noted in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.2.2, the applicant has “confidential surface use 

agreements in place with the landowners” detailing mitigation measures that would be 

implemented if the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project impacted a free flowing well. The 

terms and duration of surface use agreements are negotiated between the applicant and 

landowners. NRC has no involvement in this process and does not review these agreements. 

However, in their license application Uranerz has agreed to work with the landowners if a well is 

affected by drawdown; potential actions could include installing pumps in artesian/flowing wells 

that cease flowing or drilling a new well for the landowner (Uranerz, 2007). 

Confidential agreements between the applicant and landowners regarding free-flowing water 

supply wells are negotiated to mitigate potential impacts on these wells from the proposed 

action, such as the potential loss of water supplies. Other environmental impacts, including the 

potential to contaminate water and land from ISR activities, are addressed in SEIS Chapter 4. 

NRC has no regulatory authority to determine how landowners may choose to be compensated 

for loss of private water supplies and the content of the confidential agreements is beyond the 

scope of the SEIS. 

As previously stated, the WSEO issues permits for and regulates the use of all water supply 

wells in Wyoming. All WSEO water well permits and well completion reports are available to the 

public for review. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N020-040 

One commenter wanted to know how the aquifer exemption buffer zones mentioned in SEIS 

Section 4.5.2.1.2.2 would be determined and how these would be monitored and enforced. 

Response: EPA issues the aquifer exemption status. The EPA criteria for an aquifer exemption 

are found in 40 CFR 146.4. The regulation states that an aquifer, or a portion thereof, may be 

determined to be an “exempted aquifer” if it meets the following criteria: (i) it does not currently 

serve as a source of drinking water; and (ii) it cannot now and would not in the future serve as a 

source of drinking water; or (iii) the TDS content of the groundwater is more than 3,000 and less 

than 10,000 mg/L, and it is not reasonably expected to supply a public water system. A USDW, 

as defined in 40 CFR 144.3, is an aquifer or its portion that (i) supplies any public water system; 

or (ii) contains a sufficient quantity of groundwater to supply a public water system; and 

(i) currently supplies drinking water for human consumption; or (ii) contains fewer than 

10,000 mg/L TDS; and (iii) is not an exempted aquifer. 

EPA establishes the boundaries of the exempt aquifer zone. EPA does not legally distinguish an 

aquifer exemption buffer zone within this boundary. This term is used by NRC and the licensee 

to describe the distance from the monitoring well ring of a wellfield to the aquifer exemption 

boundary, but has no legal interpretation. The concept of a buffer zone is useful as it is the 

distance an excursion detected at the monitoring well ring would have to travel to impact a 

USDW. During operations, NRC and EPA, or the state with UIC primacy under EPA, monitor 
 Appendix B 

B–77 

operations in the exempt zone to ensure no excursions impact surrounding USDW and the 

exempt zone is not used as a domestic water supply. After an ISR is restored, decommissioned, 

and the NRC license is terminated, EPA or the state with UIC primacy regulates and monitors 

the exempt zone to ensure it does not contaminate surrounding USDW and has the 

responsibility to ensure that an exempted aquifer is not used as a source of drinking water. 

In response to this comment, text and GEIS references were added to SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.2.2 

to describe the EPA role in granting aquifer exemptions and the criteria used to determine the 

aquifer exemption at ISR facilities. 

B.5.20.2.1 Site Characterization 

Comments: N013-057; N013-071 

One commenter stated the SEIS does not fully disclose the aquifer confinement conditions at 

the site and does not provide project site permeabilities of the aquitards. The commenter 

asserts the impact analysis related to this issue must be improved in the final SEIS. 

Response: The aquifer confinement conditions for both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units of 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are described in SEIS Section 3.5.2, and 

permeabilities for the aquitards underlying the ore-bearing units are presented in SEIS 

Section 3.5.2.3.2. SEIS Section 4.5.2 has been revised to clarify the hydrologic characteristics 

of the production units at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Furthermore, the 

ore-bearing A Sand at the Nichols Ranch Unit is a confined aquifer. At the Hank Unit, the water 

levels in the F Sand fall below the base of the overlying aquitard in the northern portion of the 

Hank Unit and slightly above in the southern portion. Thus, the F Sand varies from confined to 

unconfined conditions at the Hank Unit. The term unconfined aquifer does not mean that the 

overlying aquitard, which acts as the top confining layer to the production ore zone, is missing. 

At the Hank Unit, the overlying aquitard (GF aquitard), which confines the top of the F Sand 

production zone, is continuous across the entire site. Aquifer testing at the Hank Unit has not 

indicated leakage from either the overlying G Sand or the underlying B Sand. Specifically, 

Uranerz presented the results of two multiwell pumping tests (URZHF-1 and URZHF-5 multiwell 

tests) that included pumping of the F Sand coupled with monitoring of the F Sand the overlying 

G Sand aquifer, and the underlying B Sand aquifer (Uranerz, 2007). Neither test indicated a 

hydraulic connection (drawdown) between the F Sand and the G Sand or B Sand. Thus, the 

applicant provided field test data and groundwater modeling to demonstrate it could monitor, 

prevent, and capture excursions from the unconfined aquifer in the “F Sand” production zone 

(Uranerz, 2010). By license condition, aquifer confinement would be further verified at each of 

the wellfields during the required wellfield multiwell pumping tests and the data would be 

submitted as part of wellfield data packages and NRC would review before each wellfield would 

begin operation. 

Comment: N018-020 

One commenter recommended removing references to the Hell Creek Formation in the SEIS 

because the Lance and Hell Creek Formations are the same, and the name “Lance Formation” 

is used in Wyoming. 

Response: NRC agrees with the comment. SEIS Section 3.5.2.1 was revised accordingly. 

Comment: N018-021 

One commenter noted some samples of deep water from the Madison Formation have 

measured total dissolved solids (TDS) values less than 1 ppm [10,000 mg/L]. 
Appendix B 

B–78 

Response: NRC accepts the comment. Text has been added to the SEIS to note the presence 

of freshwater at some locations within the Madison Formation. 

B.5.20.2.2 Aquifer Exemption and Baseline Water Quality 

Comment: N013-054 

One commenter stated the SEIS does not discuss how baseline water quality conditions have 

been developed. 

Response: The average baseline water quality for a specific wellfield is determined from water 

quality measured in wells installed within the production ore zone aquifer in each licensed 

wellfield. The average baseline water quality in a specific wellfield is used to determine the 

restoration target values for the ore zone aquifer within wellfield. This average baseline water 

quality, therefore, does not include “wells outside the ore zone.” The baseline water quality 

conditions for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project have not yet been established but would 

be part of the preoperational testing performed after production and monitoring well installation 

at the site. Section 6.3.1.1 of the SEIS details how the baseline water quality would be 

established at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N020-023 

One commenter noted the description for aquifer exemption designation is incomplete in 

the SEIS. 

Response: EPA issues an aquifer exemption. The EPA criteria for an aquifer exemption is 

found in 40 CFR 146.4. The draft SEIS included 40 CFR 146.4(a) and (b) in the description of 

aquifer exemption criteria. The regulation states that an aquifer, or a portion thereof, may be 

determined to be an “exempted aquifer” if it meets the following criteria: (i) it does not currently 

serve as a source of drinking water; and (ii) it cannot now and would not in the future serve as a 

source of drinking water; or (iii) the TDS content of the groundwater is more than 3,000 and less 

than 10,000 mg/L, and it is not reasonably expected to supply a public water system. A 

USDW, as defined in 40 CFR 144.3, is an aquifer or its portion which (i) supplies any public 

water system; or contains a sufficient quantity of groundwater to supply a public water system; 

and (ii) currently supplies drinking water for human consumption; or (iii) contains fewer than 

10,000 mg/L TDS; and (iii) is not an exempted aquifer. Section 4.5.2.1.2.3 of the final SEIS was 

revised to reflect this regulation. 

B.5.20.2.3 Control of Operational Impacts, Excursions of ISR Solutions, and History 

Comment: N013-062 

One commenter stated the SEIS does not fully disclose impacts to stock and domestic water 

wells within the proposed project area. 

Response: Figures 3-6 and 3-7 in Section 3.5.2 of the SEIS identify the locations of stock and 

domestic wells within and near the proposed Nichols Ranch and Hank Units, respectively. 

Section 4.5.2.1.2.2 of the SEIS describes the projected drawdown and water consumption in 

these wells based on modeling performed by the applicant and confirmed by the NRC staff. 

Section 4.5 of the SEIS also describes mitigation measures that would be used to protect water 

resources and minimize the potential impact on surface water and groundwater and identifies 

the standards for groundwater restoration. SEIS Sections 6.2 and 6.3 describe plans for 
 Appendix B 

B–79 

monitoring radiological and physicochemical parameters to ensure public health and safety 

during all phases of the proposed project. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comments: N013-063; N020-037 

Two commenters stated the SEIS does not fully disclose impacts from excursions outside the 

proposed project area. Another commenter wanted to know what protection or assurances from 

potential contamination would be afforded to landowners with domestic wells in close proximity 

of the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units acknowledging these wells are not within the 

production aquifer. 

Response: SEIS Section 4.5.2 describes impacts to groundwater resources within and up to 

6.4 km [4 mi] beyond the boundary of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area. Included 

in the impact analysis are (i) discussion of the projected drawdown of aquifer levels from 

pumping; (ii)consumptive use of water during the project lifetime; (iii) the potential impact from 

excursions of lixiviant-laden water which occur horizontally within the ore-bearing aquifer; and 

(iv) potential vertical excursions from the production aquifer to either overlying or 

underlying aquifers. 

To avoid excursions to USDW outside the exempted aquifer, the applicant would be required to 

install and sample monitoring wells biweekly in a ring surrounding the production aquifer and in 

the overlying and underlying aquifers. Mechanical integrity testing of all production and injection 

wells to detect leaks is required prior to and periodically during the operation. Section 6.3.1 of 

the SEIS describes the applicant’s proposed wellfield groundwater monitoring plans and 

requirements both prior to operations and after the facility became operational if it was licensed. 

This program would be further refined and informed by the required aquifer testing and baseline 

water quality assessments prior to initiating ISR operations. Section 6.3.2 describes wellfield 

and pipeline flow and pressure monitoring the applicant would conduct to monitor pipeline and 

well pressures during operations to detect system leaks. The applicant must also establish 

operational procedures to identify potential excursions. If excursions or leaks are detected, both 

NRC and WDEQ must be notified within 24 hours. Once an excursion is confirmed by additional 

sampling, the applicant must implement corrective actions, which involve modifying the injection 

and recovery rates in the affected area, until the excursion is mitigated. Sampling of the well on 

excursion will also be increased to every 7 days. A written report describing the excursion event, 

corrective actions taken, and the corrective action results must be submitted to NRC within 60 

days of the excursion confirmation. If an excursion is not corrected within 60 days of its 

confirmation, the applicant must stop injecting lixiviant into the wellfield until the excursion is 

retrieved or provide an increase in the surety amount to NRC’s satisfaction to cover the 

projected cost of correcting or cleaning up the excursion (NRC, 1998, 2003). 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N013-069 

One commenter wanted to know how an impact analysis could be accomplished without 

specifying what constituents would be injected into the aquifer. 

Response: The impact analysis is based on known constituents that would be injected into the 

aquifer. The applicant has stated that the lixiviant will be composed of varying concentrations 

and combinations of sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, oxygen, and carbon dioxide added 
Appendix B 

B–80 

to native groundwater. NRC staff notes this composition of lixiviant with oxygen has been used 

in ISR operations in Wyoming for many years. 

A small amount of chlorine or sodium hypochlorite may be added to the injection solution to 

prevent bacterial plugging of the injection wells. Carbon dioxide is added to adjust pH and to 

provide another source of the carbonate-bicarbonate ions. Sodium carbonate and sodium 

bicarbonate may be used to adjust the carbonate-bicarbonate concentration. SEIS 

Section 2.2.1.3.1.1 describes the lixiviant chemistry and the expected impacts from lixiviant use. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N013-070 

One commenter mentioned the SEIS stated hydrochloric acid or other chemicals may be 

added to the lixiviant mix and wanted to know where the impact analysis was for the use of 

these chemicals. 

Response: Although hydrochloric acid and other controlled chemicals are used in the ISR 

production process, they are not used in the alkaline carbonate/bicarbonate groundwater 

lixiviant solution planned for injection into the ore-bearing aquifers at the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project. The applicant proposes to inject a lixiviant solution similar to that discussed 

in GEIS Section 2.4.1.1 (NRC, 2009a). It will be composed of varying concentrations and 

combinations of sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, oxygen, and carbon dioxide added to 

native groundwater. The applicant has not indicated that it would use hydrochloric acid in the 

lixiviant to be injected. The addition of hydrogen chloride (HCl) or any change in the type of 

chemicals used in the lixiviant to be injected would require the licensee to convene its Safety 

and Environmental Review Panel (SERP) to conduct an assessment of the possible adverse 

impact of this action. If the SERP finds an adverse impact is possible, the licensee would be 

required to submit a license amendment to NRC for review and approval. NRC staff reviews all 

SERP decisions to ensure the SERP review process is being implemented correctly. SEIS 

Section 2.2.1.3.1.1 was revised to clarify the actual lixiviant chemistry. 

Comment: N015-036 

One commenter stated the SEIS description of previous excursions at ISR facilities is not 

adequate and should be expanded to include adequate detail about the cause of these 

excursions and a thorough analysis of the potential impacts to SDWA-protected aquifers outside 

the exempted uranium recovery zone and on groundwater restoration estimates. 

Response: Excursions at ISRs may be caused by an imbalance in the injection and production 

rates in the production aquifer that enables fluids to move away from the production zone, 

causes leaks in well casing, and causes leakage through overlying and underlying aquitards. To 

detect an excursion outside the production zone or to overlying and underlying aquifers, the 

licensee is required to use a monitoring well ring around the production aquifer and monitoring 

wells in the overlying and underlying aquifer. These monitoring wells are sampled biweekly for 

excursion parameters. If an excursion is detected and confirmed by sampling, corrective actions 

must be taken to retrieve the excursion; these involve modifying the injection and recovery rates 

in the affected area until the excursion is mitigated. Sampling of the well on excursion will also 

be increased to every 7 days. A written report describing the excursion event, corrective actions 

taken, and the corrective action results must be submitted to NRC within 60 days of the 

excursion confirmation. If an excursion is not corrected within 60 days of its confirmation, the 

licensee must stop injecting lixiviant into the wellfield until the excursion is retrieved or provide 

an increase in the surety amount to NRC’s satisfaction to cover the projected cost of correcting 

or cleaning up the excursion (NRC, 1998, 2003). 
 Appendix B 

B–81 

Potential impacts to nonexempted portions of production aquifers and surrounding aquifers at 

the ISR site would depend on the frequency and longevity of excursions, if they were to occur. 

The applicant must establish and maintain groundwater monitoring programs for early detection 

of vertical and horizontal excursions, have procedures to analyze excursions, determine how to 

control and remediate excursions to ensure public health and safety, and report excursions to 

NRC during operation, restoration, and postrestoration periods [GEIS (NRC, 2009a) 

Section 2.4.1.4; NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003) Section 5.7.8.3]. The applicant is required to 

establish an excursion monitoring system and corrective action plans in compliance with 

10 CFR Part 40, Appendix, A Criterion 7A; 40 CFR 144.54; and 40 CFR 144.55. 

As noted in NUREG–1910, the applicant would acquire more geologic and hydrogeological 

information during construction and operations to determine the location for production, 

injection, and monitoring wells at the wellfields on the proposed site. Once the exact location of 

production, injection, and monitoring wells is finalized and additional hydrogeological data are 

acquired, more site-specific assessments of the potential impact from excursions on 

groundwater resources can be made. However, at the time the SEIS was prepared, the 

applicant had not finalized the wellfield designs that would require WDEQ approval. 

GEIS Section 2.11 discusses historical operation of ISR uranium milling facilities, which includes 

a discussion of excursions in Section 2.11.4. In addition, NRC staff evaluated groundwater 

impacts from three previously licensed ISR uranium recovery sites in 2009, in response to 

direction from the Commission (NRC, 2009c). The staff acknowledged that certain parameters 

can require a long time to reach preextraction concentration levels and that in most cases 

excursions were reported and controlled. The staff concluded that in all cases there was no 

threat posed to human health or to the surrounding aquifers. 

Excursions from the exempted aquifer that migrate into nonexempted aquifers would result in an 

environmental impact during ISR operations and restoration. The impact would be SMALL if the 

excursions are temporary and recoverable. The applicant would establish and maintain 

excursion monitoring, control, and remediation (corrective action) programs at the ISR site. 

With respect to restoration cost estimates for excursions, the applicant is required to return 

groundwater quality in the exempted production aquifer to the NRC-approved restoration 

standards in compliance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Table 5C. The applicant is required 

to provide financial sureties, as part of license application, to cover costs associated with 

restoration and remediation at the ISR facility, in compliance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 9. NRC reviews financial sureties annually and additional costs associated with 

potential restoration delays due to excursions are covered by revised financial sureties, which 

require NRC approval. Additional information on financial sureties is provided in Section B.5.15 

of this appendix, and Section 2.2.1.8 of the final SEIS, discussing financial surety, was revised 

in response to public comments. 

Comment: 018-032 

One commenter requested the SEIS reiterate that WDEQ is to be notified of any spills or 

releases of chemicals or petroleum products and explain how soils, groundwater, and surface 

water impacted by any such spills or releases would be restored. 

Response: NRC agrees that spills or releases of chemicals or petroleum products into the 

waters of Wyoming or that threaten to enter the waters of Wyoming must be reported to WDEQ. 

The SEIS surface water and groundwater impact sections have been modified to reiterate the 

WDEQ notification requirements. 
Appendix B 

B–82 

If a spill occurred in the wellfield or process plants, mitigative measures would be taken to 

contain the spill and to mitigate potential impacts on the environment. Proper notification of 

plant and corporate management would be made, along with properly contacting NRC and 

WDEQ if applicable, as described in the Section 3.5 of the application. Spills would be most 

likely to occur from leaking pipelines and fittings. If a pipeline leak or spill occurred in the plants, 

the spill or leak would be contained within the building with all spilled material draining to the 

plant sump where it would either be pumped back into the process circuit or sent to the deep 

disposal well. The plants at both the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units will have a concrete 

foundation with concrete curbed side walls. The height of the concrete side walls would be such 

that the curbed foundation would contain from 3 to 5 times the volume of the largest tank in the 

unit and would contain flow from a ruptured pipeline long enough for the automatic shutdown 

system to engage. 

Wellfield spills would be contained using methods that are (i) developed for process flow alarm 

responses, automatic shutdowns, and corrective action for such events; and (ii) documented in 

standard operating procedures. The spill area would be surveyed to identify any contaminated 

soil; any identified contaminated soil would be removed for disposal according to NRC and 

WDEQ regulations. If process vessels or tanks that contain or have contained radioactive 

materials have to be entered for any reason such as cleaning, inspection, or repairs, a radiation 

work permit would be issued that detailed special air sampling, protective equipment, and 

increased exposure surveillance requirements. 

B.5.20.3 Aquifer Restoration and Decommissioning: Methods and 

Operational Experience 

Comment: N015-031 

One commenter stated the SEIS does not evaluate the potential effects that nonattainment of 

baseline groundwater restoration would have on surrounding USDWs. 

Response: The licensee must restore all groundwater to the groundwater protection standards 

listed in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). These standards state the concentration 

of a hazardous constituent must not exceed (i) the Commission-approved background 

concentration of that constituent in groundwater, (ii) the respective value in the table in 

paragraph 5C if the constituent is listed in the table and if the background level of the 

constituent is below the value listed, or (iii) an alternative concentration limit established by 

the Commission. 

An ACL does indicate that baseline water quality was not achieved during restoration. 

However, an ACL is considered protective of surrounding USDWs because of the stringent 

requirements to request and receive NRC approval for an ACL, which are described in 10 CFR 

Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(6). An ACL is not a primary restoration goal and will only be 

considered after a licensee has demonstrated that primary restoration goals are not practically 

achievable at a specific site. Only ACLs that present no significant hazard may be proposed by 

the licensees for Commission consideration. The Commission may establish a site-specific 

ACL for a hazardous constituent as provided in Criterion 5B(5) if it finds that (i) the proposed 

limit is as low as reasonably achievable, after considering practicable corrective actions, and 

(ii) 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. NRC requirements for application, review, 

and establishment of a site-specific ACL are discussed in Appendix C. In addition, ACL 

application review procedures for NRC staff are available in the following documents: January 

1996 Staff Technical Position: Alternate Concentration Limits for Title II Uranium Mills; 
 Appendix B 

B–83 

NUREG–1620; and NUREG–1724, 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 Radiation Control Act. 

In summary, the licensee is required to restore groundwater quality in the exempted portion of 

the aquifer to one of the aforementioned NRC-approved groundwater quality standards, which 

must be shown not to compromise public health and safety or impact USDWs. 

Because the SEIS discussion is considered appropriate, no changes were made to the SEIS 

beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N015-033 

One commenter stated the SEIS should evaluate whether the 6-month postrestoration stability 

period for this proposed action is sufficient to achieve baseline values or MCLs and prevent any 

long-term contaminant remobilization. 

Response: In response to comments from WDEQ and NRC staff, the applicant extended the 

length of the stability monitoring program to 1 year, which will include four sampling events on a 

quarterly basis (Uranerz, 2010). SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4.4 was updated in response to this 

comment. 

Comment: N020-014 

One commenter stated the SEIS should include an analysis of the potential impacts of delaying 

aquifer restoration because the deep disposal well capacity is insufficient to meet the disposal 

needs. 

Response: The draft SEIS was based on the applicant’s initial proposal that it would apply for a 

permit to drill two deep disposal wells After the DSEIS was published, in response to 

comments raised by the NRC staff conducting the safety review, the applicant provided 

additional information (Uranerz, 2010) to further support it proposal that two wells would be 

sufficient to support planned activities. The applicant also committed to providing additional 

storage capacity in the event one or both wells became inoperable, and it provided contingency 

plans and supporting analyses that evaluated potential impacts to the aquifer if the facility 

needed to be temporarily shut down. While the applicant’s capacity estimates and contingency 

measures were still based on its initial commitment to drill two deep disposal wells, its most 

recent plans have indicated it is applying for a permit to drill as many as four deep disposal 

wells at each unit and has committed to use these additional permitted wells if additional 

capacity is needed. NRC will require by license condition that the applicant maintain adequate 

disposal capacity. 

B.5.20.4 Miscellaneous Groundwater Comments 

Comment: N018-013 

A commenter noted that the State of Wyoming Constitution gives control of the “waters of the 

State,” both surface and ground, to the State Engineer and that water any projects used would 

be required to obtain the necessary permits (GEIS Sections 3.2.4 and 3.3.4). 

Response: This comment relates to information provided in GEIS Sections 3.2.4 and 3.2.5. 

The text in these sections states that water resources are described in terms of surface waters, 

wetlands, “Waters of the United States,” and groundwater. The commenter noted that the State 

of Wyoming has jurisdictional control over the waters of the state. The final SEIS, Section 1.6.2, 
Appendix B 

B–84 

Table 1-2, identifies required environmental approvals and their status for the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project including permits related to both surface water and groundwater. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

B.5.20.5 References 

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

Licensing of Source Material.” “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: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 144. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 144, “Underground Injection Control Program.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 

40 CFR Part 146. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 146 

“Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards.” Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

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

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

NRC. Regulatory Information Summary (RIS) 09-05, Uranium Recovery Policy Regarding: 

(1) The Process For Scheduling Licensing Reviews of Applications For New Uranium Recovery 

Facilities And (2) The Restoration Of Groundwater At Licensed Uranium In-Situ Recovery 

Facilities. ADAMS No. ML083510622. April 29, 2009b. 

NRC. “Memorandum from C. Miller to Chairman Jaczko, et al. “Staff Assessment of 

Groundwater Impacts from Previously Licensed In-Situ Uranium Recovery Facilities.” 

ML091770402. Washington, DC: NRC. July 10, 2009c. 

NRC. NUREG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications.” Final Report. Washington, DC: NRC. ADAMS No. ML032250177. June 2003. 

NRC. “Environmental Assessment for Renewal of Source Material License No. SUA–1534. 

Crow Butte Resources Incorporated Crow Butte Uranium Project Dawes County, Nebraska.” 

Docket No. 40-8943. Washington, DC: NRC. February 1998. 

Uranerz. Letter from M. Thomas, Environmental, Safety, and Health Manager, Uranerz Energy 

Corporation, to R. Linton, Project Manager, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: 

Responses to the Open Issues to the Safety Evaluation Report for the Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project License Application. ADAMS No. ML100740134. February 24, 2010. 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. Accession Nos. ML080080594. ML083230892. 

ML091000572. ML090850289. ML090850370. ML090970719. ML090850597. 

ML090840186. ML090820583. ML091610148. November 2007. Revisions submitted 

August 2008, November 2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, and May 2009. 

Casper, Wyoming. 2007. 
 Appendix B 

B–85 

B.5.21 Surface Water Resources 

B.5.21.1 Surface Water Resources and Ecology 

Comment: N018-084 

One commenter agreed with the SEIS conclusion of minimal impact to aquatic resources. The 

commenter stated the rationale for this conclusion was that the proposed mitigation measures, 

compliance with applicable regulations and permits, and use of BMPs should reduce 

construction and operation impacts to surface waters. 

Response: NRC acknowledges this comment. Due to the general nature of the comment, no 

changes were made to the SEIS. 

B.5.21.2 Impacts to Surface Drainages and Surface Water 

Comments: N013-057; N011-062 

One commenter noted NRC did not address how livestock grazing would impact surface water 

contamination and erosion and how livestock may be affected by the ISR project. The 

commenter asserts the impact analysis related to this issue must be improved in the final SEIS. 

Response: Impact to surface water resources due to livestock grazing (erosion or surface 

water contamination) are expected to be insignificant for ISR-related activities during 

construction, operations, and restoration because surface water flow in the channels is 

ephemeral and there will be no permitted process discharges associated with the Nichols Ranch 

ISR facility. The potential impact on livestock grazing is also expected to be SMALL since only 

a small area (24 to 32 ha [60 to 80 ac]) of the facility would be fenced to grazing at any given 

time over the life of the project as discussed in SEIS Section 4.2.1. 

Spills or discharge to surface water features during construction, operations, and restoration 

that may have a direct or indirect impact on livestock are regulated by NRC and under a WDEQ 

WYPDES permit. The applicant is required to obtain the WYPDES permit from WDEQ if any 

discharges to surface water are expected before ISR operations begin. Section 5.5.1 of the 

SEIS was revised in response to this comment. 

Comment: N013-028 

One commenter stated that water quality impacts related to CBM discharges in ephemeral 

drainages should be included in the analyses of impacts of uranium wells in the same 

ephemeral drainages. 

Response: The potential for surface water quality impacts related to CBM discharges was 

considered in both the safety and environmental review of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project. In response to NRC RAIs regarding CBM water discharges, the applicant stated the 

Hank and Nichols Ranch Units have not been impacted by CBM-produced water discharges 

because there has not been any surface discharge in the Hank Unit area and only one surface 

discharge has occurred in the western edge (a downgradient location) of the Nichols Ranch Unit 

prior to any baseline activities. The applicant has stated that no CBM discharge to ephemeral 

drainages in either the Nichols Ranch Unit or the Hank Unit has or will be permitted by WDEQ in 

the wellfield areas. At the Hank Unit, no surface discharge would occur because the CBM 

operator is removing the CBM produced water, transferring it to a large storage tank, then 

pumping it to a location some 56 km [35 mi] from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 
Appendix B 

B–86 

Therefore, no impacts are expected to the surface or surficial aquifer groundwater quality from 

CBM discharges in the wellfield. 

Currently, WDEQ will only issue WYPDES-permits for discharge of CBM water in the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project area to non-discharging impoundments, not directly to the 

ephemeral channels. WDEQ also requires CBM water end-of-pipe effluent concentrations 

entering these impoundments to meet downstream irrigation standards. Discharge from the 

WYPDES impoundments is permitted only during significant runoff events where the produced 

water is diluted by natural runoff. Any discharge beyond overtopping during heavy precipitation 

constitutes a violation of the WYPDES permits. Uranerz has agreed to notify NRC if WYPDES 

permitted CBM water impoundments such as ponds or basins are installed in or within 402 m 

[1⁄4 mi] of the Hank Unit. Currently, only one additional CBM water impoundment is planned 

inside the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit license area. This impoundment has not yet received 

any CBM-produced water. 

Based on the WDEQ WYPDES permit requirements and the necessity to maintain available 

freeboard in the impoundments, impacts from CBM-produced water on surface drainages are 

not expected. Uranerz, however, will monitor surface water quality during operations. Uranerz 

has three surface water self-samplers in place: one at the Hank Unit and two at the Nichols 

Ranch Unit. Additionally, surface water sampling would be conducted whenever surface water 

is present, including any areas where CBM-produced water may be discharged to the surface. 

Because the SEIS discussion is considered appropriate, no changes were made to the SEIS 

beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comments: N013-057; N013-058; N013-059; N013-060; N013-061; N018-024; N018-025; 

N018-026; N018-027 

One commenter stated surface water impacts to ephemeral drainages are of particular concern 

to their organization because some of their members live downstream from the proposed 

project. The commenter stated locating wells within an ephemeral drainage presents unique 

challenges with regard to spills, leaks, and erosion, and serious risks to water quality and soil 

ecology. The commenter requested the SEIS describe the impacts associated with locating 

wells with ephemeral drainage and describe how a spill within an ephemeral drainage would be 

cleaned up. The commenter asserted the impact analysis related to this issue must be 

improved in the final SEIS. Another commenter noted that wells placed in an ephemeral 

channel may lead to increased erosion (with or without protective structures), increased risk of 

breached structures, and potentials for releases of processed fluids to ephemeral channels. 

The commenter also pointed out that runoff and erosion from roads, culverts, and ephemeral 

channels could cause accelerated channel alterations. 

Response: As discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.1, Uranerz noted its well construction plan 

construct would avoid channels and washes when possible; however, avoidance would not 

always be possible due to the nature of the land surface immediately above the ore bodies. In 

responses (March 2009 and February 2010) to NRC requests for additional information (RAIs) 

and open issues, Uranerz recognized that the magnitude of the peak flows and velocities for the 

tributaries that cross the wellfields in the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit license area may present 

an erosion risk to the site and damage wellfield infrastructure. Uranerz proposed to minimize 

damage from erosion and to wellfield infrastructure from peak flow events by avoiding well 

installation in the ephemeral drainages. Uranerz stated if it is necessary to install such wells, 

appropriate erosion protection controls would be applied to minimize damage to the drainage. 

Such controls would include grading and contouring, culvert installation, low-water crossings 

constructed of stone, water contour bars, and designated traffic routes. 
 Appendix B 

B–87 

If wells are to be placed near or within a stream, Uranerz would use appropriate well and 

wellhead protection (Uranerz, 2007). Such protection measures would include installing the well 

within high water marks or installing adequate structural wellhead protection, such as cement 

blocks, protective steel casings, and other measures, to protect the wells during potential flood 

conditions. Uranerz would use best management practices such as rip rap and rock to protect 

embankments, culverts, and drainage crossings in accordance with WDEQ-LQD Rules and 

Regulations Chapter 3. In responses to NRC open issues dated February 2010, Uranerz stated 

that these practices would also be applied to any wells or infrastructure to be located in the 

25-year floodplain of Cottonwood Creek at the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit and for the 25-year 

floodplain for Dry Willow Creek at the Hank Unit. 

Also as discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.1, Uranerz would mitigate potential spills of 

petrochemicals such as oil and gasoline by conducting routine vehicle maintenance and 

inspection. Uranerz would also develop and implement an emergency response plan to 

minimize the risk of chemicals being introduced to waterways. The applicant stated that the 

Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant and Hank Unit satellite facility would be constructed 

on concrete slabs with a protective berm erected around the perimeter to limit the potential for 

any chemical spill to escape the area. Although the operational facilities are located away from 

surface water, inadvertent spills, leaks, and other discharges could potentially affect surface 

water during operations. Spills of either petroleum products or hazardous chemicals into 

surface waters would be reported to WDEQ. The applicant would also train personnel in proper 

handling and transport of hazardous materials to avoid spills. As part of the monitoring program 

proposed in the license application and described in Section 6.2.4, Uranerz would monitor the 

surface water quality quarterly at the same locations sampled for the preoperational baseline 

(Section 3.5.1.4), if surface water is present. The application includes surface water sampling of 

locations upstream and downstream the proposed ISR operations at both the Nichols Ranch 

and Hank Units. 

The applicant would use diversion ditches and culverts to prevent excessive erosion and control 

runoff (Uranerz, 2007, Section 5.4). In areas where runoff is concentrated, the applicant 

committed to use energy dissipaters to slow the flow of runoff to minimize erosion and sediment 

loading in the runoff. The applicant would implement BMPs to reduce erosion impacts in 

accordance with storm water management plans developed as part of NPDES permits. The 

applicant is committed to implementing soil erosion mitigation in accordance with WDEQ Rules 

and Regulations, Chapter 3, Environmental Protection Performance Standards. The applicant 

is also committed to (i) constructing roads to minimize erosion through practices such as 

surfacing with a gravel road base; (ii) constructing stream crossings at right angles with 

adequate embankment protection and culvert installation; and (iii) providing adequate road 

drainage with runoff control structures and revegetation (Uranerz, 2007, Section 5.3). 

SEIS Section 4.5.1 has been modified to add detail to the description of impacts and mitigation 

measures associated with potential well construction near and within ephemeral drainages at 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Section 6.2.4 of the SEIS has been revised to better 

describe the proposed surface monitoring program by the applicant. 

Comment: N020-039 

One commenter stated the water pumped from wells during aquifer tests would need to meet 

regulatory standards for surface water prior to release directly into ephemeral drainages but this 

was not stated in the SEIS. 
Appendix B 

B–88 

Response: A WDEQ temporary discharge permit would regulate temporary wastewater 

discharges from hydrostatic testing of pipes, tanks, or other vessels; construction dewatering; 

and well pump tests. Well pump tests in uranium-bearing zones would also need to comply with 

WDEQ monitoring and effluent limits for total radium and uranium. WDEQ also regulates 

isolated wetlands and associated mitigation measures. Section 4.5.2.1.1 of the SEIS notes that 

“...some water may be pumped from aquifers for hydrologic tests such as pumping tests. This 

water should be discharged to the surface in accordance with approved permits from the State 

of Wyoming that Uranerz would obtain prior to any release.” Table 1-2 of the final SEIS lists the 

permit status at the site. Section 4.5.2.1.1 has been modified to clarify that appropriate permits 

are required for all surface discharges, including those in ephemeral drainages. 

B.5.21.3 Wetlands 

Comment: N020-024 

One commenter stated the draft SEIS does not adequately address jurisdictional determination 

of wetlands and waters required pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA). The commenter 

stated no approved jurisdictional determination has been completed for the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project to determine jurisdiction over water bodies on the site. 

Response: As described in SEIS Section 3.5.1.5, a survey for potential jurisdictional wetlands 

and others waters of the United States (WUS) in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project was conducted by TRC Environmental Corporation on behalf of the applicant in 2006. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)-certified wetland delineator identified four 

potentially jurisdictional wetlands in the southeast portion of the Nichols Ranch Unit and no 

jurisdictional wetlands on the Hank Unit. Because the wetlands are located outside of the 

proposed construction area and would be avoided by all phases of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project, the applicant did not pursue an Individual Permit or a Nationwide Permit under 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). If it is determined in the future that any disturbance 

to potential jurisdictional wetlands could occur, the applicant would initiate consultation with 

USACE prior to disturbance to ensure the appropriate permits were obtained. 

In response to this comment, SEIS Sections 3.5.1 and 4.5.1 have been revised to provide more 

detail on the completed wetlands survey and potential impacts to wetlands. 

B.5.21.4 General Water Resource Concerns 

Comment: N013-027 

One commenter expressed concern with the process WDEQ used to permit discharge water. 

Response: As described in SEIS Section 1.6.2, WDEQ has regulatory authority over surface 

discharges and establishes the processes to be used for obtaining the necessary permits. NRC 

does not have a role in establishing the permitting process. No changes were made to the SEIS 

in response to this comment. 

Comment: N018-001 

One commenter noted the draft SEIS does not contain the most recent hydrological information 

submitted to WDEQ-LQD, because this information was submitted to WDEQ-LQD after the 

printing of the draft SEIS. 

Response: The commenter is correct in that additional hydrological information was made 

available after the publication of the draft SEIS. Uranerz provided additional information to the 
 Appendix B 

B–89 

NRC on February 24, 2010 (Uranerz, 2010), related to open issues in the safety evaluation. 

This information has been incorporated into the final SEIS hydrology analysis, as appropriate. 

Based on specific hydrological information WDEQ received from Uranerz, WDEQ has granted 

the NRC staff permission to view the application information for the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project on its secure website for the NRC environmental review. However, no new 

information from this website was incorporated into the SEIS. The final SEIS Section 3.5.2.3 

has been revised to reflect the updated hydrological data discussed previously that has become 

available since the publication of the draft SEIS. 

B.5.21.5 Impacts of Operations and Aquifer Restoration on Surface Water 

Comment: N011-027 

One commenter stated the SEIS impact analysis does not address the close proximity of 

surface water sources and wetlands. In addition, this commenter considered this an example 

where the GEIS (NRC, 2009) promised site-specific analyses and the draft SEIS incorporates 

the GEIS analyses without providing site-specific analyses. 

Response: SEIS Section 4.5.1 discusses potential impacts to surface water and wetlands 

impact for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. As noted in the SEIS, the wetlands are not 

expected to be impacted, because they lie outside the proposed construction area and would be 

avoided by all ISR project phases. As stated in the SEIS, the impact analyses focus on the 

ephemeral channels and washes on and in the vicinity of the site. The SEIS analyses identify 

that potential impacts to these ephemeral channels and washes can result from road 

construction, erosion, stormwater runoff, and accidental environmental releases. The SEIS 

impact analyses address site-specific proposed road construction. Project-specific mitigation 

and plans for addressing erosion, storm water runoff, and environmental releases are also 

included in the SEIS analyses. Because the discussion in the SEIS is considered appropriate, 

no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. 

B.5.21.6 References 

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

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

Uranerz. Letter from M. Thomas, Environmental, Safety, and Health Manager, Uranerz Energy 

Corporation, to R. Linton, Project Manager, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: 

Responses to the Open Issues to the Safety Evaluation Report for the Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project License Application. ML100740134. February 24, 2010. 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. Casper, 

Wyoming: 2007. 

B.5.22 Ecology 

B.5.22.1 Concerns About the Sage-Grouse 
Appendix B 

B–90 

Comments: N008-004; N013-082 

Two commenters noted an incorrect statement in SEIS Section 1.7.3.5 that described the 

property as part of a larger region of the state dedicated as a “core breeding area” for Greater 

sage-grouse. 

Response: NRC agrees with the commenters on the need to clarify the statement regarding 

sage-grouse breeding areas. The proposed project area lies outside a core breeding area. 

Current maps created by WGFD and reviewed by the Governor’s Sage-Grouse Implementation 

Team (SGIT) were used to update Figure 3-8 in Section 3.6 of the SEIS. 

Section 1.7.3.5 of the SEIS was revised and clarified in response to these comments. 

Comment: N008-015 

A commenter, the applicant, noted that because no sage-grouse leks are located within the 

proposed project area, there would be no need for delays in project activities in accordance with 

sage-grouse mitigation measures. However, the applicant has committed to minimizing 

activities as mitigation measures for sage-grouse. 

Response: While the proposed project is not located within a core population area, no leks are 

physically located within either of the two units of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, nine 

leks are located within 3.2 km [2.0 mi] of their boundaries. Therefore, WGFD and BLM 

guidelines would still need to be followed. 

On March 5, 2010, FWS published a finding in the Federal Register that listing of the Greater 

sage-grouse species was warranted, but precluded by higher priority listing actions (75 FR 

13909). Effectively, the species has been put on the Federal list of candidate species, which 

contains plants and animals that are proposed for listing under Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 4. WGFD revised its Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources 

Within Important Wildlife Habitats in April 2010 (WGFD, 2010) in response to the FWS rule 

listing the sage-grouse as candidate species. Wyoming BLM issued an instructional 

memorandum on March 5, 2010, to supplement BLM’s previous National Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Conservation Strategy published in 2004 (BLM, 2004, 2010) also in response to the species’ 

listing as a candidate species. On August 18, 2010, the Governor of Wyoming signed Executive 

Order (EO) 2010-4, updating the previous EO regarding the protection of sage-grouse, which 

identifies stipulations regarding development activities within core and noncore areas. The 

stipulations include applying a 0.4 km [0.25 mi] no surface occupancy measure and a 3.2 km 

[2.0 mi] seasonal activity buffer around active leks (EO 2010-4). However, NRC is not bound by 

WGFD recommendations or BLM guidelines and does not have the statutory authority to 

impose wildlife mitigation measures upon a licensee. The applicant would negotiate mitigative 

measures with the agency with statutory authority. Section 3.6.3 of the SEIS was revised to 

provide current information regarding the Greater sage-grouse. 

Comment: N012-009 

A commenter suggested the discussion of sage-grouse survey activities in SEIS 

Section 3.6.1.2.2 be revised to describe additional monitoring other Federal and State 

agencies conducted. 

Response: NRC staff agrees with this comment. SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.2 was revised to 

include additional information regarding sage-grouse monitoring BLM and WDEQ conducted. 
 Appendix B 

B–91 

Comments: N013-080; N013-083; N013-085; N018-078 

Several commenters expressed several concerns regarding potential impacts to Greater 

sage-grouse and their habitat. Some commenters suggested that NRC provide additional 

information regarding sage-grouse occurrences in the proposed project areas and 

recommended the applicant implement certain protective measures. Other commenters would 

like NRC to ensure the applicant implements mitigation measures. 

Response: NRC recognizes that sage-grouse are a species of great concern in Wyoming and 

has consulted with stakeholders as described in Section 1.7.3 of the SEIS. Sections 3.6.3 and 

4.6.1.1.3 of the SEIS have been updated since the draft SEIS was published to identify the 

Greater sage-grouse status as a Federal candidate species. SEIS Section 3.6.3 describes 

sage-grouse surveys both the applicant and Federal and State agencies conducted; this section 

was revised to describe the FWS rule listing the sage-grouse as a candidate species, the 

revised WGFD Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources within Important 

Wildlife Habitats, and the BLM revised National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy 

(75 FR 13909; WGFD, 2010; BLM, 2010). SEIS Chapter 4 discusses the potential impacts to 

sage-grouse including habitat loss and displacement, behavior changes due to human 

presence, and alteration of plant communities that could support sage-grouse. The applicant 

Environmental Report Section 3.5.3.3 states that proposed project activities and vehicular traffic 

will be minimized and there would be limited hours of construction in areas located between 

0.4 km and 3.2 km [0.25 mi and 2.0 mi] of an occupied lek on a seasonal basis. 

NRC is not bound by either the WGFD’s recommendations or BLM’s guidelines and does not 

have statutory authority to impose wildlife mitigation measures upon a licensee. NRC can 

enforce mitigation measures in license conditions or in the license application. Mitigative 

measures would also be negotiated between the applicant and the agency with statutory 

authority and could be enforced by the appropriate regulatory authority. 

Comment: N013-084 

One commenter stated that to prevent the listing of sage-grouse on the Endangered Species 

List, sage-grouse habitat in core areas should be protected and impacts to wildlife must be 

minimized. 

Response: As explained in SEIS Section 3.6.3, the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is not 

located in a core area, which is an area identified by the State of Wyoming as high quality 

habitat for sage-grouse nesting and brood rearing and necessary to maintain sage-grouse 

populations. On March 5, 2010, FWS published in the Federal Register a finding that listing of 

the sage-grouse was warranted, but precluded by higher priority listing actions (75 FR 13909). 

Effectively, the species has been put on the Federal list of species that are candidates for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act Section 4. 

Although there are no regulations regarding the protection of the sage-grouse, the WGFD, in 

cooperation with the Wyoming Governor’s Sage Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT), has 

developed guidelines for various industries operating in different locations within Wyoming. 

NRC staff has been working with SGIT and its subcommittees to better define the State agency 

roles with respect to developing guidelines for the ISR uranium recovery industry. In addition, 

the WGFD recently issued an update to Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas 

Resources Within Important Habitats (WGFD, 2010), which contains revised guidelines for 

sage-grouse protection that would be applied to the uranium extraction industry. These 

guidelines address (i) standard mitigation practices (for all wildlife); (ii) specific best 

management practices for sage-grouse; and (iii) stipulations for development in sage-grouse 
Appendix B 

B–92 

core areas that WGFD would be monitor. In Section 3.5.3.3. of the Environmental Report 

(Uranerz, 2007), the applicant has stated that proposed project activities and vehicular traffic will 

be minimized and there would be limited hours of construction in areas located within 0.4 km 

and 3.2 km [0.25 mi and 2.0 mi] of an occupied lek on a seasonal basis. 

Section 4.6.1.1.3 of the SEIS discusses mitigation measures that the applicant discussed in its 

license application for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project to limit potential impacts to the 

Greater sage-grouse; this section was updated to reflect the current State and task force 

guidelines. 

Comments: N017-014; N017-017 

One commenter suggested extra care should be taken to protect sage-grouse and its habitat 

and minimize potential impacts because the commenter had identified 20 leks within 8 km [5 mi] 

of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project boundary. 

Response: NRC recognizes that sage-grouse are a species of great concern in Wyoming and 

has consulted with stakeholders as described in SEIS Section 1.7. SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.3 

describes the potential impacts to sage-grouse and discusses the following mitigative measures 

the applicant commits to implement: (i) minimize or delay project activity and vehicular traffic 

within 0.15 km [0.25 mi] of active leks between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. during the 

March 1 to May 15 strutting period; (ii) minimize or delay project activity within 1.6 km [2.0 mi] of 

active leks between March 15 and July 15; (iii) avoid constructing overhead power lines or 

high-profile structures within 0.15 km [0.25 mi] of leks to minimize raptor predation; and (iv) 

minimize removal of vegetation, where possible, and revegetate disturbed areas as soon as 

practicable following project completion. Section 3.6.3 of the SEIS was revised to acknowledge 

the FWS rule that listed the sage-grouse as a candidate species, the revised WGFD 

Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources Within Important Wildlife 

Habitats, the Governor of Wyoming signed EO 2010-4, and the BLM revised National SageGrouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (75 FR 13909; WGFD, 2010; BLM, 2010; State of 

Wyoming, 2010). The WGFD recommendations and Governor’s EO suggest that disruptive 

activities should be prohibited or restricted seasonally from distances of 0.15 km [0.25 km] to 

1.6 km [2.0 mi] of an occupied lek located in a noncore area. As shown in SEIS Figure 3-8, the 

proposed project is not located within 8 km [5 mi] of a sage-grouse core area. NRC is not bound 

by either the WGFD’s recommendations or BLM’s guidelines and does not have statutory 

authority to impose wildlife mitigation measures upon a licensee. NRC can enforce mitigation 

measures in license conditions or in the license application. Mitigative measures would also be 

negotiated between the applicant and the agency with statutory authority and could be enforced 

by the appropriate regulatory agency. 

Comment: N013-093 

One commenter noted that they provided comments on the GEIS (NRC, 2009) related to 

impacts on sage-grouse from CBM operations, and these studies should be considered as 

applicable to ISR uranium recovery facilities. 

Response: SEIS Section 4.6.1 discusses of potential impacts to sage-grouse populations. 

Several developments have occurred with regard to sage-grouse since the publication of the 

draft SEIS in December 2009. The SEIS, including Section 5.6 covering potential cumulative 

impacts to sage-grouse habitat and populations, was updated with respect to 

these developments. 
 Appendix B 

B–93 

B.5.22.2 General Comments on Threatened and Endangered Species 

Comment: N007-003 

One commenter noted FWS plans to reopen the comment period on the proposed rule to list the 

mountain plover as a threatened species and that the ESA requires Federal agencies to confer 

with the FWS on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species 

proposed for listing. 

Response: The mountain plover is known to occur throughout the State of Wyoming; however, 

it was not observed within the proposed project area during the baseline wildlife surveys 

Uranerz conducted. As noted in Section 3.5.3.3 of the 2007 Uranerz Environmental Report 

(Uranerz, 2007), no mountain plovers were seen during the two surveys or during opportunistic 

observations from April through July 2006. In addition, there are no BLM or Wyoming Natural 

Diversity Database (WYNDD) records that suggest mountain plovers exist within the proposed 

project area. The closest reported BLM sighting of mountain plover is approximately 6.4 km 

[4.0 mi] from the proposed project area. Environmental Report Section 3.5.3.3 states that the 

closest reported BLM sighting of mountain plover as of 2006 was approximately 6.4 km [4.0 mi] 

from the proposed project area (Uranerz, 2007). NRC staff confirmed that although mountain 

plovers are known to reside in the area of the proposed site, no confirmed or unconfirmed 

observations have been recorded at the proposed site (WYNDD, 2010). SEIS Sections 3.6.3 

and 4.6.1.1.3 were updated to reflect this information. Based on currently available information, 

NRC staff expects that the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would have a SMALL impact to 

mountain plovers. Section 6.3.1 of the Environmental Report states Uranerz will conduct annual 

wildlife monitoring at the proposed project site (Uranerz, 2007), including annual raptor and 

sage-grouse surveys between late April and early May, which is also the breeding season for 

the mountain plover. The mountain plover is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 

which prohibits direct mortality and the destruction of active nests. Should mountain plovers or 

plover nests be observed, Uranerz would consult with FWS and would obtain any applicable 

permits from the appropriate agencies. 

Comment: N008-002 

The applicant stated that the FWS has determined that the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

area has been block-cleared for the black footed ferret, and therefore the proposed action would 

have no effect on black-footed ferrets. 

Response: SEIS Section 3.6.3 clarifies that no black-footed ferrets have been identified on the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site and that the FWS relieved the requirement, or “block 

cleared,” black-footed ferret surveys from being conducted in black-tailed prairie dog habitat 

within the State of Wyoming. However, this block clearance does not relieve Federal agencies 

of the need to assess a proposed action’s effect on the species’ survival and recovery. SEIS 

Section 4.6 concludes that overall, impacts to protected species from construction activities are 

anticipated to be SMALL. Because the block-cleared status does not automatically mean there 

would be no impacts and the SEIS discussion is appropriate, no changes to the SEIS were 

made in response to this comment. 

B.5.22.3 Concerns About Mitigation and Timing 

Comment: N007-004 

One commenter encouraged NRC and project planners to develop and implement protective 

measures should mountain plovers occur within the proposed project area and provided a list of 

potential protective measures. 
Appendix B 

B–94 

Response: The mountain plover is known to occur throughout the State of Wyoming but has 

not been observed within the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area. Should mountain 

plovers or plover nests be observed within the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area, 

Uranerz would consult with FWS, develop and implement protective measures, and would 

obtain any applicable permits from the appropriate agencies. Because mountain plovers are not 

a concern for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project at this time, no changes were made to the SEIS. 

Comment: N007-008 

One commenter recommended a wildlife protection mitigation strategy that mud pits be fenced 

on three sides while drilling is underway and the fourth side be fenced after the rig is moved 

until the mud pit is reclaimed. 

Response: The commenter was focusing on text in Section 2.1.1.2.4.4 of the draft SEIS that 

dealt with the general construction of mud pits during wellfield construction. Specific use of 

fencing is not discussed in this section. However, it is described in the Executive Summary 

under Ecological Resources in final SEIS Section 4.6.1.2. Section 4.7.1.2.1.1 of the 

Environmental Report states that mitigation plans such as speed limits and fencing will help 

reduce big game conflicts associated with the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. WGFD 

specifies fencing construction techniques to minimize impediments to big game movement. 

Because the SEIS states fencing techniques would be implemented as WGFD specified, no 

changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N007-013 

One commenter suggested electrical lines from power drops to the individual wells should be 

buried to mitigate wildlife impacts. 

Response: Although NRC recognizes that burying additional electrical lines could mitigate 

environmental impacts, NRC cannot require additional electrical lines to be buried unless it falls 

under NRC’s statutory authority to regulate AEA radioactive materials or activities, to protect 

public health and safety and common defense and security at a site. BMPs, mitigation 

measures, and management actions that avoid or reduce environmental impacts can be 

included in the license application or as license conditions on the NRC license; however, NRC 

can only impose license conditions within the limits of the authority Congress granted related to 

protecting public health and safety from radiological hazards and common defense and security. 

As stated in Section 4.10.1.1.2, electrical lines within 1.6 km [1.0 mi] of the base of the Pumpkin 

Buttes TCP) would be buried in accordance with the PA between BLM and the WY SHPO to 

mitigate adverse effects to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. This requirement would be imposed upon 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (specifically at the Hank Unit) as a requirement of 

applicable permits obtained from the BLM. NRC will not impose license conditions to require 

burial of electrical lines on the Nichols Ranch Unit which is not subject to the BLM PA. No 

changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

 
 Appendix B 

B–95 

Comment: N008-014 

The applicant stated the noxious weed mitigation measures of applying herbicides and washing 

vehicles would be performed on an as-needed basis. 

Response: NRC staff acknowledges the need to clarify the SEIS statement regarding applying 

herbicides and washing vehicles on an as-needed basis. In response to this comment, SEIS 

Section 4.6.1.1.1 was revised accordingly. 

Comments: N018-079; N018-080; N018-081; N018-082 

One commenter recommended the applicant conduct additional wildlife surveys prior to new 

disturbance, conduct winter bald eagle and raptor nest surveys, review BLM and/or FWS raptor 

nest records, and avoid raptor nests during restricted time periods. 

Response: As discussed in response to comment N007-0011, raptor nest inventories and 

three specific bald eagle winter roost site surveys were conducted for the proposed project. In 

addition, NRC staff reviewed the BLM Environmental Assessment for Yates Petroleum 

Corporation, All Day Plan of Development (BLM, 2008) and has incorporated information from 

that EA into the final SEIS. Section 6.3.1 of the Environmental Report, states that Uranerz 

would follow an annual raptor monitoring and mitigative plan to minimize conflicts between 

active nest sites and proposed project-related activities. Section 6.4.2 of the SEIS explains that 

the planned wildlife monitoring would be conducted during the proposed project. In the unlikely 

event that Uranerz determines it necessary to disturb a raptor nest, Uranerz would develop a 

mitigation plan and consult with WDEQ, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and 

the FWS. At that time, Uranerz would obtain any applicable permits from the appropriate 

agencies. The applicant has agreed to implement mitigative measures to protect Greater sagegrouse leks, which would also benefit raptor nests. 

Other permitting agencies with statutory authority may require additional surveys and 

information. NRC’s statutory authority is limited, so it can only require the licensee to implement 

the commitments it makes as part of the license application or license. Because this response 

provides information that is considered sufficient to address some comments and the remaining 

comments extend beyond NRC regulatory authority, no changes were made to the SEIS 

beyond the information provided in this response. 

B.5.22.4 Habitat Loss and Fragmentation 

Comment: N013-081 

One commenter requested NRC discuss potential impacts to wildlife and provide enforceable 

mitigation measures. 

Response: SEIS Section 4.6 discusses the potential impacts to wildlife from the proposed 

project during each phase of the ISR process. NRC also discusses possible mitigation 

measures in the SEIS and GEIS (NRC, 2009). NRC can impose site-specific license conditions 

for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, but only within the limits of the legislative authority 

granted by Congress. As a result of this limited authority, NRC can only require a licensee to 

implement the wildlife mitigation measures or other commitments it makes as part of its license 

application or license. State and other Federal agencies would also establish permit conditions 

for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project based upon their statutory and regulatory authority. 

WGFD has the lead for the protection of wildlife in Wyoming. To obtain permits, the applicant 

may be required to consult with the appropriate agencies, or be required to develop a 

mitigation plan. 
Appendix B 

B–96 

NRC believes that the wildlife analyses are supported by sufficient technical bases. Because 

the SEIS discussion is considered appropriate, no changes were made to the SEIS beyond the 

information provided in this response. 

Comments: N013-087; N013-088; N013-089; N013-090; N018-076 

One commenter expressed concerns regarding landscape-related impacts to habitat for 

sage-grouse. Specifically, the commenter is concerned about the length of time required 

(decades) for sagebrush vegetation to be reclaimed, the lack of sagebrush seed in the seed 

mixtures used for revegetation, and the spread of weeds (as a result of land development) that 

would inhibit the reestablishment of sagebrush. Another commenter suggested that the removal 

of sagebrush would reduce forage for pronghorn and deer and that restoration projects should 

strive to restore sagebrush and native plant species. 

Response: NRC explains in SEIS Section 4.6 that the proposed project construction and 

operations would result in disturbing 121 ha [300 ac] of land, incrementally, for up to 10 years 

through the life of the proposed ISR facility. SEIS Section 4.6 also discusses the potential 

vegetation impacts and increased potential for nonnative plant species and describes 

revegetation of native grasses and plants that would occur during the decommissioning stage. 

NRC acknowledges that in arid environments, natural revegetation could take many years and 

certain vegetative communities, such as sagebrush, could be difficult to reestablish through 

artificial plantings. However, temporary and permanent revegetation by the applicant in a 

phased (sequential) schedule would increase the rate at which an area is able to recover from 

disturbance. Section 2.2.1.5.5 describes revegetation practices to be conducted in accordance 

with WDEQ-LQD regulations. As stated in Section 4.6.1.1.1, the applicant has committed to 

mitigation measures, including vehicle washing and herbicide application, as necessary, to 

control the introduction and spread of noxious weeds (Uranerz, 2007). For the revegetation 

plan, NRC recognizes that sagebrush is not included in the applicant's proposed seed mixture 

as described in SEIS Section 2.2.1.5.5; however, WDEQ-LQD and the private 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 2.2.1.5.5, WDEQ-LQD has the authority to 

determine the final revegetation for all the land within the proposed project area. Overall, the 

applicant's plan for revegetation with native plants would increase the rate at which a disturbed 

area is returned to a state similar to preconstruction, and this would help to restore wildlife 

forage to the proposed project area. Finally, SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.1.2 concludes that the 

impacts on sage-grouse and big game as a result of habitat loss would be small, because the 

disturbed habitat acreage would be SMALL (in comparison to the habitat needs of big game) 

and any disturbed habitat would be revegetated (to lessen impacts on smaller wildlife, such as 

sage-grouse). 

The staff made minor changes to the text in Sections 2.2.1.5.5 and 4.6.1.1.1 to clarify the nature 

of the revegetation seed mixtures (native plants) and emphasize the phased nature of 

revegetation. 

B.5.22.5 Comments on Migratory Birds 

Comment: N007-011 

One commenter identified several issues concerning bald eagles. This commenter disagreed 

with the SEIS statement that nests do not occur onsite, provided different information 
 Appendix B 

B–97 

concerning the intensity of roost surveys, and identified several documented occurrences of 

eagle roosts in the area. 

Response: As stated in Section 3.6.1.2.3 of the draft SEIS, raptor nest inventories were 

conducted in April and May 2006 to determine the presence of raptor nests within the proposed 

project area (i.e., within permit boundaries of the Hank and Nichols Ranch Units). Follow-up 

productivity surveys for nests determined to be active were conducted in June 2006. One active 

golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) nest was observed in a cottonwood tree within the Nichols 

Ranch Unit during these Uranerz wildlife surveys. 

Additionally, in January and February 2007, three specific bald eagle winter roost site surveys 

were conducted, which included land within a 0.6-km [1-mi] radius of the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project site {i.e., 0.6-km [1-mi] from the permit boundaries of the Hank and Nichols 

Ranch Units}. As a result of these roost surveys, no communal roosts were identified on the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. However, several bald eagles (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) exhibited an affinity for certain areas adjacent to the proposed project area 

during the survey. One adult bald eagle was observed perched in a cottonwood tree along Dry 

Willow Creek, just north of the Hank Unit, during two of the three winter surveys. The 

Environmental Report (Uranerz, 2007) also describes bald eagles observed flying over or in the 

vicinity of the Nichols Ranch Unit during two of the three winter surveys. 

Information the commenter cited indicates the presence of bald eagle roosts within the Hank 

Unit that BLM recorded after the Uranerz surveys were conducted. NRC staff reviewed 

BLM (2008) the commenter referenced. According to the information provided in this EA, 

potential bald eagle roosts have been recorded that are within the Hank Unit, specifically near 

the southeast corner of the Hank Unit. SEIS Section 3.6.3 was revised to include this additional 

information on eagle roosts and nests. 

B.5.22.6 General Vegetation Comments 

Comment: N008-013 

The applicant stated that no woodlands are present within the proposed license boundaries of 

either the Nichols Ranch or Hank Units. This was in response to a statement in SEIS 

Section 4.6.1.1.1.1 that the clearing of wooded lands may have long-term impacts. 

Response: As explained in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.1.1, NRC staff described the potential impacts 

as analyzed in the GEIS (NRC, 2009) as a starting point to analyze site-specific conditions. The 

SEIS statement regarding wooded lands, not woodlands, is part of the discussion describing the 

GEIS conclusions for potential impacts to vegetation during the construction phase. SEIS 

Section 3.6.1 describes the vegetation at the proposed project including trees and shrubs, which 

are woody plants. The description of wooded land is generic and does not specify the type or 

density of woody plants that may be present. Because this SEIS statement remains valid in the 

context of the description of potential vegetation impacts, no changes were made to the SEIS in 

response to the comment. 

B.5.22.7 Traffic and Noise Impacts 

Comment: N013-092 

One commenter stated NRC failed to assess potential to wildlife impacts from diesel generator 

noise. 
Appendix B 

B–98 

Response: SEIS Section 4.6 discusses potential wildlife impacts from noise (including 

generator noise), which may cause habitat avoidance, reduced breeding efficiency, and 

possible alteration of wildlife habitats because of animals’ reactions. SEIS Section 4.8 

discusses potential environmental noise impacts at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

For example, the seasonal noise guidelines WGFD developed (WGFD, 2010) were identified as 

a means to mitigate the potential impact to wildlife, as discussed in Section 4.6.1.1.3 of the final 

SEIS. Though specific types of disturbance and magnitude of disturbance varies between oil 

and gas development and ISR uranium milling, the WGFD guidelines that provide seasonal 

distance buffers for noise, vehicular traffic, and human proximity provide a valuable gauge for 

determining impacts on wildlife from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Additionally, the 

most recent version of the WGFD recommendations published in April 2010 specifically directs 

in-situ uranium development to follow stipulations specified for oil and gas development for the 

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) protection measurements. Because this 

information is presented in the SEIS, no change was made to the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS 

beyond the information provided in this response. 

B.5.22.8 Impacts to Terrestrial Ecology and Wildlife Discussion 

Comments: N013-037; N018-077 

Two commenters expressed concern for impacts to migration corridors for pronghorn and 

mule deer and suggested allowing hunting for big game would help manage pronghorn and 

mule deer. 

Response: NRC understands that mule deer and pronghorn are abundant in the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project area and discusses local and regional occurrences of big game. 

SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.1 explains there are no crucial pronghorn ranges within the proposed 

project area; the nearest crucial range is approximately 63 km [39 mi] south of the proposed 

project area. In addition, the proposed project area lies within habitat designated as 

winter/yearlong and yearlong range for mule deer. There are no crucial mule deer ranges within 

the proposed project area, and the nearest mule deer crucial winter range occurs approximately 

77 km [48 mi] southwest of the proposed project area. Section 4.6.1.1.2 addresses potential 

impacts to big game. In addition, the ecology cumulative effects section of the SEIS has 

generally been revised. Overall, impacts to big game are expected to be SMALL. 

SEIS Section 1.7.3.5 explains that WGFD is responsible for controlling all game in Wyoming. 

SEIS Section 3.2 explains that private entities own more than 91 percent of the land, and 

approximately 9 percent of the land is U.S. Government-owned and BLM-administered. NRC 

does not have regulatory authority to require that the licensee allow hunting activities during 

operations. The licensee can make arrangements with the private landowners or consult with 

WGFD regarding hunting arrangements. No changes were made to the SEIS in response to 

this comment. 

Comments: N013-086; N017-013; N017-019 

Two commenters stated the NRC should take a hard look at sage-grouse and other wildlife and 

habitat impacts and explore alternatives or requirements that would reduce or eliminate adverse 

environmental impacts. One commenter asserted that the SEIS failed to disclose the habitat 

impacts of this project at a site-specific level or cumulatively. 

Response: NRC believes that the wildlife impact analyses are supported by sufficient technical 

bases. Since publication of the draft SEIS in December 2009, FWS listed the sage-grouse as a 
 Appendix B 

B–99 

candidate species (March 2010). Subsequently, Wyoming BLM made amendments to the 

National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy, and Sage Grouse Implementation Team 

(SGIT) continues to discuss an evaluation process for sage-grouse impacts. and outline 

recommended development stipulations. SGIT emerged from the Governor’s Sage Grouse 

Summit in 2008 with the mission to develop conservation efforts to protect the sage-grouse and 

prevent the need to list the species under the Endangered Species Act. The proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project is not located in a core area as described in SEIS Section 3.6.3. SEIS 

Section 4.6.1.1.3 and the Uranerz Environmental Report Section 3.5.3.3 describe the potential 

impacts to sage-grouse and discuss the following mitigative measures the applicant commits to 

implement: (i) minimize or delay project activity and vehicular traffic within 0.15 km [0.25 mi] of 

active leks between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. during the March 1 to May 15 strutting 

period; (ii) minimize or delay project activity within 1.6 km [2.0 mi] of active leks between March 

15 and July 15; (iii) avoid constructing overhead power lines or high-profile structures within 

0.15 km [0.25 mi] of leks to minimize raptor predation; and (iv) minimize removal of vegetation, 

where possible, and revegetate disturbed areas as soon as practicable following project 

completion. However, NRC does not have the statutory authority to impose wildlife mitigation 

measures at a licensed facility. SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.3 also discusses proposed mitigation 

measures that Uranerz would implement to limit impacts to sage-grouse. 

The cumulative effects discussion presented in Chapter 5 of the SEIS has been revised to 

improve the transparency and clarity of the analysis and provide a more detailed discussion of 

potential cumulative effects for critical resource areas. Section 5.6.1 of the final SEIS discusses 

the cumulative impacts to ecological resources and their respective habitats from the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project and other projects occurring in the area (grazing and herd 

management, hunting, and mineral exploration). No changes were made to the SEIS beyond 

the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N013-091 

One commenter stated NRC failed to assess potential to wildlife impacts from overhead power 

lines. 

Response: SEIS Section 4.6 does discuss potential impacts from overhead power distribution 

including those to raptors and other avian species. Because this information is already 

presented in the SEIS, no change was made to the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS beyond the 

information provided in this response. 

Comment: N017-009 

One commenter expressed a concern of potential wildlife impacts from selenium contamination. 

Response: NRC acknowledges that wildlife may be temporarily exposed to contamination from 

spills and leaks in SEIS Section 4.6.1.2. Proposed operations that could involve spills of 

process solutions containing dissolved selenium would be conducted at the central processing 

plant, wellfields, the satellite ion exchange facility, and header houses and along pipelines that 

connect wellfields, header houses, and the central plant. As described in the study cited by the 

commenter (Ramirez and Rogers, 2000), prior studies have associated selenium with food 

chain bioaccumulation and adverse impacts to migratory and aquatic birds involving impaired 

reproduction and mortality. The process solution the applicant proposes to pump from the ore 

zone aquifer would contain selenium. Selenium occurs naturally in the host rock of the ore 

zone, and it would be mobilized (i.e., dissolved into the groundwater), along with the uranium 

and other constituents, by the proposed lixiviant injection into the ore zone aquifer. This 

solution would then be circulated through the processing circuit, and a portion would be diverted 
Appendix B 

B–100 

as wastewater (thereby causing selenium and other constituents mobilized by the lixiviant 

injection to be present in wastewater). 

Regarding the potential for spills at the central processing plant, the applicant proposes a facility 

design that would contain any spills within a curbed area that drains to a sump (Uranerz, 2007). 

For spills that may occur in wellfields, header houses, and pipelines, the applicant proposes to 

utilize alarmed operational pressure monitoring and daily visual inspection as means to detect 

leaks or other off-normal operating conditions (Uranerz, 2007). While some leaks and spills 

would inevitably occur, the staff expects these would be localized and temporary events based 

on the proposed detection measures. After a leak or spill has been identified, the applicant 

proposes to conduct the necessary corrective actions, document the location of the event, 

sample affected areas, and remediate areas that exceed regulatory limits. The applicant’s 

proposed design and control measures would not eliminate wildlife exposures to process 

solutions containing selenium, and direct ingestion of spilled solutions by waterfowl (and 

perhaps other species) may have incidental impacts to individuals within those waterfowl 

populations. However, the staff considers the applicant’s measures would limit the magnitude, 

spatial extent, and duration of spills, leaks, and other potential wildlife exposures to process 

solutions containing selenium to a degree that would mitigate potential impacts to 

wildlife populations. 

The report referenced by the commenter is field study of the Highland ISR facility located in 

Converse County, Wyoming. This study reports elevated environmental concentrations of 

selenium where land was irrigated with wastewater for a period of approximately 9 years 

(Ramirez and Rogers, 2000). Land application is a regulated waste disposal method that 

irrigates land with treated wastewater (stored in surface impoundments) using agricultural 

irrigation equipment to facilitate the evaporation of water either directly or by plant transpiration. 

As water evaporates from the soil, it leaves behind constituents that were dissolved in the water, 

including selenium, as solid deposits thereby creating the potential for buildup of these 

constituents in soil over time. The proposed Nichols Ranch Project does not involve the use of 

land application or surface impoundments in its proposed wastewater disposal method;, 

therefore, the NRC staff considers the levels of selenium deposition and buildup evaluated in 

the study cited by the commenter and the magnitude of the resulting wildlife exposures to soils 

and wastewater are not applicable to the proposed operations of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

The applicant’s proposed use of underground injection using deep disposal wells is designed to 

isolate wastewater deep below the land surface and therefore reduce the potential for wildlife 

impacts relative to other available wastewater treatment and disposal options, such as 

evaporation ponds or land application. Because the potential impacts to wildlife from leaks and 

spills are discussed in the SEIS and the commenter does not provide new information to 

consider, no changes were made to the SEIS. 

B.5.22.9 References 

75 FR 13909, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

as Threatened or Endangered.” Federal Register: Volume 75, No. 55, pp. 13,909–13,959. 

March 23, 2010. 

E. O. 2010-4, State of Wyoming. Office of the Governor, Executive Order 2010-4. “Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Dave Freudenthal, Governor. 

August 18, 2010. 
 Appendix B 

B–101 

BLM. Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-071. “Subject: Gunnison and Greater Sage-grouse 

Management Considerations for Energy Development (Supplement to National Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Conservation Strategy).” Washington, DC BLM. March 5, 2010. 

BLM. “Bureau of Land Management Buffalo Field Office Environmental Assessment for Yates 

Petroleum Corporation All Day POD Plan of Development WY-070-08-026.” Cheyenne, 

Wyoming: BLM. August 28, 2008. 

BLM. “National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy.” U.S. Department of Interior 

Bureau of Land Management. <http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_ 

and_Renewable_Resources/fish__wildlife_and.Par.9151.File.dat/Sage-Grouse_Strategy.pdf> 

(23 April 2010). November 2004. 

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

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

Ramirez, Pedro Jr. and B. Rogers. “Selenium in a Wyoming Grassland Community Receiving 

Wastewater from an In-Situ Uranium Mine.” Contaminant Report Number: R6/715C /00. 

Cheyenne, Wyoming: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6. September, 2000. 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. Casper, 

Wyoming: 2007. 

WGFD. Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources Within Important 

Wildlife Habitats. Version 6.0. Cheyenne, Wyoming. April 2010. 

B.5.23 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality 

B.5.23.1 Permitting and Regulations 

Comments: N020-001; N020-020 

One commenter, referring to Executive Summary, page xx (environmental impacts from air 

quality) and Section 3.7.2, Air Quality, p. 3-42 of the draft SEIS, noted these sections state 

without providing a basis, that the proposed project would not be subject to Title V of the CAA 

and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements, respectively. 

Response: As stated in Section 4.7, the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would not be a 

major source of emissions. NRC bases this conclusion on a condition in the WDEQ-approved 

construction air permit (WDEQ, 2009) that requires the applicant to obtain a minor source 

operation permit pursuant to Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations Chapter 6, 

Section 2(a)(iii). According to the language of that requirement, such a permit applies to 

facilities that are not subject to the provisions of the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and 

Regulations Chapter 6, Section 3, which contains regulations for the state operating permit 

program required under Title V of the CAA. In addition, NRC staff calculated mobile nonroad 

emissions from construction equipment that WDEQ air permitting does not address, and these 

emissions were also found to be well below major source threshold levels. 
Appendix B 

B–102 

Concerning the PSD requirements, the enforcement of this program applies to major stationary 

sources of emissions or any other source that has the potential to emit more than 227 t [250 T] 

per year of any pollutant. As stated in the previous paragraph, WDEQ has classified the 

applicant as a minor source. Further, as stated in Section 4.7, the NRC staff concludes the 

estimated emissions from the proposed project would not affect attainment with ambient air 

quality standards in the region surrounding the proposed site areas or PSD increments in Class 

I or Class II areas closest to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project areas. Should WDEQ 

determine that some or even all of the aforementioned regulatory programs apply to the 

proposed action, then the applicant would need to comply with any applicable permitting 

requirements WDEQ has the authority to enforce. 

In response to these and other comments, the staff also updated the discussion of proposed air 

emissions in Section 2.2.1.6.1 of the SEIS and provided, in a new Appendix D, supporting 

calculations of mobile nonroad diesel emissions from well drilling activities and construction 

equipment. The staff also updated portions of the air impact analysis (Section 4.7) and the 

Executive Summary to reflect this additional information and provide additional supporting 

bases for air impact conclusions. The commenter should be aware that the Executive Summary 

is a brief summary of the impact findings and does not normally contain a detailed description of 

supporting bases. The complete basis for impact conclusions are documented in the impact 

analysis in Section 4.7. 

In response to the comment regarding the PSD requirements, upon review, NRC staff found the 

statement went beyond a description of the affected environment, and it was deleted from SEIS 

Section 3.7.2, Air Quality. 

B.5.23.2 Climatology and Meteorology 

Comments: N011-009; N011-011; N013-011; N013-013; N015-006 

One commenter expressed concern about the greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project and the impact of these emissions on climate change. Another 

commenter stated the SEIS failed to consider climate change impacts in a complete manner. 

This commenter suggested climate change was important enough to warrant its own section in 

the SEIS that discussed the topic in detail. Another commenter suggested the draft SEIS 

ignores climate change impacts based on what was stated as the imprecise nature of the 

science. The commenter noted the exact extent and timing of climate change is not certain, but 

many adverse impacts have already been documented and such impacts will continue into the 

future. Citing draft guidance from CEQ (2010) (to help Federal agencies improve their 

consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in evaluations of proposals for 

Federal actions), the commenter stated that despite the evolving nature of climate change 

science, Federal agencies have an obligation to consider both greenhouse gas emissions 

emitted from proposed projects and the impacts the action has on natural resources that climate 

change could also affect. 

Response: As one commenter noted, the state of climate change science is evolving. NRC 

staff acknowledges this changing state and the evolving Federal role in evaluating the potential 

environmental impacts of Federal actions. The NRC approach to evaluating potential climate 

change impacts from NRC licensing actions is also evolving as more information becomes 

available that NRC staff can use to evaluate potential impacts. 

To address these and other comments regarding the need to consider and evaluate the 

potential impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate, NRC staff has calculated 
 Appendix B 

B–103 

annual and cumulative carbon dioxide emissions from applicant use of diesel construction 

equipment during construction and decommissioning of the production wellfields and facilities. 

Because operating ISR facilities are not major sources of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse 

gas emissions, NRC staff expects construction equipment emissions (including well drilling rigs) 

produced during both construction and decommissioning phases to represent the majority of 

greenhouse gas emissions from the proposal. The emissions estimates are documented in 

Appendix D and are summarized in Section 2.2.1.6 in the final SEIS. The NRC staff also 

evaluated potential climate impacts from the calculated construction equipment emissions from 

the proposed facility in Section 4.7. The cumulative air impact analysis in Chapter 5 was also 

updated to evaluate the impact of the emissions and projected climate changes in the context of 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. This impact analysis evaluated 

available information on greenhouse gas emissions and potential impacts to global climate 

change (CCS, 2007; GCRP, 2009; NCDC, 2010a–c) to evaluate the potential effect of (i) the 

proposed emissions; (ii) projected climate changes on the proposed facility; and (iii) the 

projected climate changes on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed facility. The 

staff concluded the proposed emissions were a small percentage of state and national 

emissions and the impact would be SMALL. The staff also concluded the small magnitude of 

projected changes in climate over the proposed operating period of the facility would not impact 

the facility nor significantly change the potential impacts from the facility. 

B.5.23.3 Baseline Air Quality 

Comment: N020-022 

One commenter, referring to the description of the affected environment for air quality in 

Section 3.7.2, p. 3-42, noted the proposed project is 185 km [115 mi] from Wind Cave National 

Park, which is the nearest CAA Class I PSD Area, and 109 km [68 mi] from Cloud Peak 

Wilderness area, which is a Sensitive Class II Area. The commenter requested the SEIS 

identify all nearby Class I and II Areas. 

 

Response: In response to these comments, NRC staff verified the commenter information and 

added the recommended PSD sites to Section 3.7.2 of the final SEIS. 

B.5.23.4 Impact Assessment 

Comment: N011-020 

Referring to the Chapter 5 (cumulative impact analysis) discussion of climate change in the draft 

SEIS, a commenter suggested the draft SEIS failed to consider the impacts of climate change 

by not disclosing all greenhouse gas emissions. The commenter noted the emissions for the 

proposed site discussed in the draft SEIS are incomplete because they do not include the 

emissions from other nuclear fuel cycle facilities such as facilities involved in uranium 

conversion, uranium enrichment, and nuclear fuel fabrication. 

Response: NRC focused on evaluating CO2 emissions for the life of the proposed facility and 

compares this with other forms of extraction in the area. The primary source of CO2 emissions 

from ISR facilities are combustion engine emissions from construction equipment (including drill 

rigs). NRC staff estimated annual and cumulative CO2 emissions over the life of the facility from 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project for construction and decommissioning activities and 

documented these in Appendix D of the final SEIS. 

Section 5.7 of the final SEIS describes projects occurring within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, which include up to six other operating or planned ISR 
Appendix B 

B–104 

facilities (see Table 5-1) that would generate emissions comparable to emissions projected for 

the proposed project. ISR facilities commonly use a phased approach to well drilling and 

wellfield construction; therefore, all seven facilities would not undergo construction concurrently. 

To estimate the potential annual contribution of the seven facilities to local air emissions, the 

NRC staff considered the emissions results in Appendix D of this SEIS. 

Evaluation of environmental impacts from other nuclear fuel cycle facilities is beyond the scope 

of the current licensing action regarding whether or not to grant a license to the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. NRC evaluates the potential safety and environmental impacts of 

other nuclear fuel cycle facilities when those facilities are proposed or their licenses are 

amended. Because the requested information is beyond the scope of the current licensing 

action, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to the comment. 

Comments: N011-012; N011-013; N011-014; N011-018 

One commenter provided a number of comments related to climate change and the potential 

impacts of climate changes on the potential environmental impacts from the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project. They provided a report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

entitled “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” (Karl, et al., 2009) as the 

technical basis for predictions of climate change in the region where the facility is proposed. 

The commenter suggested the report shows climate changes in the region have the potential to 

impact the proposed facility and, therefore, NRC should evaluate such impacts in the SEIS. 

Specifically, they asked that if the region where the proposed project is located is expected to 

have reduced snowpack and spring runoff and disruption of precipitation over the next decades 

NRC should also evaluate whether potable water sources outside the ore zone should be 

sacrificed in exchange for extracting uranium. The commenter clarified by footnote that the term 

“sacrificed” referred to an assumption that groundwater would be restored to a poor quality 

baseline standard. They also requested that if climate change was expected to increase the 

precipitation in the region, NRC should disclose and evaluate how increased soil saturation, 

flooding, and aquifer recharge would interact with project impacts. 

Response: With regard to future changes in climate altering the potential impacts of the 

proposed action, the staff evaluated the report the commenter cited, and found that the 

projected changes in climate over the 10-year time scale of the licensing period for the 

proposed facility were limited in degree and unlikely to significantly change the intensity of the 

potential impacts evaluated in the final SEIS. For example, the projected changes in 

precipitation for a high-emissions scenario were discussed for the latter part of this century 

(years 2080 through 2090) as 10 to 15 percent above current values for the area of Wyoming 

where the proposed site would be located. Changes during the next 10 years would be 

expected to be much less than the values reported for the end of the century. The staff could 

not identify information in that report to suggest that over the next 10 years there would be the 

types of changes the commenter indicated (e.g., soil saturation, flooding, recharge effects). 

Projected temperature changes are also cited in the report as long-term consequences. The 

cited report includes projected changes in average temperature for year 2020 as ranging from a 

slight decrease in the present temperature to a maximum of approximately 2 degrees higher 

than present temperatures. The resource area that would be expected to be the most sensitive 

to small changes in ambient temperature would be the local ecology. Potential changes to the 

regional ecology from a rise in average temperature (including invasive species, fire, erosion, 

desertification) would occur whether the site were licensed or not, but localized effects could be 

exacerbated to some degree by proposed site activities and the changes in the ambient 

temperature. In response to these comments, NRC staff added discussion of the potential 
 Appendix B 

B–105 

impacts from projected changes to climate in Section 5.7 (Cumulative Air Quality Impacts) of the 

final SEIS. 

In Section 5.7.1.4 of the final SEIS, the NRC staff determined that the overall effect of projected 

climate change on the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project facility would be SMALL. The 

small, predicted increases in temperatures and precipitation over the next decade would have 

no effect on the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project facility in any of the ISR phases. 

Regarding the portion of a comment that suggested potable water sources outside the ore zone 

would be sacrificed based on an assumption about restoration water quality, that portion of the 

comment was marked as two separate groundwater restoration comments (N011-015 and 

NO11-016) that are discussed in Section 5.9.8, Groundwater Restoration Criteria and Methods. 

Comments: N015-004; N015-014; N015-017; N015-019; N015-024; N015-025; N020-002; 

N020-003; N020-029; N020-030 

One commenter stated the draft SEIS lacked information on air pollutant emissions and the 

impact analysis is inadequate to assess the impacts of those emissions. This commenter stated 

they could not find supporting information for the statement in the Executive Summary that the 

air emissions would be below the NAAQS. The commenter also stated it was unclear what 

mitigation the Executive Summary was referring to for air quality impacts. The commenter 

stated ISR projects will likely result in a deterioration of air quality due to emissions from drill rig 

engines, fugitive road dust, and uranium processing activities. The commenter suggested that 

projects similar in scope require hundreds of wells and multiple deep injection wells and without 

a complete air quality analysis such activity is likely to have significant adverse local air quality 

impacts. They were particularly concerned about the air emissions from the truck-mounted 

diesel drilling rigs and the drilling of hundreds of wells for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

project. They requested a screening analysis be conducted for air emissions to identify far field 

impacts, including visibility parameters for Class I and sensitive Class II air sheds. The 

commenter also requested a near field air analysis be conducted to evaluate direct air impacts. 

Response: In response to this and other comments, NRC staff reviewed the applicable 

sections of the draft SEIS and added more detailed information on emissions from drilling rigs, 

construction equipment, and unpaved roads (i.e., fugitive road dust) to the final SEIS in 

Section 2.2.1.6.1.1 and Appendix D. NRC staff added information to the Executive Summary, 

which includes a reference to mitigation (WDEQ-approved construction air permit) that is 

discussed in Chapter 4 of this SEIS, Section 3.7.2 on nearby Class I and Class II areas that 

could potentially be impacted by emissions generated by the proposed action; information was 

also added to Section 4.7 to clarify NRC staff approach to evaluating impacts and improve the 

transparency of the NRC staff bases for impact conclusions. 

NRC staff estimates of annual nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions from drilling rigs and 

construction equipment are approximately 19.9 t/yr and 0.91 t/yr [22 and 1 T/yr], as discussed in 

Appendix D. NRC staff estimated nitrogen oxide emissions could be as high as 30.8 t/yr 

[34 T/yr] if the applicant drilled all eight deep disposal wells in 1 year; however, this would be a 

1-year maximum as no additional deep disposal wells would need to be drilled in later years. 

The applicant estimates of fugitive road dust exceed 90.1 t/yr [100 T/yr] (assuming no dust 

controls would be applied). The NRC staff reviewed these calculations and conducted 

additional calculations using the same EPA methods used by the applicant but applying different 

assumptions. The staff concluded, in particular, that if no carpooling of employee commuting is 

assumed, and both incoming and outgoing traffic is considered, the untreated road dust 
Appendix B 

B–106 

emissions could be higher by about a factor of two from the applicant’s estimates. However, the 

applicant has proposed and WDEQ has required (WDEQ, 2009) dust suppression measures to 

limit potential dust impacts so actual emissions would be expected to be substantially lower than 

either the applicant’s or the NRC staff’s estimates. The application of these measures would 

reduce emissions to levels that would not destabilize local air quality or change the current 

attainment status. 

NRC staff concludes the emissions from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR project would not 

change the current attainment status of the region surrounding the site nor would the emissions 

be likely to destabilize the local air quality and, therefore, additional detailed quantitative air 

analyses are not warranted to support the evaluation of nonradiological air impacts. Short-term 

and intermittent visible air emissions are possible to the local area surrounding the site when 

vehicles travel on unpaved roads. Such impacts would be reduced but not eliminated by road 

treatments the applicant proposed and required by WDEQ (2009). 

The scope of the air impact analysis in Section 4.7 is intentionally limited to consideration of 

nonradiological air quality impacts. This is because, as noted in the draft SEIS, NRC regulates 

radiological air emissions. These are addressed in Section 4.13 as a public and occupational 

health and safety topic, whereas the State and EPA regulates nonradiological emissions, 

evaluated separately in Section 4.7. 

Comment: N015-018 

One commenter indicated the proposed project may adversely impact nearby Federal Class I 

areas that require special protection of air quality and air quality related values such as visibility. 

Response: The mobile nonroad diesel emissions from construction and mobile fugitive road 

dust emissions from all phases are the emissions from the proposed action that have the 

greatest potential to impact nearby Prevention of Significant Deterioration areas based on NRC 

staff understanding of the types and magnitudes of emissions associated with ISR facilities and 

the information the applicant provided on this specific proposal. As discussed in 

Section 2.1.1.1.6.1.1, the applicant estimated fugitive road dust emissions could exceed 

90.7 t/yr [100 T/yr] if not controlled; however, the applicant proposes to control these emissions 

by water application or other means of road treatment. 

All the other emissions information the staff reviewed, including the staff nonroad diesel 

construction equipment emissions estimates (final SEIS Section 2.2.1.6.1.1 and Appendix D), 

support the conclusion that NRC staff expects the proposed action would not be comparable to, 

nor considered, a major source of emissions {e.g., a stationary source that emits or has the 

potential to emit 90.7 t/yr [100 T/yr] of an air pollutant to 9.1 t/yr [10 T/yr] of any individual 

hazardous air pollutant or 22.7 t/yr [25 T/yr] of any combination of hazardous air pollutants as 

defined in CAA Sections 501 and 112}. While NRC staff recognize that the stationary source 

requirements, by definition, do not apply to mobile sources of emissions, these requirements 

apply to the same types of air pollutants emitted by the mobile sources the applicant proposed 

and the threshold values are the levels of emissions that trigger a substantial increase in the 

requirements that must be met to ensure the protection of air quality. The staff concludes that 

such emissions (i.e., well below the major source thresholds) in an area with meteorology 

favorable for dispersion would be unlikely to impact air quality in the nearest Class 1 area to the 

proposed action. The Class 1 area, Wind Cave National Park, is located about 185 km 

[115 miles] east of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. Cloud Peak Wilderness Area, 

the closest Class II area to the proposed action, located about 109 km [68 mi] northwest of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site, is also unlikely to be impacted by the magnitude of 
 Appendix B 

B–107 

proposed emissions-generating activities. In addition to the magnitude of emissions and 

distance, the predominant wind direction at the proposed site is from the southwest and 

therefore would carry emissions to the northeast, away from the Class II area. 

While the NRC staff emissions analysis, within the context of CAA regulations, supports the 

assessment of potential environmental impacts that is required by NEPA, as amended, the 

authority to enforce CAA regulations in Wyoming rests with the WDEQ, and it is responsible for 

making applicability and compliance decisions regarding the regulations that implement the 

CAA. In that role, the WDEQ has evaluated the applicant’s permit application and has issued 

Uranerz an air quality construction permit (WDEQ, 2009). This permit requires the applicant to 

obtain an operating permit that satisfies the Wyoming Air Quality Regulation in Chapter 6, 

Section 2(a)(iii). As stated in that requirement, this type of operating permit is for facilities that 

are not subject to the major stationary source requirements of the Wyoming Air Quality 

Regulations in Chapter 6, Section 3. Section 1 refers to the required Section 2 operational 

permit as a minor source permit to operate. This information indicates the WDEQ has 

concluded the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project facility is not considered a major source of 

emissions. This permit condition supports the NRC staff conclusion that the facility is not likely 

to be considered a major source of emissions as defined by the CAA. The permit also requires 

the applicant to limit fugitive road dust emissions from the haul road from the proposed Hank 

Unit satellite facility to the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit central processing plant and the 

proposed access road to the central processing plant by treating with water or chemical dust 

suppressants. This permit condition further supports the NRC staff conclusion that the fugitive 

dust emissions would be mitigated by control measures the applicant proposed in its license 

application. Should the air quality in the nearby Class I areas degrade in the future, WDEQ has 

the authority and would be expected to take appropriate corrective actions to reestablish 

attainment air quality in these protected areas. 

In response to this and other comments about the potential impacts of air emissions, NRC staff 

updated the discussion of proposed air emissions in final SEIS Section 2.2.1.6.1 and provided 

supporting calculations of mobile nonroad diesel emissions from well-drilling activities and 

construction equipment in Appendix D. NRC staff also updated the air quality impact analysis 

discussion in SEIS Section 4.7 to reflect the updated emissions information. 

Comment: N015-037 

A commenter suggested NRC expand the discussion of greenhouse gas emissions and climate 

change in the draft SEIS. Specifically, they requested NRC staff consider the projected regional 

climate changes and the project contribution to these changes. They also requested NRC staff 

quantify the annual and cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and discuss the link between 

greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. A discussion of mitigation measures for 

greenhouse gas emissions was also requested. 

Response: To address these and other comments regarding the need for NRC staff to 

consider and evaluate the potential impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate, 

NRC staff has calculated annual and cumulative carbon dioxide emissions from the applicant’s 

use of diesel construction equipment during construction and decommissioning phases of the 

production wellfields and facilities. Because operating ISR facilities are not major sources of 

carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, NRC expects the construction equipment 

emissions (including well drilling rigs) produced during both construction and decommissioning 

phases to represent the majority of greenhouse gas emissions from the proposal. The 

emissions estimates are documented in Appendix D and summarized in Section 2.2.1.6.1. The 

staff also added an evaluation of potential climate impacts from the calculated construction 
Appendix B 

B–108 

equipment emissions from the proposed facility in Section 4.7. The cumulative air impact 

analysis was also updated to evaluate the impact of the emissions in the context of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The revised impact analyses include 

discussion of the current understanding of the link between greenhouse gas emissions and 

global climate change. Based on the nature of the emissions (e.g., construction equipment) and 

the lack of available carbon dioxide emissions control technology for such equipment, Section 

5.7.1.5 was added to discuss general mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce 

fuel consumption and therefore the greenhouse gas emissions at the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project. 

Comments: N020-025; N020-026 

Referring to the draft SEIS, Section 4.7, Air Quality Impacts, page 4-43, one commenter noted 

no project-specific emissions estimates were provided in the draft SEIS. They noticed the draft 

SEIS references GEIS Section 2.7.1 (NRC, 2009a), which includes emissions estimates for the 

Crownpoint ISR facility from a 1997 NRC Final EIS (NRC, 1997). The commenter indicated the 

draft SEIS did not discuss how that facility, and therefore its emissions estimates, relate to the 

proposed facility. The commenter also suggested the referenced emissions estimates from 

1997 were not current and should be updated. 

Response: In response to this and other comments about the potential impacts of air 

emissions, NRC staff updated the discussion of proposed air emissions in the draft SEIS, 

Section 2.2.1.6.1 and provided supporting calculations of mobile nonroad diesel emissions from 

well-drilling activities and construction equipment in Appendix D. NRC staff also updated the air 

quality impact analysis discussion in SEIS Section 4.7 to reflect the updated emissions 

information. Text was also added to SEIS Section 4.7 to compare attributes of the Crownpoint 

facility and the proposed action to establish a more transparent basis for adopting the GEIS air 

impact analyses in the SEIS. 

Comment: N020-027 

Referring to draft SEIS, Section 4.7, Air Quality Impacts, p. 4-43, one commenter expressed 

that while air quality impacts are discussed, neither the draft SEIS nor GEIS (NRC, 2009a) have 

an air impact analysis. 

Response: While the comment was not specific regarding the type of impact analysis that was 

the commenter expected, some additional clarification regarding some of the limitations that 

affect the content of Section 4.7 may be informative. First, Section 4.7 of the draft SEIS 

describes the potential impacts to nonradiological air quality based on the NRC staff review of 

the proposed action that was summarized in draft SEIS Chapter 2 and the affected environment 

that was summarized in SEIS Chapter 3. The NRC staff’s approach to documenting the impact 

analyses in Chapter 4 is to avoid repetitive discussions of information that was discussed in 

prior chapters by referencing and summarizing previously discussed information. This approach 

may have contributed to an appearance of incompleteness. In response to the commenter, 

NRC staff has reviewed the section and incorporated additional references and discussion of 

referenced information to add transparency to the support for the analysis and the bases for 

conclusions. Another factor that limits the scope of the air impact analysis is that the analysis in 

Section 4.7 is intentionally limited to consideration of nonradiological air quality impacts. As 

noted in the SEIS, NRC regulates radiological air emissions, which are addressed in Section 

4.13 as a public and occupational health and safety topic, whereas the State and EPA regulate 

nonradiological emissions and are best evaluated separately in Section 4.7. The staff 

evaluation of potential nonradiological impacts in draft SEIS Section 4.7 is further limited 

because, as stated in that section, the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project facility will not be a 
 Appendix B 

B–109 

major emitter of nonradiological air pollutants and, consistent with the NRC NEPAimplementing regulations at 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A (Item 7), the level of information 

considered in detail reflects the depth of analysis required for sound decisionmaking. 

In response to this and other comments, NRC staff reviewed the applicable sections of the draft 

SEIS and added more detailed information on emissions to Section 2.2.1.6.1.1 and Appendix D. 

Information was also added to Section 3.7.2 on nearby Class I and Class II areas that could 

potentially be impacted by emissions the proposed action generates. Information was also 

added to Section 4.7 to clarify the NRC staff approach to evaluating impacts and improve the 

transparency of the NRC staff bases for impact conclusions. The additional emissions 

information confirms the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be a minor source of 

nonradiological emissions, which NRC staff conclude would be unlikely to change the current 

attainment status of the region surrounding the site, nor would the emissions be likely to 

destabilize the local air quality. Short-term and intermittent visible air emissions are possible to 

the local area surrounding the site, (e.g. when vehicles travel on unpaved roads). 

B.5.23.5 References 

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

Licensing of Source Material.” “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: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

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

CCS (Center for Climate Strategies). “Wyoming Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference 

Case Projections 1990-2020.” Report for Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 

<http://www.climatestrategies.us/ewebeditpro/ items/O25F18230.pdf> (1 October 2009). 2007. 

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality. “Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects 

of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Letter (February 18) from Nancy Sutley 

to the Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies. Washington DC: CEQ. 2010. 

GCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program), Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States. Cambridge University Press. 2009. 

Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. “Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States.” New York City, New York: Cambridge University Press. 2009. 

NCDC (National Climatic Data Center), “Record of Climatological Observations for Kaycee 

1900–11–2010–05 (485055) and Midwest 1939–01–2010–05 (486195). 

<http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html;jsessionid=9CBA8A18D428D1C3BE19F7E0A

E199FD2?foreign=false&_page=0&jsessionid=9CBA8A18D428D1C3BE19F7E0AE199FD2&sta

te=WY&_target1=Next+%3E> (21 July 2010). 2010a. 

NCDC, “Climate at a Glance—Annual Temperature Wyoming for 1895 to 2009.” 

<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/wy.html> (21 July 2010). 2010b. 
Appendix B 

B–110 

NCDC. “Climate at a Glance—Annual Wyoming Precipitation.” Ashville, North Carolina: NCDC. 

<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/wy.html> (21 July 2010). 2010c. 

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

Milling Facilities. Washington, DC: NRC. May 2009a. 

NRC. “Uranium Recovery Policy Regarding: (1) The Process for Scheduling Licensing 

Reviews of Applications for New uranium Recovery Facilities and (2) The Restoration of 

Groundwater at Licensed Uranium In-Situ Recovery Facilities.” Regulatory Information 

Summary 2009-05. ML083510622. May 29. 2009b. 

NRC. NUREG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications.” Final Report. Washington, DC: NRC. June 2003. 

NRC. NUREG–1508, Final Environmental Impact Statement to Construct and Operate the 

Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mine Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico. ML082170248 

Washington, DC: February 1997. 

WDEQ. Letter from D. Finley, Administrator, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, to 

M. Thomas, Uranerz Energy Corporation. Subject: Re: Permit No. CT-8644. October 2, 

2009. 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. Casper, 

Wyoming: 2007. 

B.5.24 Historical and Cultural Resources 

B.5.24.1 Potential Impacts to Cultural, Historical, and Sacred Places 

Comment: N008-003 

The applicant stated the entire area encompassed by the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

area has been surveyed for cultural resources. This was in response to a statement in SEIS 

Section 1.7.2 that documented that the WY SHPO indicated a cultural resource survey had not 

been conducted for the entire “area of potential effect.” 

Response: The applicant is correct in that the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project area has 

been surveyed (Uranerz, 2007). The SEIS statement reflects initial WY SHPO input to NRC 

concerning the proposed action, which occurred early in the review process. SEIS 

Section 1.7.2 was revised to remove the confusing text and incorporate WY SHPO comments. 

Comment: N008-017 

The applicant stated site 48CA5391 would not be impacted. The applicant stated the site was 

not located within a proposed wellfield, but rather a potential horizontal monitoring well location, 

and that this type of well could be relocated away from site 48CA5391. 

 
 Appendix B 

B–111 

Response: The January 2010 revision of the applicant’s Environmental Report (Uranerz, 2007) 

stated this site was located within or near the projected wellfield and indicated that mitigation 

would be implemented. SEIS Sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.9.3.1 were revised to describe the site 

location based on the information from the Environmental Report (Uranerz, 2007). 

B.5.24.2 License Conditions To Address Potential Impacts to Historical and 

Cultural Resources 

Comment: N014-017 

One commenter stated that the final SEIS should clarify what license conditions would be 

imposed on the licensee concerning required mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate 

environmental impacts. The commenter specifically requested such conditions be identified for 

cultural resources, given that cultural and historic resource preservation is a critical issue in the 

vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

Response: NRC can only impose license conditions for a proposed ISR facility within the limits 

of the authority granted by Congress. State and other federal agencies can also establish 

permit conditions based on their statutory and regulatory authorities. NRC can rely on 

mitigation measures the applicant includes in its license application or includes as a license 

condition or those imposed by other State and federal agencies in evaluating the potential 

environmental impact of the proposed project. 

The NRC license for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, if approved, could contain license 

conditions to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to cultural and historic resources at the 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project site. No specific license conditions have been agreed upon for 

inclusion in the license, if approved, at this time. Therefore, the SEIS can only identify 

mitigation measures that either: (1) may be incorporated into the NRC license as license 

conditions, (2) that are requirements other agencies established through permits that ISR 

facilities must obtain, (3) mitigation measures the applicant committed to follow in their license 

application, or (4) mitigation measures that are not enforceable but that the applicant could 

voluntarily abide by to further reduce environmental impacts to a given resource area. 

Specifically concerning cultural resources, no identified Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) will 

be directly affected by the proposed construction activities at the site. The applicant’s license 

application stated that sites located near proposed construction areas will be marked, fenced, 

and avoided. However, there will be an adverse effect to the visual setting of five TCPs. The 

mitigation of adverse effects is currently being addressed through consultation among the WY 

SHPO, BLM, NRC, the applicant, and interested Native American tribes. The NRC developed a 

draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which was forwarded to interested parties by letter 

dated July 22, 2010, for review and comment. After July 22, four additional TCPs were 

identified through consultation with Native American Tribes. NRC is currently working with the 

interested parties to revise the draft MOA to address impacts to the visual setting of the five 

TCPs. If the MOA is finalized, and NRC approves the license application, a license condition 

could specifically require compliance with the MOA. In response to other comments and newly 

available information, Section 4.9.1 of the final SEIS has been updated to provide more details 

on the Section 106 consultation process and MOA development. Additionally, the response to 

Comment N012-007 in Section B.5.24.3 contains information about commitments that Uranerz 

has made in its license application to mitigate impacts to cultural resources. Mitigation 

measures in a license application are subject to a general license condition in ISR licenses. No 

changes to the SEIS were made beyond the information provided in this response. 
Appendix B 

B–112 

B.5.24.3 General Historic and Cultural 

Comment: N006-001 

One commenter noted that the 50-year cutoff for possible inclusion on the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) as described in the SEIS on p. 3-43 is not a hard and fast rule that 

precludes younger sites from inclusion. 

Response: This commenter is correct in that the 50-year threshold is not a hard and fast rule. 

SEIS Section 3.9.1 was revised to recognize the possible inclusion of younger sites into 

the NRHP. 

Comment: N006-002 

One commenter requested that the SEIS be revised to indicate that the Pumpkin Buttes were 

determined eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, and D, not Criteria A, B, and C. 

Response: This commenter is correct in identifying which criteria determined Pumpkin Buttes 

eligibility for the NRHP. In response to this comment, SEIS Section 3.9.2.3 was revised to 

accurately identify the appropriate criteria. 

Comment: N006-003 

One commenter requested that language in SEIS Section 4.9.1.1 be clarified to clearly state 

that for a property to be eligible as a TCP it must be eligible under one of the four criteria set for 

in 36 CFR 60.4 for NRHP eligibility. 

Response: NRC agrees with the commenter on the need to clarify the discussion on TCP 

eligibility criteria. SEIS Section 4.9.1.1 was revised to indicate that TCP eligibility is based on 

the four criteria identified in 36 CFR 60.4. 

Comment: N006-004 

One commenter suggested that the SEIS language addressing discovery situations be 

reworded to indicate that the applicant “shall” stop work upon discovery of previously 

undocumented historical or cultural resources. 

Response: NRC agrees that this statement should be revised to provide reader clarification. 

Section 4.9.1.1 has been revised accordingly. 

Comment: N006-005 

One commenter stated that the Wyoming Attorney General’s Office is not a signatory or 

participant to any agreement document for cultural and historic resource protection and 

therefore the reference to the office on this matter should be deleted. 

Response: NRC agrees with the commenter in that the Wyoming Attorney General’s Office 

would not be a signatory on a cultural and historic resource protection agreement document. In 

response to this comment, SEIS Section 4.9.1.1 was revised accordingly. 

Comments: N006-006; N012-001; N012-002; N012-003; N020-035 

Several commenters state that Uranerz cannot become a signatory to the existing PA between 

BLM and WY SHPO, because this document contains standard mitigation measures for BLM 

undertakings and that language in the SEIS indicating that Uranerz could sign the PA should be 

removed. One commenter stated that it is unclear whether the PA should serve as an MOA 

with respect to resolving adverse effects and that if so, the information presented on the PA 
 Appendix B 

B–113 

does not demonstrate that the PA satisfies 36 CFR 800.6(c) requirements pertaining to 

developing of a PA for resolution of adverse effects. One commenter suggested that the 

development of a MOA for the proposed action would be a more appropriate path to mitigate 

adverse effects to cultural resources. 

Response: NRC acknowledges Uranerz cannot become a signatory to the existing PA 

between BLM and WY SHPO. Additionally, the PA is not intended to serve the function of 

resolving adverse effects to identified cultural resources. Pertaining to the commenter 

assessment that an MOA specific to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project should be 

developed, NRC has developed a draft MOA for signature among the NRC, Uranerz, WY 

SHPO, BLM, and interested tribes as part of the Section 106 consultation process. Once 

finalized, this MOA would address mitigation to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP and other affected 

cultural resources, as appropriate. The SEIS Executive Summary, Sections 1.7, 2.4, 3.9, 3.10, 

4.9, and 4.10, and Appendix A have been revised accordingly. 

Comment: N008-009 

A commenter stated historical and cultural investigations include consultations with State and 

Federal agencies, whereas SEIS Section 3.9 only mentions tribal consultations. 

Response: NRC interactions regarding historical and cultural resources were not limited to 

tribal consultations. SEIS Sections 1.7.3, 3.9.1, and 4.9.1 address such interactions. SEIS 

Section 3.9 was revised to clarify that interactions extended beyond tribal consultations. 

Comment: N008-016 

A commenter stated archaeological sites 48CA6146, 48CA6147, and 48CA6148 are not eligible 

for NRHP listing, whereas portions of the SEIS state these three sites are eligible. This 

commenter requested SEIS Section 4.9 and Table 3-11 be updated to reflect the correct status. 

Response: The 2010 revision of the applicant’s Environmental Report (Uranerz, 2010b) 

provided updated information consistent with the NRHP eligibility status of the referenced sites 

described in this comment. SEIS Sections 3.9.2 and 4.9 were revised to reflect the updated 

eligibility status for the three sites. 

Comment: N012-004 

A commenter noted an inconsistency in the number of different types of archeological sites 

reported in SEIS Section 3.9.2 and the information presented in SEIS Table 3-10. 

Response: SEIS Section 3.9.2 was revised to provide consistent information concerning the 

numbers of the various types of archeological sites. 

Comment: N012-005 

A commenter requested SEIS Section 3.9.2.2 be revised to indicate that 5 rather than 4 Class III 

surveys have been conducted and that 25 rather than 23 archeological sites should be identified 

for the Hank Unit. 

Response: The 2010 revision of the applicant Environmental Report (Uranerz, 2010b) provided 

updated information that concurs with the information described in this comment. SEIS 

Sections 3.9.2.2 and 4.9.1.1 were revised to incorporate this updated information. 

 
Appendix B 

B–114 

Comment: N012-007 

A commenter suggested SEIS Section 4.9.1 be revised to reflect seven cultural resource 

mitigation measures identified in the Uranerz mine permit application that was submitted to 

the WDEQ. 

Response: The mitigation measures the applicant identified were submitted to NRC on 

February 24, 2010, as part of a letter responding to open issues in the safety review for the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project (Uranerz, 2010a). This letter contained revisions to the 

cultural portions of the Technical Report and Environmental Report. Uranerz Section 2.4.4 

(2010b) states Uranerz would comply with seven specific mitigation measures. Further, 

Section 2.4.4 identifies nine additional mitigation measures Uranerz would follow that have been 

adapted from the PA between BLM and WY SHPO for the Pumpkin Buttes TCP (BLM, 2009). 

Section 4.9 of the final SEIS has been updated to reflect those mitigation measures identified in 

the Technical Report and Environmental Report revisions discussed previously. 

Comment: N012-008 

A commenter suggested removing language in Section 4.10.1.1.1 regarding mitigation for 

actions outside a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the Pumpkin Buttes TCP so the SEIS is consistent with 

previous sections. These previous sections identify visual effects as being limited to an area 

within the 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the Pumpkin Buttes TCP, for which mitigation measures are 

identified in the PA between BLM and WY SHPO. 

Response: The commenter is correct in that the Programmatic Agreement (PA) between BLM 

and WY SHPO stipulate mitigation measures that must be complied with within a 3.2-km [2-mi] 

radius of the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. However, the NRC assessment of impacts to visual 

resources must account for the entire proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project site, and is therefore 

not limited to an assessment of impacts within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the Pumpkin Buttes 

TCP. Section 4.10.1 of the SEIS explains that an overall visual impact assessment for the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is contained in Section 4.10.1.1, followed by a separate 

discussion specific to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP for the Nichols Ranch and Hank Units in 

Sections 4.10.1.1.1 and 4.10.1.1.2, respectively. NRC staff acknowledges that the draft SEIS 

Section 4.10.1.1.1 does not explicitly state that mitigation in accordance with the PA would not 

apply to activities within the Nichols Ranch Unit. Additionally, draft SEIS Section 4.10.1.1.1 

implies that mitigation strategies stipulated in the PA would be applied to the Nichols Ranch 

Unit. NRC understands this statement is incorrect because compliance with the PA would only 

apply to the 3.2-km [2-mi] radius surrounding the Pumpkin Buttes TCP and would, therefore, not 

require Uranerz to perform mitigation within the Nichols Ranch Unit—only the Hank Unit. 

However, the applicant could voluntarily agree to implement these mitigation measures in the 

Nichols Ranch Unit in their license application or MOA. Section 4.10.1.1.1 of the final SEIS has 

been revised to clarify these issues. 

Comment: N020-032 

One commenter stated the transition between the GEIS (NRC, 2009) summary and SEIS 

site-specific information in SEIS Section 4.9.1.1 was abrupt and confusing. 

Response: NRC acknowledges the commenter statement. In response to this comment, SEIS 

Section 4.9.1.1 was revised to clarify that connection and create a smoother transition between 

the GEIS and SEIS information. 
 Appendix B 

B–115 

B.5.24.4 References 

36 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

Part 60, “National Register of Historic Places.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

BLM. Programmatic Agreement Between the Bureau of Land Management and Wyoming State 

Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Mitigation of Adverse Effects on the Pumpkin Buttes 

TCP from Anticipated Federal Minerals Development. ML092640122. 2009. 

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

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

Uranerz. Letter from M. Thomas, Environmental, Safety, and Health Manager, Uranerz Energy 

Corporation, to R. Linton, Project Manager, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: 

Responses to the Open Issues to the Safety Evaluation Report for the Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project License Application. ML100740143. February 24, 2010a. 

Uranerz. Nichols Ranch ISR Project USNRC Source Material License Application. 

Technical Report. Casper, Wyoming. Revisions submitted February 2010b. ML100740131. 

2010b. 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. Casper, 

Wyoming: 2007. 

B.5.25 Visual and Scenic Resources 

Comment: N007-013 

One commenter suggested all electrical lines from power drops to individual wells 

(excluding primary delivery lines) should be buried to reduce impacts to visual resources. 

Response: Although NRC recognizes that burying additional electrical lines could mitigate 

environmental impacts, NRC cannot require additional electrical lines to be buried. BMPs, 

mitigation measures, and management actions that avoid or reduce environmental impacts can 

be imposed through license conditions on the NRC license; however, NRC can only establish 

license conditions within the limits of the authority Congress granted. The SEIS can only 

specify mitigation that either (i) the applicant has committed to in its license application to the 

NRC; (ii) would be required under other State or Federal permits or processes; or (iii) could 

potentially reduce environmental impacts, but Uranerz did not commit to in its application; or 

(iv) is not required as a part of any other Federal or State permit. As stated in 

Section 4.10.1.1.2, electrical lines within 1.6 km [1.0 mi] of the base of the Pumpkin Buttes TCP 

would be buried in accordance with the PA between BLM and WY SHPO to mitigate adverse 

effects to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. This requirement would be imposed upon the proposed 
Appendix B 

B–116 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project (specifically at the Hank Unit) as a requirement of applicable permits 

obtained from BLM. No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in 

this response. 

B.5.26 Socioeconomics 

Comment: N013-094 

One commenter stated the socioeconomic discussion in the SEIS was much better than what 

was presented in the GEIS (NRC, 2009). 

Response: The NRC acknowledges the comment is the expressed opinion of the commenter. 

Because the comment was general in nature, no changes were made to the SEIS. 

Comment: N013-095 

One commenter requested the final SEIS include a detailed discussion on taxes and royalties. 

Response: SEIS Section 7.3 and GEIS (NRC, 2009) Sections 4.3.10.1, 4.4.10.1, and 4.5.10.1 

discuss royalty information. The SEIS tiers and incorporates by reference relevant information 

from the GEIS. The GEIS sections noted above describe how local finance would be affected 

by ISR construction through additional taxation and the purchase of goods and services. It also 

provides information regarding how taxes are imposed on mineral extraction within the State of 

Wyoming. SEIS Section 3.11.5 discusses the Wyoming ad valorem tax and Section 7.3 

discusses the Wyoming severance tax. SEIS Section 3.11.5 was revised to provide information 

concerning uranium extraction contribution to the severance tax relative to other resources such 

as natural gas, coal, and oil. 

Comments: N018-009; N018-010 

One commenter expressed concern about the study area splits for the two mining districts in 

Wyoming and believed the socioeconomic data are questionable because these data are 

traditionally collected by political subdivisions that are not congruent or coincidental with the 

mining districts analyzed in the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS. 

Response: The delineation of the study areas in the GEIS (NRC, 2009) and subsequently 

observed in site-specific environmental reviews were established based on the location of both 

former and existing uranium milling sites and the location of potential new sites, based on where 

the uranium recovery industry has indicated it would use the ISR technology to develop uranium 

deposits. NRC also considered the location of historical uranium deposits when determining 

how to establish mining district boundaries. 

The SEIS uses a Region of Influence (ROI) limited to the proposed project area (Campbell and 

Johnson Counties) where the most of the ISR facility workers would live. Socioeconomic data 

pertaining to the counties in the GEIS and the SEIS were both derived from U.S. Census 

Bureau and State agency data, resources that typically standardize their collection methods. 

The commenter is correct that socioeconomic data are traditionally collected by political 

subdivisions that are not necessarily congruent with the mining districts defined in the GEIS. 

However, because the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is located in a sparsely populated 

area, census geographic units cover much larger areas. No change was made to the Nichols 

Ranch ISR SEIS in response to this comment. 

 
 Appendix B 

B–117 

Comment: N018-011 

One commenter expressed concern that the socioeconomic analysis used 10-year-old 

U.S. Census Bureau data. 

Response: The GEIS (NRC, 2009) used 2000 U.S. Census Bureau data, which are based on 

the actual count. SEIS Sections 3.11 and 4.11 use the latest U.S. Census Bureau American 

Community Survey estimates, which are based on sample data collected over a 3-year time 

period. The estimates represent the average characteristics of population and housing, 

including 2010 U.S Census Bureau information. Because the SEIS provided updated 

socioeconomic data, no changes were made to the SEIS.

B.5.26.1 Reference 

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

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

B.5.27 Public and Occupational Health 

B.5.27.1 Impacts to Members of the General Public 

Comment: N008-020 

The applicant stated that the existence of new access roads built for the proposed project would 

not lead to a greater opportunity for public access after decommissioning and, therefore, would 

not result in a potential increase in public exposure to any residual radioactivity, because the 

proposed project area is located almost entirely on private land and only accessible through 

private land. 

Response: NRC acknowledges the current status of the private land and access the 

commenter described. However, NRC would classify the private landowner, and anyone 

permitted to access the area by that landowner, as members of the public. Therefore, some 

portion of the public would have a greater opportunity to access areas where project activities 

were conducted. 

To ensure the safety of the workers and the public during decommissioning, NRC requires 

licensed facilities to submit a decommissioning plan for review. The plan would include details 

of the radiation safety program that would be implemented during decommissioning to ensure 

that the public would be adequately protected and that their doses are compliant with 10 CFR 

Part 20, Subpart C and Subpart D limits. The decommissioning of the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project and any subsequent NRC approval for release of the site for unrestricted access 

would have to be in conformance with the NRC radiation protection standards for 

decommissioning of uranium recovery facilities. Therefore, any potential radiation dose to 

members of the public would also be in conformance with standards established for protecting 

public health and safety. 

Comment: N015-027 

One commenter that requested the SEIS include an analysis for the potential use of evaporation 

ponds and further requested that this analysis include radon emission estimates and 

comparison to applicable CAA requirements, which could be significant. 

Response: The draft SEIS did not evaluate the use of evaporation ponds, because evaporation 

ponds were not included in the applicant proposal and that proposal was the focus of the NRC 
Appendix B 

B–118 

staff environmental review. However, in response to this and other comments, additional 

information was provided in SEIS Sections 2.1.1.2 and 4.14.1.2 to discuss and evaluate 

potential environmental impacts of options for liquid wastewater disposal that were not proposed 

by the applicant. That evaluation of wastewater disposal options includes consideration of the 

use of evaporation ponds and how the potential environmental impacts compare with the 

applicant proposal and other liquid waste management options. The waste management 

options are discussed at a general level of detail with regard to radon emissions because there 

are various implementation options that an applicant could present that would affect the amount 

of radon emitted from a specific proposal. Additional information is discussed in the following 

paragraphs to address the commenter concern that radon emissions from evaporation ponds, if 

used in a modified proposed action, could lead to significant environmental impacts. 

The amount of radon that might be emitted if an evaporation pond or ponds were added to the 

current Nichols Ranch ISR Project can be approximated from radon emissions information 

provided in the applicant proposal (Uranerz, 2007). To calculate the emission estimates, the 

applicant used NRC accepted methods (NRC, 1987) to estimate the annual activity of radon 

that would be transferred to production fluids from the decay of radium in the ore body. This 

approach considered variables such as the average production flow rate (i.e., the amount of 

lixiviant that would be circulated annually through the ore body and pumped to the surface) and 

the radium content of the ore body. Assuming the radon is in secular equilibrium with the 

radium in the ore body and all radon in the pumped lixiviant were allowed to escape to the open 

air, the highest annual radon-222 emissions approximately 28 TBq/yr [755 Ci/yr] for the 

combined operations of Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit wellfields. 

The amount of this potential total annual radon emission that could be released from an 

evaporation pond would be proportional to the amount of lixiviant (and, therefore, dissolved 

radium) that is diverted from the processing circuit as process bleed (1.0 percent of the 

production flow rate from the applicant proposal) or approximately 0.28 TBq/yr [7.6 Ci/yr]. 

The highest dose at the site boundary for the Nichols Ranch Unit is 0.04 mSv (4 mrem) per year 

total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) at the west boundary, which is 4 percent of the 1 mSv 

(100 mrem) per year dose limit for a member of the public as specified in 10 CFR 20.1301. For 

the Hank Unit, the highest dose at the site boundary is 0.11 mSv (11 mrem) per year TEDE at 

the east boundary, which is 11 percent of the 1 mSv (100 mrem) per year public dose limit. The 

maximum exposed nearby resident (Pumpkin Butte Ranch) located approximately 2 km [1 mi] 

east of the proposed Hank Unit is calculated to be 0.01 mSv (1 mrem) per year, which is 1 

percent of the 1 mSv (100 mrem) per year regulatory limit. The NRC staff considers this 

calculation sufficient to demonstrate that potential public health impacts from radon releases 

would be small, and additional analyses or comparisons with other regulatory requirements are 

not necessary to support this conclusion. A licensed facility would also be required to have an 

NRC-approved environmental monitoring program for radon emissions in place that would 

report measured radon values to NRC for review on a semi-annual basis. Annual NRC 

inspections would also verify that applicant safety programs are compliant with NRC regulations 

in 10 CFR Part 20 and any conditions of their license, thereby providing additional confidence 

that the facility would be operated safely and within the bounds described in the 

applicant’s proposal. 

Radon emissions associated with the applicant’s proposal are evaluated in SEIS 

Sections 4.13.1.2.1. The use of evaporation ponds is presently not part of the applicant’s 

proposal for Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Should the applicant decide in the future to change its 

proposed approach to wastewater management, it would be required by NRC to amend its 
 Appendix B 

B–119 

proposal and that amendment would be reviewed for potential environmental impacts as well as 

for compliance with NRC safety requirements. 

B.5.27.2 Impacts from Off-Normal Operations or Accidents 

Comment: N020-006 

One commenter stated the consequences of failure should follow procedures based on 

occupational health and safety impacts, premised on the handling and storage procedures 

being followed. 

Response: This comment was written based on the summary provided in the Executive 

Summary. Analysis and discussion of procedures used in normal operations and accident 

conditions are provided in SEIS Sections 4.13.1.2.2 and 4.13.1.2.4, as well as its reference to 

GEIS Sections 4.3.11.2.2 and 4.3.11.2.4 (NRC, 2009). Because this analysis was already 

included, no changes were made to the SEIS. 

B.5.27.3 General 

Comment: N014-020 

One commenter suggested the SEIS should be more specific as to the technologies and 

processes employed at ISR facilities that provide additional protection of public and 

occupational health and safety. The specific examples the commenter cited include downflow 

ion-change columns and vacuum dryers, which provide additional protections by limiting or 

eliminating potential public and worker exposure to radon gas and yellowcake dust. 

Response: These types of equipment are discussed in the SEIS as well as the GEIS 

(NRC, 2009) and are part of the analysis in which the radiological impacts to the public and 

workers are evaluated as SMALL. Because these topics are already addressed, no changes 

were made to the SEIS. 

Comment: N014-022 

One commenter suggested the NRC staff discussion of radiation protection issues should 

reference comparisons of potential radiation dose to natural background levels and should not 

be limited to comparison to NRC dose limits. 

Response: Because NRC dose limits are well below natural background levels of radiation, a 

comparison of public dose from an ISR facility that is generally well below dose limits would be 

even further below natural background levels of radiation. The public generally perceives a 

marked difference from radiation exposure from man-made sources than that from natural 

background radiation levels. NRC requires that worker and public radiation doses be quantified 

as effective dose equivalent in mrem per year, which is intended to normalize doses by the 

expected health risk. This is achieved for different types of radiation and different body tissues 

by using weighting factors for radiation (alpha, beta, gamma, neutrons) and for body tissues 

(bone marrow, reproductive organs, lens of the eyes) to convert the radiation absorbed by a 

person to a common scale (in units of mrem) for determining compliance with NRC radiation 

protection requirements and for assessing the potential for harm or detriment. When this 

method is used, if a person is exposed to the same dose from background radiation or from 

releases from ISR facilities, there is no difference in the expected health effects. NRC staff 

understands that members of the public can perceive involuntary man-made risks as more 

hazardous than voluntary natural risks. Because the SEIS discussion is considered 
Appendix B 

B–120 

appropriate, no changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in 

this response. 

B.5.27.4 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

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

NRC. Methods for Estimating Radioactive and Toxic Airborne Source Terms for Uranium Milling 

Operations, Regulatory Guide 3.59, Washington, D.C., March 1987. 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. Casper, 

Wyoming: 2007. 

B.5.28 Waste Management 

B.5.28.1 General Waste Management Comments 

Comments: N013-073; N015-003; N015-013 

Two commenters stated the SEIS waste disposal impact analysis was limited and should be 

improved. One commenter stated the potential impact analyses should discuss (i) treatment of 

the liquid effluent stream to applicable Wyoming Groundwater Class of Use standards prior to 

injection or discharge; (ii) evaluation of radioactive contaminant removal; (iii) arrangements for 

offsite commercial, licensed land disposal of the treatment residue; (iv) use of evaporation 

ponds with double liners and leak detection systems; and (v) costs to remove other potentially 

harmful nonradiological constituents before injection. 

Response: The waste disposal impact analyses in the SEIS have been revised in several 

areas. SEIS Section 2.2.1.3.2 was revised to provide estimates of liquid effluent generated 

during operations from the proposed project. Section 4.5.2.1.1 has been modified to clarify that 

appropriate permits are required for all surface discharges, including those in ephemeral 

drainages. Section 3.13.1 was modified to indicate that the projected life of the Campbell 

County landfill is at least 30 years. Section 3.13.3 was revised to indicate that the applicant 

would have to handle and dispose of hazardous wastes, including used oil and spent batteries, 

in accordance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations. Section 2.2.1.6.3 was 

revised to include conditionally exempt small-quantities-generator requirements and the 

consequences if the site fails to meet the requirements. Responses to comments on waste 

management that did not result in SEIS revisions are located throughout this SEIS Appendix, 

specifically in Section B.5.32. 

Comment: N018-034 

One commenter asked whether soils and other media contaminated by spills and other releases 

would be transported to solid waste disposal or treatment facilities in Wyoming. 
 Appendix B 

B–121 

Response: NRC noted in SEIS Section 4.14 that ISR facilities generate radiologically 

contaminated wastes, including contaminated soils, structures, and liquids that are classified as 

byproduct material. NRC requires an ISR facility to have an agreement in place with a licensed 

disposal facility to accept byproduct material before ISR operations begin. The existing facilities 

that NRC licensed to accept byproduct material for disposal are the Pathfinder-Shirley Basin 

uranium mill tailings impoundment in Mills, Wyoming, and the Rio Algom Ambrosia Lake 

uranium mill tailings impoundments near Grants, New Mexico. Additionally, two sites in Utah 

and one in Texas are licensed by NRC Agreement States to accept byproduct material for 

disposal. Because the information provided in the SEIS about the disposal of contaminated 

materials generated by the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is sufficient to support the 

evaluation of environmental impacts, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to 

this comment. 

Comments: N018-035; N018-036; N018-037; N018-039; N018-040 

One commenter indicated that only estimates of solid wastes for the operations phase are 

provided and estimates for all phases are needed to determine whether adequate landfill 

capacity exists. The commenter further stated that waste volume estimates should include an 

allowance for unknown quantities, such as contaminated soil resulting from spills. The 

commenter also stated that landfill operators should be contacted to verify the landfills can 

handle the projected waste volumes from the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR project. 

Response: As stated in Sections 2.2.1.6.3, 3.13.2, and 4.14, the proposed operations would 

annually generate (for an estimated 8 years) approximately 540 to 770 m3

 [700 to 1,000 yd3] 

and decommissioning activities would cumulatively generate (over a 5-year period) 

approximately 941 m3

 [1,230 yd3] plus 2,074 t [2,288 T] of nonhazardous solid waste 

[i.e., nonradioactive solid waste (general trash), construction and demolition debris, or byproduct 

material that complies with NRC unrestricted release limits]. The total amount of nonhazardous 

solid waste that would be generated by all phases of the proposed project would be about 

7,957 m3

 [10,400 yd3] as stated in Section 5.14. The applicant has proposed disposing of 

nonhazardous solid wastes in a sanitary landfill located near Gillette, which is approximately 

74 km [46 mi] north-northeast of the proposed project site. The NRC staff spoke a 

representative of the Campbell County Landfill, which is located in Gillette, Wyoming. The 

landfill is well below capacity, with a new cell under construction and planned, respectively, for 

municipal waste and for construction and demolition waste. The landfill can continue to receive 

solid and construction/demolition wastes at its present rate (over 100 tons per day) for 

approximately 30 years (CCPW, 2009, 2010). The discussion in SEIS section 3.13.2 has been 

modified to address the landfill's available capacity. 

If soils, construction material, piping, or other media become contaminated with byproduct 

material, then that media would be handled, stored, and disposed of in the same manner as 

byproduct material and would not be handled by the Campbell County Landfill. Sections 

2.2.1.6.3 and 5.14 contain estimates of contaminated soils and materials. Because the 

information provided in the SEIS about the disposal of contaminated materials generated by the 

proposed action is sufficient to support the evaluation of environmental impacts, no changes 

were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. 

Comments: N018-054; N018-055; N018-060; N018-061; N018-068 

One commenter identified specific portions of the SEIS they wanted revised in response to the 

following comments they provided: N018-035, N018-036, N018-039, N018-046, N018-047, 

N018-048, N018-049, and N018-050. 
Appendix B 

B–122 

Response: Comments identifying portions of the SEIS to revise in response to other comments 

do not require a response here, other than to indicate that they have been addressed in the 

following comment responses: N018-035, N018-036, N018-039, N018 046, N018-047, 

N018-048, N018-049, and N018-050. 

Comment: N018-062 

One commenter stated that the SEIS did not clearly state whether construction and demolition 

wastes from the site would be disposed of in the Campbell County Landfill. 

Response: SEIS Section 3.13.1 regarding the disposal of construction and demolition wastes 

was revised to clarify that construction and demolition waste would be disposed of at the 

Campbell County Landfill. 

Comment: N018-063 

One commenter stated WDEQ does not approve hazardous waste disposal facilities and 

transportation, whereas SEIS Section 3.13.1 states WDEQ does perform those functions. 

Response: NRC staff agrees with this comment. SEIS Section 3.13.3 was revised accordingly. 

B.5.28.2 Scope of the Assessment of Waste Management Impacts 

Comment: N015-011 

One commenter stated the wastewater analysis is not accurate, because volumes and disposal 

methods for liquid wastes other than bleed water and elution circuit bleed are not included. 

Response: SEIS Section 2.2.1.3.2 provides estimates of liquid effluent generated during 

operations of the proposed project. The estimates of production bleed are 150 Lpm [40 gpm] 

for the Hank Unit and 280 Lpm [75 gpm] for the Nichols Ranch Unit. For both operational units, 

the applicant estimates 3.8 to 7.6 Lpm [1 to 2 gpm] of miscellaneous plant wastewater that 

includes liquids from process drains, well development water, pumping test water, elution circuit 

bleed, and washdown water. Groundwater restoration discharge would contribute an estimated 

83 to 340 Lpm [22 to 90 gpm]. SEIS Section 2.2.1.3.2 was revised to include these 

groundwater restoration liquid effluent estimates. 

Comment: N020-005 

One commenter wanted to know how waste management impacts were quantified or what 

thresholds were designated for the impacts classifications. 

Response: SEIS Section 4.14 discusses waste management impacts. NRC did not designate 

quantitative thresholds for the various impact classifications. In the SEIS, impacts were often 

assessed in terms of the capacity or availability of treatment or disposal facilities. SEIS 

Sections 2.2.1.6 and 3.12 discuss the expected amounts of various wastes the proposed action 

generated. Because the SEIS discussion is considered appropriate, no changes were made to 

the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

B.5.28.3 Characteristics of Wastes Generated by ISR 

Comment: N014-014 

One commenter stated that the discussion of waste management should be revised to clarify 

the differences between byproduct material and other wastes. 
 Appendix B 

B–123 

Response: The NRC staff agrees that the discussion of waste management should clearly 

distinguish between byproduct materials and non-byproduct wastes. SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6 

has been restructured to discuss wastes generated at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

in four categories: (i) liquid byproduct material; (ii) other liquid wastes; (iii) solid byproduct 

materials; and (iv) other solid wastes. Sections 3.13 and 4.14 of the SEIS have also been 

revised to distinguish byproduct materials from other wastes. 

Comment: N020-004 

A commenter requested clarification of the term “other solid wastes” and noted that some 

construction materials, such as organic solvents, paints, used oil, and paint thinners, may be 

classified as hazardous wastes subject to regulation under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA). 

Response: The Executive Summary and Sections 2.2.1.6 and 3.13 of the final SEIS have been 

modified to more clearly describe waste generation and disposal during the construction phase 

of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

B.5.28.4 Waste Treatment and Disposal Methods 

Comments: N015-007; N015-008; N015-009; N015-012; N013-077; N013-079 

One commenter expressed concern over the deep well disposal of liquid wastes because of the 

wastewater composition (radioactive and nonradioactive components) and potential impacts to 

the receiving strata and other USDW. Another commenter was concerned that the disposal 

wells may not have the capacity to handle all wastewaters produced that are intended for 

disposal via well injection. This commenter also wanted to know what would happen to the 

waste in a failed well. 

Response: The applicant has identified deep well disposal as its preferred liquid waste 

disposal option. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) grants EPA the primary authority to 

regulate underground injection and protect current and future sources of drinking water. EPA 

implements this responsibility through its UIC program. EPA has authorized the State of 

Wyoming to administer the UIC programs in accordance with EPA regulations. The applicant 

has submitted an application for a permit for up to eight Class I UIC wells, and this permit 

must be in place before any NRC-licensed uranium ISR facility can begin operations. The 

permit application is available for viewing through the WDEQ's web site 

(see https://gem.trihydro.com/default.aspx). For WDEQ to issue a UIC permit, no exposure 

pathway can exist through drinking water. The UIC review process verifies that the injected 

fluids are isolated from the accessible environment, including potential sources of drinking 

water. The terms of the UIC permit would dictate the concentrations of components (radioactive 

and nonradioactive) and injection rates allowable for the proposed well. If the applicant is 

unable to obtain a Class I UIC permit, an amendment to its NRC license application would be 

required to accommodate another disposal method. NRC would conduct a full safety and 

environmental review and offer a hearing opportunity for any proposed license amendment. 

The applicant’s application for a Class I UIC permit, which can be viewed through the WDEQ's 

website, describes well design, controls, and monitoring in more detail. Among the measures 

the application describes are the following: mechanical integrity would be demonstrated before 

subsurface injection begins, and at least once every five years thereafter during the life of the 

well. A specific and detailed procedure for mechanical integrity testing would be submitted to 

the WDEQ for approval prior to conducting the initial test, and the results of that test would be 

submitted and approved before subsurface injection could begin. Further, Uranerz would 
Appendix B 

B–124 

monitor and continuously record the injection rate. Continuous pressure monitors would be 

installed on the injection tubing and on the well annulus, and any leakage in either the casing or 

the tubing would cause the well to be shut down automatically. Useable water quality in the 

area would be monitored by the required wellfield monitor wells associated with the ISR 

operations. Uranerz would submit quarterly reports and annual reports to WDEQ. The annual 

report would discuss any significant events for the year, such as mechanical integrity tests, and 

any noncompliance with permit conditions (Uranerz, 2010). 

Failures of Class 1 injection wells are rare as concluded by EPA in a report on the risks 

associated with Class 1 underground injection wells (EPA, 2001). The report includes detailed 

discussions of the technology, regulatory oversight, potential failures, and associated risks of 

Class 1 injection wells. Considering operational performance data, EPA noted that most failures 

of well mechanical integrity are internal failures, detected by continuous annulus monitoring 

systems or the aforementioned mechanical integrity tests, and the wells are shut in until they 

are repaired. EPA’s study of more than 500 Class I nonhazardous and hazardous wells showed 

that loss of mechanical integrity contributed to only 4 cases of significant wastewater migration 

(none of which affected a drinking water source) over several decades of operation. EPA 

attributed this performance to the rigorous requirements for monitoring and for ensuring that the 

well materials are compatible with the wastewater injected. EPA further notes the inclusion of 

redundant safety systems in Class 1 wells requires that multiple systems fail without detection 

before well failure occurs. Should a failure occur, the approved geology of the injection and 

confining zones would limit the movement of wastewaters so that nearby underground sources 

of drinking water would be protected. The information in the EPA study and the preceding 

discussion in this comment response support the NRC practice whereby satisfactory completion 

of the WDEQ permitting process prior to starting operations and compliance with all NRC 

license conditions are sufficient to conclude the proposed deep disposal wells would not impact 

underground sources of drinking water. 

The text in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 was modified to indicate the applicant's permit application 

status for the Class I deep disposal wells. 

Comment: N013-078 

One commenter indicated preference for deep well injection over evaporation ponds or land 

application as a waste water disposal option. 

Response: Because the comment was general in nature, no changes were made to the SEIS. 

Comments: N013-074; N013-075; N018-047; N018-048; N018-049; N018-051; N018-052; 

N018-058; N018-065; N018-066; N018-067; N018-069; N018-070; N018-072; N018-073; 

N018-074 

Commenters indicated that, to adequately assess waste management impacts, the SEIS needs 

to describe the volume of solid radioactive byproduct material generated, including 

decommissioning wastes and wastes resulting from spill or other releases, and the capacity of 

the solid radioactive byproduct material disposal sites being considered. One commenter also 

stated that byproduct materials must not be hazardous to be acceptable for disposal at the 

Pathfinder Mines disposal site in Carbon County, Wyoming. 

Response: NRC has expanded the discussions in Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5 to include more 

information about the types of wastes generated, including decommissioning wastes (which 

includes an estimate for contaminated soils). The discussion of solid waste management in 

SEIS Section 2.2.1.6.3 identifies three potential NRC-licensed facilities for the disposal of 
 Appendix B 

B–125 

(radioactive) byproduct material (Pathfinder-Shirley Basin in Mills, Wyoming; Energy Solutions 

in Clive, Utah; White Mesa in Blanding, Utah). In addition, discussion of waste management 

impacts in the SEIS indicates that NRC requires applicants to have a radioactive byproduct 

material disposal agreement in place prior to operations. The applicant has not yet developed 

an agreement with a licensed disposal site, but the NRC requirement to have an agreement in 

place is reflected in a license condition for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Such an 

agreement would account for radioactive byproduct material generated throughout the life of the 

project, including decommissioning. Considering the disposal options currently available and 

the NRC’s requirement for a disposal agreement, the NRC staff concludes that the potential 

waste management impacts associated with the generation of byproduct material would be 

SMALL. The environmental impacts of disposing a specified amount of byproduct material at 

any potential byproduct material disposal facility would be covered in the environmental impact 

statement or environmental assessment as part of licensing that disposal facility. Section 5.14 

states that the cumulative impacts of disposing of solid byproduct material from several ISR 

facilities would be SMALL, and this conclusion is based on the existence of several available 

disposal sites, as well as the NRC’s requirement for the applicant to have an agreement in place 

with a disposal site. No modifications have been made to the SEIS beyond this comment 

response. 

Comment: N018-064 

One commenter suggested that the Campbell County Landfill operator should be contacted to 

determine whether used oil or spent batteries can be managed at that site. 

Response: The applicant would need to comply with Wyoming regulations in handling 

hazardous wastes such as used oil and car batteries. The Campbell County Landfill’s Recycling 

Center accepts used oil and car batteries, as well as other hazardous wastes. The SEIS text in 

Sections 2.2.1.6.3, 3.13.2, and 4.14.1.1.2 has been modified to include additional information 

concerning hazardous waste disposal. 

Comment: N020-013 

One commenter mentioned that evaporation ponds used for storage of byproduct material are 

considered a source of radon and subject to requirements of 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W, and 

approval of construction is required under 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart A. These requirements 

should be included in the SEIS if evaporation ponds are included. 

Response: The applicant is not proposing to use evaporation ponds. However, the staff has 

included a discussion of evaporation ponds and associated requirements as an alternative 

wastewater disposal option under the proposed action in Section 2.2.2.1 of the SEIS. 

Comments: N020-016; N020-017 

One commenter wanted to know the basis for the apparent conclusion that spent resin, pipes 

and fittings, tank sediments, and some types of domestic trash (e.g., oil, batteries) would be 

considered nonhazardous wastes. This commenter also stated empty chemical containers 

must be cleaned to dispose of them as nonhazardous waste. 

Response: Under WDEQ regulations that implement the RCRA hazardous waste program, 

the applicant is responsible for identifying and properly managing any hazardous wastes it 

generates as part of its proposed activities. The applicant would need to manage and dispose 

of any hazardous wastes, such as organic solvents, paints, used oil, paint thinners, empty 

chemical containers, tank sediments/sludges, chemical wastes, and spent batteries, in 

accordance with local, State, and Federal regulatory requirements. The NRC staff modified text 
Appendix B 

B–126 

in SEIS Sections 2.2.1.6.3, 3.13.2, and 4.14.1.1.2 to clarify the discussion of hazardous waste 

types. 

Comment: N020-021 

One commenter expressed concern over the lack of detail about the target formations for the 

proposed Class I deep disposal wells. 

Response: In September 2010, the applicant submitted a permit application for eight Class I 

wells to be drilled (four each in the Nichols Ranch Unit and in the Hank Unit) for the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project, depending on the production rates and the capacity of each deep 

disposal well. The application states that the fluid would be injected in the Cretaceous Teckla, 

Teapot, and Parkman sandstones at depths of approximately 2,326 to 2,652 m [7,630 to 

8,700 ft] below ground surface at the Nichols Ranch Unit and depths of approximately 2,360 to 

2,652 m [7,740 to 8,700 ft] below ground surface at the Hank Unit. Relevant text in Chapters 2, 

3, and 4 was modified to include this new information.

B.5.28.5 Regulation of Wastes and Disposal Methods 

Comment: N008-011 

A commenter stated that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are 

not required for deep disposal wells, whereas Section 3.13.3 in the SEIS states these permits 

are required. 

Response: NRC agrees with the comment. SEIS Section 3.13.3 was revised to accurately 

identify appropriate permit information. 

Comments: N018-041; N018-044; N018-045; N018-059 

One commenter expressed concern that the proposed handling and disposal of hazardous 

wastes is not consistent with pertinent local, state, and federal regulations. The commenter also 

indicated that regulate used oil storage and spent battery generation and disposal the State of 

Wyoming, which may require a permit. 

Response: The NRC staff modified text in SEIS Sections 2.2.1.6.3, 3.13.2, and 4.14.1.1.2 to 

include more detail on the types of wastes generated by the proposed project and the need for 

compliance with pertinent State and Federal regulations governing hazardous waste handling 

and disposal. 

Comments: N018-042; N018-043 

One commenter noted that the Wyoming Solid Waste Program encourages applicants to 

consider developing onsite recycling plans during the construction, operation, restoration, and 

decommissioning phases of facilities. This commenter also noted that a solid waste permit may 

be required depending on the volume and location of solid waste accumulated onsite before 

transportation to a disposal facility. 

Response: SEIS Section 1.6.2, as well as relevant sections in Chapters 2, 3, and, 4 explain 

that, in addition to the NRC license, ISR facilities must obtain permits or authorizations from 

Federal, Tribal, and State agencies for activities requiring permission from regulatory 

authorities. Because the SEIS discussions are considered appropriate, no changes were made 

to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

 
 Appendix B 

B–127 

Comments: N018-046; N018-056 

One commenter expressed concern that the SEIS contains no references to the role the State 

of Wyoming plays in authorizing byproduct material disposal facilities and that the byproduct 

material waste is defined as solid waste by Wyoming statute and subject to the State 

regulatory requirements. 

Response: Concerning the definition of byproduct material as “solid waste” and the State of 

Wyoming regulatory authority thereof, the NRC agrees that such waste would be subject to 

Wyoming solid waste regulations if it meets NRC criteria for unrestricted release. However, 

NRC regulates byproduct material (i.e., waste that does not meet NRC criteria for unrestricted 

release) under 10 CFR Part 40. This is not “solid waste” according to 40 CFR 261.4(a)4. 

Because Wyoming is a nonagreement state, NRC retains jurisdiction over byproduct material. 

However, a discussion of construction and authorization of additional byproduct material 

disposal facilities goes beyond the scope of this document. No modifications of the SEIS have 

been made beyond this response. 

Comment: N020-018 

One commenter expressed concern that the SEIS discussion of conditionally exempt small 

quantity generator (CESQG) did not fully explain the requirements for this exemption or the 

consequences if the site fails to meet the requirements. 

Response: SEIS Section 2.2.1.6.3 was revised to better explain the types and quantities of 

solid wastes, including hazardous wastes, that would be generated at the proposed site and to 

describe the requirements for CESQGs. As discussed in that section, if the facility fails to meet 

the requirements, it would lose its conditionally exempt status and be fully regulated as either a 

small-quantity generator or a large-quantity generator. 

Comment: N020-019 

One commenter stated the ISR facility may be subject to the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act and Toxic Substances Control Act and requested that the SEIS 

discuss the extent to which the ISR facility would comply with these regulations. 

Response: SEIS Section 4.13.1.2.3 identifies the primary regulations applicable to the use and 

storage of chemicals and includes the topics the commenter mentioned. NRC, though not the 

regulatory authority for either of these laws, expects its licensees to comply fully with these and 

all other applicable regulations. SEIS Sections 1.5 and 1.6 discuss the role of other Federal, 

Tribal, State, and local agencies in regulating and permitting an ISR facility. Because the SEIS 

discussion is considered appropriate, no changes were made to the SEIS beyond the 

information provided in this response. 

B.5.28.6 References 

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

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

40 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, 

“National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS).” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 
Appendix B 

B–128 

40 CFR Part 144. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 144, “Underground Injection Control Program.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 

40 CFR Part 261. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 261, “Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

CCPW. Memo to file from C. Pineda, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Summary of 

Teleconference with Mark Swan, Environmental Services Manager, Campbell County Public 

Works, Concerning Landfill Capacity for the Proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project." 

ML102600569. Gillette, Wyoming: Campbell County Department of Public Works. 

September 17, 2010. 

CCPW. E-mail from M. Swan, Environmental Services Manager, Campbell County Public 

Works to I. Yu, Project Manager, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs. “Campbell County Landfill Information.” ML092710186. Gillette, 

Wyoming: Campbell County Department of Public Works. September 18, 2009. 

EPA. “Class 1 Underground Injection Control Program: Study of the Risks Associated with 

Class 1 Underground Injection Wells.” EPA 816-R-01-007. Washington, DC: EPA. March 

2001. 

Uranerz. "Nichols Ranch ISR Project Application For Wyoming Underground Injection Control 

Permit For Class I Non-Hazardous Injection Wells," Casper, Wyoming. Prepared by 

Hydro-Engineering, LLC & Lyn George (Consulting Geologist), September, 2010. Available at 

WDEQ's web site: https://gem.trihydro.com/default.aspx (accessed 27 September 2010). 2010.

B.5.29 Cumulative Effects 

B.5.29.1 General Comment: The SEIS Does Not Adequately Address 

Cumulative Effects 

Comments: N001-003; N002-003; N011-055; N011-061; N013-038; N013-041; N017-032 

Several commenters expressed concern that the draft SEIS did not adequately address 

cumulative effects. For example, several commenters noted the SEIS listed of other EISs 

different agencies prepared, but with no associated meaningful analysis. Two commenters 

stated there was not enough time to meaningfully evaluate the cumulative impact analysis 

during the public comment period on the draft SEIS because that analysis referenced 

environmental reviews other Federal agencies were performing and the commenter needed 

more time to review to review supporting documents. Other commenters expressed concern 

that cumulative impacts were presented as conclusory statements with an inadequate basis. 

Another commenter expressed concern that the SEIS considered only Federal actions in the 

analysis of cumulative impacts. Finally, commenter noted that because certain actions 

(i.e., CBM operations) would be occurring in the same geographic area as certain proposed ISR 

projects, serious and transparent agency consultation should occur. 

Response: The discussion of cumulative impacts in Chapter 5 of the final SEIS for the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project was revised in response to public comments. The NRC 

staff believes that the information presented in Chapter 5 of the SEIS is valid and relevant to the 
 Appendix B 

B–129 

assessment of potential cumulative effects. The cumulative impact analysis was based on 

publicly available information on existing and proposed projects, information from the GEIS 

(NRC, 2009), general knowledge of the conditions in Wyoming and in the nearby communities, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions that could occur by resource area. Because the primary 

activities in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are mineral mining (including 

CBM, conventional, and coal; see SEIS Figure 5-2) and oil and gas development, the analysis 

focused on these activities; however, the analysis also considered information contained in 

GEIS Tables 5.2-4 and 5.2-5., which identify other activities occurring within the Powder River 

Basin. 

The cumulative impacts analysis was revised to clearly define the geographic scope for the 

analysis of each resource area, the timeframe considered in the analysis, and the cumulative 

impact on the various resource areas from both federal and private actions. Section B.5.13 of 

this comment-response appendix discusses the extension of the public comment period in 

response to public comments. 

Comments: N011-046; N011-048; N011-052; N011-053; N011-054 

Several commenters expressed concern that the cumulative effects analysis presented in the 

GEIS (NRC, 2009) was inadequate and used to constrain the scope of the cumulative effects 

analysis in the SEIS. For example, one commenter noted the SEIS does not consider the 

cumulative impacts of past uranium mining and milling combined with the current proposed 

project. One commenter noted that the GEIS deferred conclusions on the potential cumulative 

impacts to the site-specific SEIS. Because the site-specific cumulative effects analysis 

presented in the SEIS is based heavily on information presented in the GEIS, the 

commenter concluded the SEIS does not address the NEPA requirements with respect to 

cumulative impacts. 

Response: The relationship between the GEIS and the site-specific supplemental EISs is 

described in SEIS Section 1.4.1. GEIS Section 5.4 discusses approaches for conducting a 

site-specific cumulative effects analysis and provides tables of other activities or projects 

occurring in each geographic region. The cumulative impacts analysis in the SEIS considered 

the how the impacts from the proposed Nichols Ranch Project could contribute to cumulative 

impacts when its impacts overlap those of other past (e.g., past uranium mining and milling 

projects), present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Uranium recovery sites in the vicinity of Nichols Ranch ISR Project are listed in Table 5-1. 

Locations of nearby uranium recovery projects (conventional and ISR uranium recovery 

facilities), in addition to BLM pasture allotments and crop land, are illustrated in Figure 5-1. 

Figure 5-2 shows the location of oilfields, coalfields, CBM project areas, uranium occurrences, 

and uranium facilities with respect to the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, and Figure 5-3 

shows other energy development projects within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed 

project site. The cumulative effects analysis in SEIS Section 5 was revised to improve the 

transparency and clarity of the analysis and provide a more detailed discussion of potential 

cumulative effects for critical resource areas such as Land Use (SEIS Section 5.2), 

Groundwater (SEIS Section 5.5.2), Ecological Resources (SEIS Section 5.6), Air Quality (SEIS 

Section 5.7), and Socioeconomics (SEIS Section 5.11). 

 
Appendix B 

B–130 

Comment: N018-023 

The commenter noted Section 5.5.2 did not mention impacts to the aquifers used for 

deep disposal. 

Response: Potential impacts to groundwater resources and the effects from waste 

management practices at the site are described in SEIS Sections 4.5.2 and 4.14. The 

cumulative impact on groundwater resources from the proposed action are considered in 

Section 5.5.2 of the SEIS. The deep disposal of process water is considered in this section of 

the SEIS as well. 

No further changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

B.5.29.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

Comments: N009-006; N010-007 

Two commenters stated that no studies have been conducted to identify the cumulative effects 

of locating multiple ISR facilities closely together. 

Response: The cumulative impacts analysis presented in SEIS Chapter 5 includes 

consideration of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable uranium recovery operations, both 

for conventional mining and milling and ISR technologies. All known uranium recovery sites 

within approximately 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are listed in 

SEIS Table 5-1, which also includes the distance and direction from the proposed project site. 

NRC regulates these facilities and the potential environmental impacts from these facilities are 

(or would be) evaluated in accordance with NRC NEPA requirements in 10 CFR Part 51. In 

addition, the cumulative effects analysis in SEIS Chapter 5 has been revised to improve the 

clarity and transparency of how past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were 

evaluated for each resource area. 

Comments: N011-056; N011-057; N011-058; N011-059; N011-060; N013-022; N013-023; 

N013-024; N013-025; N013-026; N017-031 

Several commenters expressed concern over the possible cumulative effects that could result 

from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions associated with other resource 

extraction operations in the Powder River Basin, such as CBM production, oil and gas 

production, and coal mining. For example, several comments noted the SEIS should disclose 

the types and amounts of contaminants released from CBM operations into aquifers and surface 

waters and provide a detailed analysis of the incremental impacts from the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project. Other commenters stated the SEIS should include an analysis of the 

potential for cross-contamination from wells associated with CBM, oil and gas, and coal 

mining operations. 

Response: Potential impacts to groundwater resources and the effects of waste management 

practices at the site are described in SEIS Sections 4.5.2 and 4.14. SEIS Chapter 5 includes a 

discussion of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions associated with 

groundwater extraction within the groundwater resource study area {80-km [50-mi]} considered 

in the analysis of cumulative impacts as discussed in SEIS Section 5.5.2. These activities 

include both oil and gas and CBM development in addition to the consideration of other ISR 

facilities. Furthermore, as described in SEIS Section 1.7, NRC has entered into an MOU with 

BLM to keep current on issues that develop with respect to these operations on public lands. 

The analysis of cumulative impacts on groundwater in SEIS Chapter 5 has been revised to 
 Appendix B 

B–131 

clarify the technical basis for the cumulative impact conclusions within the groundwater resource 

study area. 

Comments: N011-066; N017-029 

Several commenters expressed concern that the cumulative impacts analysis presented in SEIS 

Chapter 5 did not consider impacts from past uranium mining or milling. 

Response: The cumulative impacts analysis presented in SEIS Section 5 includes a discussion 

of past and present uranium recovery operations, both for conventional mining and milling and 

ISR technologies. All known past, present and future uranium recovery sites in the vicinity of 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are listed in Table 5-1, which also includes the 

distance and direction from the proposed project site. Within approximately 94 km [58.5 mi] of 

the proposed Nichols Ranch Project, there are 17 ISR facilities that were licensed (no longer in 

operation), are currently licensed, or are planned to be licensed in addition to two conventional 

uranium mines located within an approximate 80 km [50 mi] radius. NRC has regulatory 

authority for the radiological aspects of these facilities, and the potential environmental impacts 

from these facilities are (or would be) evaluated in accordance with NRC’s NEPA requirements 

in 10 CFR Part 51. In addition, the cumulative effects analysis in SEIS Chapter 5 has been 

revised to improve the clarity and transparency of how past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions relating to uranium recovery were considered. 

Comments: N015-020; N015-021; N015-022 

Several commenters noted specific cumulative impacts from multiple ISR facilities with respect 

to the ambient air quality, including effects on NAAQS pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, 

particulate matter, and ozone. In addition, one commenter noted the development of multiple 

ISR facilities could result in air emission levels that could adversely affect the Air Quality 

Related Values such as visibility in Class I and sensitive Class II areas. 

Response: The analysis of the cumulative impact to air quality in the final SEIS was revised in 

response to public comments to consider operating or planned ISR facilities located within an 80 

km [50 mi] radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project in addition to a consideration of 

CBM activities, coal mining, and oil and gas exploration occurring within the Powder River 

Basin. The analysis of nonroad combustion engine emission estimates in SEIS Appendix D 

considered the emissions from well drilling, construction equipment, and the use of reclamation 

equipment. Ambient air quality is discussed in SEIS Section 3.7 and potential impacts to air 

quality are discussed in Section 4.7. The potential cumulative effect on visual resources is 

discussed in SEIS Section 5.10. 

B.5.29.3 Specific Document Changes or Action Requests 

Comments: N007-020; N013-029; N013-030; N013-031 

Several commenters expressed concern that the estimated number of CBM wells in the Powder 

River Basin identified in the SEIS was inaccurate or too low. 

Response: NRC staff agrees with the commenters. Section 5.1.1.3 of the SEIS was revised to 

more accurately reflect the number of CBM wells located in Campbell and Johnson Counties. 
Appendix B 

B–132 

Comment: N018-071 

One commenter noted that the SEIS does not consider cumulative effects on available capacity 

for different waste streams. 

Response: The analysis of cumulative impacts in Chapter 5 of the SEIS was revised in 

response to public comments. The cumulative impact analysis from waste management 

activities in Section 5.14 considers the potential cumulative impact on disposal capacity by 

waste stream (e.g., byproduct material, nonhazardous solid waste). NRC regulations in 10 CFR 

Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 2 require that a licensee have an agreement in place for 

byproduct material disposal prior to commencing uranium recovery operations. In addition, the 

applicant would be expected to comply with applicable State and Federal regulations for 

disposing of solid and hazardous waste. The disposal of liquid effluent via deep well injection is 

regulated through the State-permitting process for Class I wells. WDEQ evaluates the suitability 

and capacity of the applicant-proposed formation for disposal. The applicant must have a 

permit for Class I wells prior to operations. 

B.5.29.4 Significance 

Comments: N007-021; N013-032; N013-040; N017-030 

Several commenters requested greater detail of how NRC determined the magnitude of 

cumulative impacts. Specific issues raised include whether cumulative impacts were evaluated 

at both a geographic and temporal scale, and whether groundwater impacts could be classified 

as large because the groundwater in the mining areas would never be the same. 

Response: The NRC staff believes that the information presented in SEIS Chapter 5 is valid 

and relevant to the assessment of potential cumulative effects. Section 5.1.2 identifies the 

temporal scale for the analysis as extending from 2007 to 2020 for all resource areas, which is 

based on the estimated production life of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR facility. This period 

represents the time that NRC initially received the license application from the applicant (2007) 

through expected license termination (2020) after aquifer restoration and decommissionsing. 

The geographic scale varies by resource category and is clearly identified for each resource 

area throughout SEIS Chapter 5. The cumulative effects analysis presented in SEIS Chapter 5 

has been revised to improve the transparency and clarity of the analysis, including a more 

detailed discussion of how impact significance was determined for potential cumulative effects 

for critical resource areas such as Land Use (SEIS Section 5.2), Groundwater (SEIS Section 

5.5.2), Ecological Resources (SEIS Section 5.6), Air Quality (SEIS Section 5.7), and 

Socioeconomics (SEIS Section 5.11). Additional information on groundwater restoration criteria 

can be found in B.9.8 and groundwater resources in B.20 of Appendix B. 

The NRC staff determined that the impact on groundwater at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project 

would be SMALL as discussed in SEIS Section 5.5.2. The NRC staff then considered the 

cumulative impact on groundwater resources within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project and concluded the impact would be MODERATE. Based upon a 

BLM report for the Buffalo Planning Area, in which the Nichols Ranch Project is centrally 

located, the primary types of actions leading to this moderate finding are energy development 

activities including CBM development and oil and gas production. However, the cumulative 

impacts on groundwater resulting from the interaction between ISR activities and CBM activities 

and oil and gas production could occur, but are not likely because CBM and oil and gas 

production and ISR activities are conducted in stratigraphically separate aquifers separated by 

hundreds to thousands of feet from the ore production zone in which uranium extraction would 

occur at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Other ISR projects that could also extract 
 Appendix B 

B–133 

uranium from deposits within the Wasatch Formation are also located within an 80-km [50-mi] 

radius of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project; however, these deposits are discontinuous 

and the occurrence of uranium is highly localized. Furthermore, the Wasatch Formation, in 

which the extraction zone is located, does not constitute a regional aquifer. Rather it is a 

sedimentary formation that contains local water-saturated lenses that can be locally productive 

but not hydraulically interconnected with other sand lenses because of the considerable clay 

content of the Wasatch Formation (ENSR, 2006). Given the heterogeneity of the geology in the 

Powder River Basin, the target aquifers at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would 

unlikely cover an 80-km [50-mi] radius. For these reasons, the NRC staff determined that the 

incremental impact from operation of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be SMALL. 

Comments: N013-036; N013-086 

Commenters noted the SEIS needs to provide information on the wide variety of impacts that 

may affect sage-grouse habitat. 

Response: SEIS Sections 4.6.1 and 5.6 covering the potential cumulative impacts to terrestrial 

ecology, vegetation, wildlife, aquatic ecology, and protected species include a discussion of 

potential impacts to sage-grouse habitat and populations. Since the publication of the draft 

SEIS in December 2009, several developments have occurred with regard to Federal, State, 

and local regulation of activities that may affect habitat and sage-grouse populations. 

In December 2009, FWS listed the sage-grouse as a candidate species (March 2010). 

Subsequently, Wyoming BLM made amendments to the National Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Conservation Strategy, and the Wyoming Governor’s Sage Grouse Implementation Team 

(SGIT) continues to discuss an evaluation process for sage-grouse impacts. Although there are 

no regulations regarding the protection of the sage-grouse, WGFD, in cooperation with SGIT, 

has developed guidelines for various industries operating in different locations within Wyoming. 

NRC staff has been working with SGIT and its subcommittees to better define the State agency 

roles with respect to developing guidelines for the ISR uranium recovery industry. In addition, 

WGFD recently issued an update to its Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas 

Resources Within Important Habitats (WGFD, 2010), which contains revised guidelines for 

sage-grouse protection that would be applied to the uranium extraction industry. These 

guidelines address (i) standard mitigation practices (for all wildlife), (ii) specific best 

management practices for sage-grouse, and (iii) stipulations for development in sage-grouse 

core areas that WGFD would monitor. The SEIS was revised throughout to keep the discussion 

current with recent developments. 

Comment: N017-010 

One commenter addressed the potential significance of cumulative impacts associated with 

spills, noting even small spills might be cumulatively significant for soil and 

groundwater resources. 

Response: GEIS (NRC, 2009) Sections 2.11.2, 4.2.3, and 4.2.4 correctly characterize the 

approach NRC used to regulate and inspect ISR facilities and implement corrective actions to 

minimize both the likelihood and the impacts from unplanned spills. Licensees are required to 

develop and implement a spill control plan prior to beginning uranium recovery operations. 

NRC ensures these procedures are correctly implemented through its inspection and 

enforcement process, thereby reducing the overall cumulative impact of unplanned spills. GEIS 

Section 2.11.2 also discusses historical information with respect to spills at NRC-regulated ISR 

facilities. No changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. 
Appendix B 

B–134 

Comment: N018-050 

One commenter expressed concern that the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project facility and 

two other proposed ISR facilities could produce a cumulative amount of byproduct material from 

decommissioning that would result in a large impact to disposal options in Wyoming. 

Response: An important aspect of the NRC staff evaluation of potential waste management 

impacts is the availability of disposal capacity. As discussed in the GEIS, NRC requires an ISR 

facility to have an agreement in place with a licensed disposal facility to accept byproduct 

material that would be associated with facility operations, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning. Such agreements ensure that sufficient disposal capacity for byproduct 

material would be available throughout the life of the facility. 

As discussed in draft SEIS Section 2.2.1.6.3, the applicant does not presently have an 

agreement in place with a licensed site to accept their solid byproduct material for disposal. The 

applicant preferred destination for disposal of byproduct material is at the Pathfinder-Shirley 

Basin site in Mills, Wyoming. If that facility does not have sufficient capacity at the time the 

request for an agreement is made, then the applicant could engage other low-level radioactive 

waste disposal facilities that are licensed to accept byproduct material. Another existing facility 

that is licensed by NRC to accept byproduct material for disposal is the Rio Algom Ambrosia 

Lake uranium mill tailings impoundments near Grants, New Mexico. Additionally, three sites are 

licensed by NRC Agreement States to accept byproduct material for disposal (i.e., the 

EnergySolutions site in Clive, Utah; the White Mesa uranium mill site in Blanding, Utah; and the 

Waste Controls Specialists site in Andrews, Texas). 

At the time of this writing, NRC has received no proposals to expand byproduct material 

disposal capacity in Wyoming. As discussed in the GEIS (Section G5.32.2), proposals for 

onsite disposal of byproduct materials at locations without available disposal capacity are 

uncommon, but if such proposals were received by NRC, they would be evaluated on a caseby-case basis against criteria in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. NRC would evaluate the potential 

environmental impacts of any such proposals if and when they are received. Based on the 

disposal options currently available and the disposal agreement that NRC requires prior to 

operations, the NRC staff continue to conclude that the potential waste management impacts 

associated with the generation of byproduct material would be SMALL. 

B.5.29.5 Other 

Comment: N011-019 

One commenter noted that the SEIS cumulative impacts analysis should consider the ISR 

facility impact on climate change and related effects that climate change might have on 

groundwater supply for the region. 

Response: EPA issued regulations for inventorying greenhouse gas emissions on 

October 20, 2009, and on February 18, 2010, after the draft SEIS was published for comment, 

the CEQ issued draft guidance to agencies on the consideration of the effects of climate change 

and greenhouse gas emissions in the context of NEPA environmental reviews. NRC is 

evaluating the best approach to address these recent developments with respect to climate 

change and greenhouse gas emissions while performing its NEPA reviews. In response to 

public comments, the discussion of cumulative impacts was revised. Section 5.7.1 of the final 

SEIS discusses global climate change and greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed 

Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 
 Appendix B 

B–135 

Comment: N013-021 

One commenter noted that the analysis of cumulative impacts is an integral part of any NEPA 

document, especially in an area like the Powder River Basin. 

Response: NRC staff agrees that analyzing cumulative impacts is integral to performing a 

NEPA review. SEIS Chapter 5 analyzes the potential cumulative impacts associated with the 

potential licensing of the Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Section 5.1.1 of the SEIS identifies other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that include uranium recovery sites, 

coal mining, oil and gas production, CBM operations, and other mining in the area. Activities 

regulated by other Federal and State agencies, such as livestock grazing on public lands, are 

also considered in the analysis. Chapter 5 of the SEIS was revised in response to public 

comments to clarify the discussion and to improve the transparency of the analysis. 

Comment: N013-034 

One commenter stated closer well spacings used in uranium ISR facilities would have extreme 

impacts (on land use) compared to traditional oil and gas or CBM operations with a wider well 

spacing. The commenter also states NRC did not analyze any combined impacts from the 

different facilities. 

Response: The well spacing used to extract uranium from the subsurface deposit depends on 

the geometry of the ore body as well as the hydrologic characteristics of the aquifer. Typically, 

the footprint of an ore body would be much smaller than an oil and gas exploration or production 

effort, which is why the well spacing is more dense. The potential impact from drilling wells for 

the Nichols Ranch ISR Project is discussed in Section 4.5.2 along with actions the applicant 

would take to mitigate the potential impact, and Chapter 6 explains the justification for the 

proposed groundwater monitoring, which includes discussion of the proposed well spacing. 

Approximately 24–32 ha [60–80 ac] would be fenced to grazing at any given time over the life of 

the project. As shown in SEIS Figure 2-1, the estimate life of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR 

Project is approximately 10 years. However, after decommissioning, the land would be returned 

to its preextraction use. Chapter 5 of the SEIS discusses the cumulative impact from the 

proposed action when added to other reasonably foreseeable future actions that are discussed 

in Section 5.1.1. The identified reasonably foreseeable future actions included consideration of 

other uranium recovery sites, coal mining in the area, oil and gas production, and CBM activities 

in the vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The analysis of cumulative impacts 

was revised in response to public comments to clarify and improve the transparency of the 

analysis. 

Comment: N013-035 

A commenter stated the SEIS did not discuss potential cumulative effects on wildlife in the 

vicinity of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. 

Response: SEIS Section 4.6 discusses potential impacts on terrestrial ecology, vegetation, 

wildlife, aquatic ecology, and protected species populations, including the sage-grouse. Since 

the publication of the draft SEIS in December 2009, several developments have occurred with 

regard to Federal, State, and local regulation of activities that may affect habitat and sagegrouse populations. Text throughout the SEIS, including Section 5.6 which discusses the 

potential cumulative impact on terrestrial ecology, vegetation, wildlife, aquatic ecology, and 

protected species populations, has been updated to reflect these recent developments. 

 
Appendix B 

B–136 

Comments: N013-039; N013-040 

One commenter was concerned with the apparent variable scale by which cumulative impacts 

are evaluated in SEIS Section 5. 

Response: SEIS Chapter 5 evaluates the combined impacts from the proposed Nichols Ranch 

ISR project, along with the impact from other reasonably foreseeable past, present and future 

activities in the vicinity. The potential impact is evaluated on a scale commensurate with the 

resource area that could be affected and considers site-specific and other activities. For 

example, since noise dissipates quickly from the source a small geographic scale is considered 

in the analysis of cumulative impacts compared to biota such as sage brush, which considers a 

much larger geographic scale since that species has a large geographic range. When the 

relatively small impact from activities at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project are added to 

the potential impact to a resource area from reasonably foreseeable present and future activities 

in the area, the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project contribution to the cumulative impact on 

the resource can be evaluated. NRC staff acknowledges the scale of analysis varies by 

resource area. Chapter 5 was revised in response to public comments to define the geographic 

area as well as the timeframe considered in the cumulative impact analysis. 

B.5.29.6 References 

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

Licensing of Source Material.” “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: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

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

75 FR 13909, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

as Threatened or Endangered.” Federal Register: Volume 75, No. 55, pp. 13,909–13,959. 

March 23, 2010. 

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

Milling Facilities. Washington, DC: ML093220036. May 2009. 

WGFD. Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources Within Important 

Wildlife Habitats. Version 6.0. Cheyenne, Wyoming. April 2010. 

B.5.30 Environmental Justice 

Comments: N020-043; N020-044 

One commenter stated that NRC does not provide a sufficient basis for using whole counties for 

the environmental justice impact area, which is contrary to the NRC recommendation that the 

minority and low-income populations in the impact area be compared to county proportions. 

This commenter also stated no explanation was given as to why the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS 

used a three-county impact area, while the SEISs for the similar proposed Lost Creek ISR and 

Moore Ranch ISR facilities used a one-county area. 
 Appendix B 

B–137 

Response: The commenter refers to SEIS Section 4.12 that describes the deviation from the 

NRC Policy Statement on Environmental Justice (69 FR 52040). NRC has revised this 

discussion and analysis of environmental justice impacts in the final SEIS in response to these 

comments. The analysis of impacts to minority and low-income populations in the Final SEIS 

no longer deviates from the NRC Policy Statement on Environmental Justice. The analysis of 

impacts follows the procedural guidelines for environmental justice review described in the 

Policy Statement by defining the geographic area for assessment (Campbell and Johnson 

counties) and identifying potentially affected minority and low-income populations down to the 

Census block group level. An assessment of the environmental effects of ISR facility 

construction, operation, and decommissioning and aquifer restoration at Nichols Ranch on 

minority and low-income populations is presented, and it was determined that the effects would 

not be disproportionately high and adverse. The risk of radiological exposure through the 

consumption patterns of special pathway receptors, including subsistence consumption of fish 

and wildlife was also analyzed.

B.5.30.1 Reference 

69 FR 52040, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of 

Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” Federal Register. 

Vol. 69, No. 163, pp. 52,040–52,048. August 24, 2004. 

B.5.31 Best Management Practices 

B.5.31.1 Enforcement of Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices 

Comment: N011-028 

One commenter stated that classifying groundwater impacts from leaks and spills as SMALL is 

unjustified because this relies on the assumption that mitigation measures would be effective. 

Response: As described in Section 6.3.2 of the SEIS, the applicant would be required to have 

leak detection, spill response, and cleanup programs (Uranerz, 2007). Furthermore, NRC 

requires well mechanical integrity testing (NRC, 2003b) along with a similar requirement in the 

WDEQ UIC permit (Uranerz, 2007) to further reduce the potential leaks from well integrity failure 

during operations. Finally, any contamination from leaks and spills is required to be remediated 

to appropriate soil and water quality regulatory standards. As noted in SEIS Section 4.5.2, 

implementation of the required leak-detection program, well MIT, and remediation requirements 

should mitigate the potential impacts from leaks and spills to shallow (near-surface) aquifers. 

 To evaluate the potential effectiveness of these mitigation measures, NRC staff reviewed 

information the applicant provided in its license application as amended (including the technical 

and environmental reports), information and the data NRC staff collected independently, and 

information and data provided in the GEIS. GEIS Section 2.11 (NRC, 2009) presents a 

historical discussion of ISR operations, and Section 2.14 refers to specific facilities in Wyoming, 

Nebraska, and New Mexico. In Section 2.11.4 of the GEIS, the NRC staff documented that, 

based on historical information at operating ISR facilities, excursions have occurred at these 

facilities. The NRC staff has analyzed the environmental impacts of excursions from mechanical 

integrity leaks from licensed ISR facilities (NRC, 2009b). In this analysis, NRC staff found that 

the environmental impacts from leaks to groundwater from mechanical integrity failures were 

SMALL and mitigated by remediation actions (NRC, 2009b). In addition, for all excursion events 

at licensed facilities, the NRC concluded excursions could be effectively mitigated and the 

environmental impacts were SMALL and temporary (NRC, 2009b). Based on this analysis, NRC
Appendix B 

B–138 

staff found the mitigation measures for leaks and spills at Nichols Ranch Project will result in 

SMALL potential impacts. 

Comments: N013-015; N016-001; N016-002; N016-003; N016-004 

Two commenters expressed concerns about the implementation and enforcement of mitigation 

measures in the SEIS. One commenter stated that in many cases, the SEIS makes statements 

concerning mitigation as if the measures were in place or enforceable; however, some 

measures have not been decided and NRC does not have authority to enforce these 

requirements. Another commenter also questioned the NRC authority to enforce some of the 

mitigation measures and wanted to know what agencies oversee the mitigation measures and 

how they would be accomplished. 

Response: Mitigation measures, best management practices, and management actions 

contained in the SEIS fall into four main categories: (i) measures that may be incorporated into 

the NRC license as license conditions; (ii) mitigation measures that are requirements other 

agencies established through permits that ISR facilities must obtain (see SEIS Table 1-2); (iii) 

mitigation measures the applicant committed to follow in its NRC license application; or (iv) 

mitigation measures that are not enforceable but that the applicant could voluntarily abide by to 

further reduce environmental impacts to a given resource area. NRC establishes license 

conditions for each individual ISR facility on a site-specific basis. NRC can only impose license 

conditions within the limits of its statutory authority granted by Congress. State and other 

Federal agencies can also impose license or permit conditions for individual ISR facilities based 

on their statutory and regulatory authorities. NRC relies on mitigation measures contained as a 

NRC license condition, included in the license application or imposed by other federal or state 

agencies, when making a reasoned prediction of the environmental impact of the proposed 

project. 

The following is a summary of some of the mitigation measures that would be implemented at 

the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project. Uranerz committed in its license application to follow: 

BLM criteria for road-building material for access roads; wetting roads to reduce fugitive dust 

emissions; adopt mitigation measures in the BLM Programmatic Agreement to address adverse 

impacts to the Pumpkin Buttes TCPs; use riprap and hay bales to prevent erosion and reseed 

areas; and adopt mitigative measures to reduce impacts near Greater sage-grouse leks. 

Examples of mitigative measures imposed through another Federal or State licenses or permits 

would include the WDEQ UIC disposal well permit. WDEQ would be the agency to establish 

and enforce these requirements under its UIC permit. Another example is the BLM approval of 

the Plan of Operations, which could include mitigative measures from the BLM Programmatic 

Agreement for the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. BLM would be the agency to establish and enforce 

these requirements. Chapter 4 of the SEIS was revised to include further discussion of 

mitigation measures included in the license application and other federal and state agency 

regulatory programs. 

Comment: N013-017 

One commenter stated the final SEIS must disclose all mitigation measures NRC would 

incorporate into the license and, in doing this, identify the mitigation measures the agency has 

authority to enforce. This commenter further stated that mitigation measures not included in the 

NRC license would be conjecture at this point. 

Response: Mitigation measures, best management practices, and management actions may 

be imposed through two main methods: (i) incorporation into license conditions on the NRC 

license; or (ii) as requirements other agencies established through permits that ISR facilities 
 Appendix B 

B–139 

must obtain (see Table 1-2 of the SEIS). NRC establishes license conditions for each individual 

ISR facility on a site-specific basis. 

The intent of an EIS is to disclose impacts to the public and serve as a decisionmaking tool. 

NRC evaluates the SEIS and the SER in determining whether to grant the license, and to 

determine appropriate terms of a license, if it decides to grant a license. NRC can only impose 

license conditions within the limits of the authority granted by Congress. However, NRC can 

also rely on mitigation measures the applicant includes in its license application or specifically 

includes as a license condition. The entire ISR license application is subject to a general 

license condition in an NRC-issued ISR license. Therefore, the mitigation measures contained 

in the license application are covered under this license condition and subject to NRC 

enforcement authority. State and other Federal agencies can also establish permit conditions 

for individual ISR facilities based on their statutory and regulatory authorities. NRC can 

reasonably rely on these mitigation measures in making a reasoned prediction of the 

environmental impact of the project as proposed. When an NRC license is granted, the facility 

would then be routinely inspected by NRC staff and other State and Federal agencies for 

compliance with their respective requirements and license conditions. As a result, the SEIS 

does consider best management practices, mitigation measures, and management actions 

contained in the license application when evaluating environmental impacts to a resource area. 

No changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N017-018 

One commenter stated NRC did not demonstrate a commitment to follow strict measures to 

protect sage-grouse. The commenter stated the “nonmandatory” language used in both the 

GEIS (NRC, 2009) and SEIS left the protection of the sage-grouse to the discretion of 

the applicant. 

Response: NRC recognizes that sage-grouse are a species of great concern in Wyoming and 

has consulted with stakeholders as described in Section 1.7 of this SEIS. As discussed in 

Section 3.6.1.2.2, no sage-grouse leks were observed within the proposed project area during 

wildlife inventories Uranerz conducted. However, eight sage-grouse leks exist within the 3.2-km 

[2-mi] radius of the proposed Hank Unit and one lek exists within the 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the 

Nichols Ranch Unit. Changes were also made in Section 3.6.3 to include the FWS rule listing 

the Greater sage-grouse as a candidate species, the revised WGFD Recommendations for 

Development of Oil and Gas Resources Within Important Wildlife Habitats, and the BLM revised 

National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (75 FR 13909; WGFD, 2010; BLM, 2010). 

 Section 4.6.1.1.3 of the SEIS discusses mitigation measures that the applicant discussed in its 

license application for the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project to limit potential impacts to the 

Greater sage-grouse; this section was updated to reflect the current State and task force 

guidelines. However, NRC is not bound by WGFD recommendations or BLM guidelines and 

does not have the statutory authority to impose wildlife mitigation measures upon a licensee. 

NRC can enforce mitigation measures in license conditions or in the license application. 

Mitigative measures would also be negotiated between the applicant and the agency. Sections 

3.6 and 4.6 were revised to both update the information on sage-grouse and more clearly 

describe the applicant’s commitments regarding sage-grouse as stated in its license application. 

 
Appendix B 

B–140 

B.5.31.2 Completeness of the Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices 

Comment: N007-006, N007-009 

One commenter recommended that topsoil from road and well construction be stockpiled and 

respread around the construction site prior to seeding to expedite revegetation and minimize 

wind and water erosion impacts. The commenter expressed that much of the proposed project 

area is sandy and susceptible to wind and water erosion if not expeditiously reclaimed, and 

recommended the SEIS describe interim mitigation strategy. 

Response: As noted in SEIS Sections 2.2.1.2.1, 2.2.1.2.4.3, and 2.2.1.5.5, the applicant has 

committed to stockpiling and redistributing topsoils during the construction and reclamation 

phases. The applicant has also committed to stockpiling topsoil during construction, stabilizing 

stockpiles to mitigate erosion, and redistributing topsoils during site decommissioning and 

reclamation. The applicant has committed to segregating topsoils and subsoils from the 

excavation of mud pits during well construction and emplacing subsoil followed by topsoil 

immediately following the use of each mud pit. The applicant has also committed to reclaiming 

all roads on BLM land and any others designated by landowners on private property by 

removing scoria or gravel on the road surface, reapplying topsoil, and then mulching and 

reseeding the road surface. The applicant is required to submit a detailed reclamation plan to 

NRC for review and approval before reclamation activities at the site begin. As noted in SEIS 

Sections 4.4.1.1, 4.5.1.1.1, and 4.7.1.1, the applicant has developed an interim mitigation 

strategy for handling topsoils. The applicant committed to stockpiling topsoils during 

construction and locating stockpiles in a manner that would minimize losses from wind and 

water erosion, including the use of berms around the bases and seeding with wheatgrass. The 

applicant committed to interim reclamation of pipeline trenches in the vicinity of surface waters 

by returning excavated native soil to pipeline trenches, restoring the preexisting grade in the 

channel to the original condition, and reseeding and mulching bare soil for stability. In addition 

to the previous activities, the applicant has committed to the wetting of roads and cleared land 

areas to reduce dust emissions. No change was made to the Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS beyond 

the information provided in this response. 

Comments: N007-018; N007-019 

One commenter requested that NRC develop and implement interim reclamation to mitigate the 

fast growth of undesirable species. The commenter stated this plan should include spreading 

topsoil, reseeding with a native mix, and monitoring periodically with remedial reclamation 

activity, if necessary. 

Response: BMPs, mitigation measures, and management actions that have been used 

historically at ISR facilities to avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts would be 

implemented at the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project to reestablish temporary or permanent 

native vegetation as soon as possible after disturbance. SEIS Sections 4.4.1.1, 4.5.1.1.1, and 

4.7.1.1 describe interim mitigation strategies. In its license application, Uranerz committed to 

stockpiling topsoils during construction and locating stockpiles in a manner that would minimize 

losses from wind and water erosion, including the use of berms around the bases and seeding 

with wheatgrass. The applicant committed to interim reclamation of pipeline trenches in the 

vicinity of surface waters by returning excavated native soil to pipeline trenches, restoring the 

preexisting grade in the channel to the original condition, and reseeding and mulching bare soil 

for stability. In addition to the previous activities, the applicant has committed to wetting of 

roads and cleared land areas to reduce dust emissions. 
 Appendix B 

B–141 

Uranerz would reseed disturbed areas with WDEQ- or BLM-approved seed mixtures as soon as 

conditions allow (Uranerz, 2007). Section 4.6.1.1.1.1 describes that the majority of disturbance 

to vegetation would result from wellfield development during the construction phase; this area 

which would be reclaimed and reseeded as soon as practicable following project completion in 

accordance with an approved Reclamation Plan. For instance, when the installation of each 

well is completed, Uranerz would implement measures such as reseeding to stabilize loose soil. 

Regarding periodic monitoring, Section 4.6.1.1.1.1 explains that Uranerz has committed to 

mitigation measures, which include washing vehicles that come into the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project area and herbicide application, as necessary, to control the spread of 

Canada thistle and prevent the introduction of undesirable species. As explained in 

Section 4.6.1.2, Uranerz would monitor for invasive and noxious weeds that could potentially 

colonize disturbed areas. 

Based on the discussion already presented in the SEIS, no additional changes were made to 

the SEIS beyond the information provided in this response. 

 

B.5.31.3 General Comments Related to Best Management Practices and 

Mitigation Measures 

Comment: N013-018 

A commenter stated NRC must comply with NEPA by fully describing the effectiveness of each 

mitigation measure (e.g., each mitigation measure should be evaluated separately and given a 

rating) and that this was not done in the draft Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS. 

Response: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines mitigation as measures that 

avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for environmental impacts. In general, the 

applicant, not NRC, proposes mitigation measures for a particular project. The mitigation 

measures the applicant proposed are reviewed not only by NRC but other Federal, State, or 

local regulatory agencies that have authority over the applicant activities or the various 

resources that may be affected by applicant actions. NRC reviews all mitigation measures an 

applicant proposed, as well as those that are safety related (e.g., those that affect public and 

occupational health). Mitigation measures that protect other resources would be further 

reviewed by other agencies, such as WGFD (for vegetation and wildlife) and WDEQ-WQD 

(for groundwater and surface water). When an NRC license is granted, the facility would then 

be routinely inspected by NRC staff and other State and Federal agencies for compliance with 

their respective requirements and conditions. While NRC neither proposes nor endorses 

particular mitigation measures, it does review what has been proposed (in cooperation with 

other agencies). 

As noted previously, NRC can only impose license conditions within the limits of authority 

Congress granted. However, NRC can also rely on mitigation measures the applicant includes 

in its license application or includes as a license condition. No changes were made to the SEIS 

beyond the information provided in this response. 

Comment: N020-042 

One commenter noted the SEIS used terms of possibility rather than of assurance when 

discussing BMP implementation, monitoring and detecting system operation, and spill response. 

This commenter questioned what BMPs would be implemented and if there was a way to 

assure BMPs were followed, monitoring and detecting systems were functioning properly, and 

spill responses were quick. 
Appendix B 

B–142 

Response: These types of practices may be, but are not always, imposed through conditions 

on the NRC license or as requirements other agencies established through permits ISR facilities 

must obtain (see SEIS Section 1.6). NRC establishes license conditions for each individual ISR 

facility on a site-specific basis. NRC can only impose license conditions within the limits of its 

statutory authority granted by Congress. State and other Federal agencies can also impose 

permit conditions for individual ISR facilities based on their statutory and regulatory authorities. 

However, NRC can also rely on mitigation measures the applicant includes in its license 

application or includes as a license condition. SEIS Chapter 6 describes the applicant’s 

proposed monitoring programs including wellfield and pipeline flow and pressure monitoring. 

When a license is granted, NRC staff and other State and Federal agencies routinely inspect 

the facility for compliance with their respective requirements and conditions. If any violations of 

NRC requirements or license conditions are identified in NRC inspections, NRC may issue a 

written notice of violation, and in certain circumstances, can require payment of a civil penalty, 

injunctive relief, corrective actions, or seek criminal penalties. Similarly, monitoring and 

detection systems and spill response are under the purview of NRC and other agencies. 

Inspection is a mechanism used to determine that systems operate properly and responses are 

timely. NRC also has a process for members of the public to report allegations of violations to 

the agency through email or a telephone hotline. Additional information on the allegation 

process can be accessed through the NRC Web site. No changes were made to the SEIS 

beyond the information provided in this response.

B.5.31.4 References 

75 FR 13909, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

as Threatened or Endangered.” Federal Register: Volume 75, No. 55, pp. 13,909–13,959. 

March 23, 2010. 

BLM. Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-071. “Subject: Gunnison and Greater Sage-grouse 

Management Considerations for Energy Development (Supplement to National Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Conservation Strategy).” Washington, D.C: BLM. March 5, 2010. 

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

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

WGFD. “Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources Within Important 

Wildlife Habitats.” Version 6.0. Cheyenne, Wyoming. April 2010. 

B.5.32 Monitoring 

Comment: N008-021 

The applicant commented the ore zone wells located within the wellfields used to establish 

baseline water quality would not be sampled during the operation phase, whereas SEIS 

Section 6.3.1.1 indicates these wells would be sampled during this phase. 

Response: NRC agrees with the commenter. The ore zone monitoring wells will be sampled 

prior to wellfield operations. The horizontal perimeter ring monitoring wells will be sampled 

during wellfield operations. Section 6.3.1.1 of the SEIS was revised in response to this 

comment. 
 Appendix B 

B–143 

Comment: N016-010; N016-11 

One commenter wanted to know whether flow rates of artesian wells in the vicinity of the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project would be monitored. Another commenter wanted to know 

what impacts the proposed action would have on artesian wells outside the ore zone and 

whether landowners would be compensated if wells lose pressure. 

Response: Uranerz stated that flowing wells within the 3-m [10-ft] drawdown contour may be 

impacted and has identified a total of 10 wells within an 8-km [5-mi] radius that are flowing wells 

and screened within the A Sand (Uranerz, 2007). A pump or other supplement may have to be 

installed in a flowing well if the drawdowns cause it to cease flowing. However, Uranerz would 

not regularly monitor flow rates of private wells during operations. As described in Section 6.2.5 

of the SEIS, Uranerz would sample private wells within 1 km [0.6 mi] of the Nichols Ranch Unit 

and Hank Unit boundaries four times per year for natural uranium and radium-226. However, 

these samples would not include measuring flow rates. Uranerz has stated in its NRC license 

application that it would assist private well owners with any difficulties they experience with their 

wells due to the anticipated drawdowns, including setting pumps deeper or drilling new wells as 

part of “confidential surface use agreements in place with the landowners,” detailing mitigation 

measures that would be implemented if a free-flowing well is impacted by the proposed Nichols 

Ranch ISR Project (Uranerz, 2007). NRC has no involvement in this process and does not 

review these agreements. No further changes were made to the SEIS beyond the information 

provided in this response. 

Comment: N018-030 

One commenter stated monitoring culverts and ephemeral stream crossings for signs of erosion 

are important in consideration of mitigation before erosion escalates. 

Response: Uranerz has committed to minimizing damage from erosion and to wellfield 

infrastructure by avoiding well installation in ephemeral drainages (Uranerz, 2007). If such wells 

must be installed, Uranerz would implement appropriate erosion protection controls to minimize 

damage to the drainage. Such controls include grading and contouring, culvert installation, lowwater crossings constructed of stone, water contour bars, and designated traffic routes. Section 

4.5.1.1.1 of the SEIS was revised in response to this comment. 

Comment: N020-036 

One commenter stated the SEIS does not provide any detailed information concerning the 

methodology for choosing well spacing or sampling frequency for the groundwater detection 

monitoring program. 

Response: Section 6.3.1 of the SEIS discusses the groundwater monitoring program, including 

well spacing and sampling frequency proposed by the applicant. The proposed well spacing 

and sampling is consistent with NUREG–1569, Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach 

Uranium Extraction License Applications (NRC, 2003), which provides staff guidance on 

evaluating the appropriate monitor well spacing and sampling frequency. The applicant’s 

monitoring program (inclusive of the well spacing) should ensure early detection of potential 

excursions. SEIS Section 6.3.1 was revised to better describe the applicant’s proposed 

groundwater monitoring program. 

B.5.32.1 References 

NRC. NUREG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications.” Final Report. Washington, DC: NRC. June 2003. 
Appendix B 

B–144 

NRC. Regulatory Guide 4.14, “Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring at Uranium 

Mills.” Rev. 1. Washington, DC: NRC. April 1980. 

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. Casper, 

Wyoming: 2007. 

B.5.33 Editorial 

B.5.33.1 Grammatical Editorial 

Comments: N012-006; N020-011 

Commenters, including the applicant, suggested corrections for typographical errors in 

the SEIS. 

Response: Proposed changes were checked for accuracy, determined to be appropriate, and 

incorporated into the SEIS. 

Comment: N014-002 

One commenter stated as a general proposition, the SEIS should be clear and consistent. 

Response: NRC acknowledges the importance of providing clear and consistent information. 

Because the comment was general in nature, no changes were made to the SEIS in direct 

response to this comment. Specific or detailed comments concerning clarity and consistency 

are addressed in Sections B.5.33.2, B.5.33.3, and other sections of this appendix. 

B.5.33.2 Technical Editorial 

Comments: N001-004; N017-015; N017-016; N018-075 

Several commenters discussed the quality of the figures in the SEIS. One commenter stated 

the clarity of the visual figures and graphics in the draft SEIS was inadequate. This same 

commenter noted interactions with the NRC to obtain revised figures prior to the end of the 

comment period and that only four revised figures were posted on the NRC website before 

public comment period closed. Another commenter stated the scale of the SEIS maps was 

inadequate for evaluation of surface resource impacts at the site-specific level. 

Response: NRC staff reviewed all 30 figures in the SEIS and determined the following 14 

required revision: 2-2, 2-3, 3-2, 3-3, 3-5, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 6-7, 6-8, and 6-9. NRC 

staff opted to revise and improve the following 10 figures: 1-1, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-11, 3-1, 

3-6, and 3-7. The final SEIS included a total of 24 revised figures. Prior to the publication of the 

final SEIS, all revised figures were posted on the NRC website. Four of these revised figures 

were posted on the NRC website prior to the closure of the public comment period on 

March 3, 2010. In response to these comments, the figures identified in this response were 

revised to improve the quality. 

 
 Appendix B 

B–145 

Comment: N007-010 

One commenter suggested the readability of SEIS Section 3.6.3 would be improved if the 

section was reorganized using the protection status for the subcategories rather than 

the species. 

Response: NRC acknowledges information can be organized in different manners. NRC opted 

to organize the information by species and provided Table 3-8, which presented information 

columns describing protection status by species. Because the organization in the SEIS is 

considered appropriate, no changes were made to the SEIS. 

Comment: N007-022 

One commenter requested all references to CBM be changed to coal bed natural gas. 

Response: NRC acknowledges that coal bed natural gas can be considered a more accurate 

term. However, NRC considers CBM to be a commonly used and understood term. Because 

NRC considers CBM an appropriate term to use, no changes were made to the SEIS. 

Comment: N008-010 

One commenter stated the Pumpkin Buttes are located north, east, and southeast of the Hank 

Unit, whereas SEIS Section 3.10.2 states Pumpkin Buttes are located to the north, west, 

and southwest. 

Response: The commenter is correct. SEIS Section 3.10.2 was revised to accurately describe 

the location of the Hank Unit relative to Pumpkin Buttes. 

Comment: N008-018 

One commenter stated the Nichols Ranch Unit is located the west of Pumpkin Buttes, whereas 

SEIS Section 4.9.3.1 states Nichols Ranch Unit is to the east. 

Response: The commenter is correct. SEIS Section 4.9.3.1 was revised to accurately 

describe the location of the Hank Unit relative to Pumpkin Buttes. 

Comment: N008-022 

A commenter was concerned the discussion in the SEIS regarding leak detection was not 

accurate and required clarification. 

Response: NRC staff reviewed the proposed action as described in the environmental report 

and technical report (Uranerz, 2007) for leak detection of wells and surface water protection. In 

response to this comment, SEIS Section 6.3.3 was revised to reflect the information the 

applicant presented in these documents. 

Comment: N008-023 

The commenter proposed clarification remarks in SEIS Table 8-1 concerning the processing of 

groundwater during the operations phase. 

Response: NRC agrees with the comment. SEIS Table 8-1 was revised accordingly. 

Comment: N014-003 

One commenter requested the license not be referred to as a “source material license” but 

rather a “uranium recovery license” or a “combined source and byproduct material license.” 
Appendix B 

B–146 

Response: Per NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 40, the applicant is issued a “source material 

license.” No changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. 

Comment: N014-004 

One commenter stated the final SEIS should indicate the terms “ISL” and “ISR” can be 

used interchangeably. 

Response: SEIS Section 1.1 states that for purposes of the SEIS, “in-situ recovery” or ISR is 

synonymous with “in-situ leach” or ISL. Because the SEIS discussion already addresses this 

issue, no changes were made to the SEIS. 

Comment: N014-005 

One commenter recommended references to the proposed action as “mining” should be 

replaced with the term “milling.” 

Response: NRC agrees that the proposed action at the Nichols Ranch ISR Project site should 

be described as milling rather than mining. NRC staff reviewed the discussions of the proposed 

action in the draft SEIS and did not find any instances where the substitution of the term 

“milling” for “mining” would be warranted. Because the terms used to describe the proposed 

action were appropriate, no changes were made to the SEIS. 

Comment: N014-007 

One commenter stated the final SEIS should use the term “unrestricted use” when referring to 

completed surface reclamation activities. 

Response: NRC staff agrees with the commenter that the “unrestricted use” term is correct 

when referring to surface reclamation activities. NRC staff reviewed the SEIS and did not find 

any instances where the description of completed surface reclamation activities warranted a 

change. Because the language in the SEIS was considered appropriate, no changes were 

made to the SEIS. 

Comment: N020-010 

One commenter requested Appendix A to include the tribal consultation letter from 

December 24, 2008. 

Response: NRC agrees with this comment. Appendix A of the SEIS was revised to include 

this letter. 

B.5.33.3 Programmatic Editorial 

Comment: N014-001 

One commenter stated the existing SEIS language concerning the preliminary recommendation 

on issuing a license was inadequate and should be rephrased to provide a clear understanding 

that the environmental review has resulted in a finding that the license should be issued. 

Response: As described in SEIS Section 1.6.1, the NRC licensing process includes a detailed 

technical review of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project license application, which 

comprises both a safety and environmental review. These two reviews are conducted in parallel 

[see Figure 1.7-1, GEIS (NRC, 2009)]. The environmental review is conducted in accordance 

with the regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. The safety review focuses on assessing compliance 

with the applicable regulatory requirements in 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. 
 Appendix B 

B–147 

NRC staff reviewed the SEIS concerning the preliminary recommendation and determined that it 

was consistent with the NRC licensing process. Because the SEIS is considered appropriate, 

no changes were made to the SEIS. 

Comment: N014-006 

A commenter noted NRC should use the terms “proposed,” “potential,” and “could” when 

referring to the proposed action and the impacts analyzed. 

Response: The draft Nichols Ranch ISR SEIS was published with the term “proposed” in front 

of each reference to the Nichols Ranch ISR Project. The word “potential” was used in front of 

“impacts” when appropriate. Because the words “potential” and “proposed” are used throughout 

the SEIS, the word “would” is used instead of “could” to indicate what impacts are most likely to 

occur from the proposed action. The word “would” is still conditional and appropriate. NRC 

staff reviewed the SEIS and made changes where appropriate. 

B.5.33.4 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

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

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

Licensing of Source Material.” “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: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

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

Uranerz. “Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application,” 

Technical Report and Environmental Report. ML080080594, ML083230892, ML091000572, 

ML090850289, ML090850370, ML090970719, ML090850597, ML090840186, ML090820583, 

ML091610148, ML102650539, November 2007. Revisions submitted August 2008, November 

2008, December 2008, February 2009, March 2009, May 2009, and September 2010. Casper, 

Wyoming: 2007.

APPENDIX C 

ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LIMITS 

ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LIMITS 

In-situ recovery (ISR) facilities operate by first extracting uranium from specific areas called 

wellfields. After uranium recovery has ended, the groundwater 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, 2008). Aquifer 

restoration criteria for the site-specific baseline 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 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 level of the constituent is below the value listed; or (c) An alternate 

concentration limit is established by the Commission.” 

For an alternate concentration limit (ACL) to be considered by the NRC, 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 groundwater and surface 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: 

• Potential adverse effects on groundwater 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 groundwater and the direction of groundwater flow 

— The proximity and withdrawal rates of groundwater users 

C–1
Appendix C 

— The current and future uses of groundwater in the area 

— The existing quality of groundwater, including other sources of contamination and 

their cumulative impact on the groundwater 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 groundwater, and the direction of groundwater 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. 

Although state “class of use” standards are not recognized in NRC’s regulations as restoration 

standards, these standards may be considered as one factor in evaluating ACL requests for ISR 

facilities located in Wyoming. Furthermore, in considering ACL requests, particular importance 

is placed on protecting underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). The use of modeling 

and additional groundwater 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 groundwater to background or a maximum contaminant 

level—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 Safe Drinking Water Act 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 ore zones does not meet drinking water standards. 

The staff 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 review of ACLs for ISR facilities is being developed in a revision of 

NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003a). Existing guidance for the review of ACLs for conventional mills is 

in NUREG–1620, “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.” (NRC, 2003b). 

 

C–2 
Appendix C 

C–3 

References 

10 CFR Part 40. Appendix A. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, Appendix 

A, “Criteria Relating to the Operations of Uranium Mills and to the Disposition of Tailings or 

Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores Processed 

Primarily from their Source Material Content.” 

40 CFR Part 146. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment. Part 146, 

“Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards.” 

NRC. Regulatory Guide 3.11, “Design, Construction, and Inspection of Embankment Retention 

Systems at Uranium Recovery Facilities.” Revision 3. Washington, DC: NRC. November 

2008. 

NRC. NUREG–1620, “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, Washington, DC. NRC 2003a. 

NRC. NUREG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications.” Final Report. Washington, DC: NRC. June 2003b. 

APPENDIX D 

NONROAD COMBUSTION ENGINE EMISSIONS ESTIMATES

CONTENTS 

Section Page 

TABLES....................................................................................................................................D–iii 

ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS...............................................................................................D–iv 

D NONROAD COMBUSTION ENGINE EMISSIONS ESTIMATES ................................ D–1 

D.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... D–1

D.2 Nonroad Diesel Combustion Engine Exhaust Emissions 

Calculation Methods ......................................................................................... D–2

D.2.1 Well Drilling Emissions Calculations .................................................... D–2

D.2.2 Construction Equipment Emissions Calculations ................................ D–3

D.2.3 Reclamation Equipment Emissions Calculations ................................. D–5

D.3 Results and Discussion .................................................................................... D–7

D.4 References ..................................................................................................... D–12

D–i 

D–iii 

TABLES 

Section Page 

D.2-1 Well Drilling Input Parameters for Emissions Calculations ....................................... D–4 

D.2-2 Emissions Factors (EFi,) for Uncontrolled Diesel Industrial Engines (lb/MMbTU).... D–4 

D.2-3 Emissions Factors (EFi,) for Large Stationary Diesel Engines (lb/MMbTU) ............. D–4 

D.2-4 Horsepower (hp) and Operating Times (hr/yr) for Diesel Construction Equipment .. D–6 

D.2-5 Emissions Factors (EFi,) for Uncontrolled Diesel Industrial Engines (lb/hp-hr) ........ D–6 

D.2-6 Horsepower (hp) and Operating Times (hr) for Diesel Reclamation Equipment ...... D–6 

D.3-1 Calculated Annual Emissions From Well Drilling Activities (tons/yr) ........................ D–8 

D.3-2 Calculated Annual Emissions From Construction Equipment (tons/yr) .................... D–8 

D.3-3 Total Calculated Annual Emissions From Drilling and Construction (tons/yr) .......... D–8 

D.3-4 Adjusted Annual Diesel Emission From Drilling and Construction (tons/yr) ............. D–9 

D.3-5 Effect of Using Updated Emissions Factors That Account for Pollution Controls .. D–10 

D.3-6 Calculated Diesel Equipment Emission (tons/yr) From Reclamation of One 

 Wellfield and the Central Processing Facilities ...................................................... D–10 

D.3-7 Adjusted Annual Diesel Equipment Emissions (tons/yr) From Reclamation .......... D–11 

D.3-8 Estimated Cumulative Emissions From the Proposed Action and Modified 

 Action-No Hand Unit (Alternative #3) (tons) ........................................................... D–12

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

EFi emissions factors 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ISR In-Situ Recovery 

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement 

MMBtu million British thermal units 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

PM10 particulate matter 

SOx sulfur oxides 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

D–v 

D–1 

D NONROAD COMBUSTION ENGINE EMISSIONS ESTIMATES 

D.1 Introduction 

The primary nonradiological emissions from in-situ recovery (ISR) facilities include diesel 

combustion engine emissions from construction equipment (including drilling rigs) and fugitive 

dust emissions from vehicle travel on unpaved roads (NRC, 2009, Section 2.7.1). This 

appendix provides estimates of the expected nonroad combustion engine emissions from the 

proposed action. Fugitive dust emissions are discussed in the supplemental environmental 

impact statement (SEIS) and therefore are not discussed further in this appendix. 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has previously evaluated combustion engine 

emissions associated with ISR facilities in prior licensing actions (NRC, 1997, 2004) and has 

characterized the potential impacts to air quality as minor. The drilling rigs that are used during 

construction of these facilities, in particular, are not presently subject to State of Wyoming new 

source emissions permitting and, the state does not presently require applicants that propose 

facilities in attainment areas (i.e., areas in compliance with ambient air quality standards) to 

document their emissions from these sources. Similarly, NRC has not routinely requested 

detailed nonradiological emissions information from applicants. As a result, existing information 

pertaining to ISR construction emission activities is limited. Nonetheless, to address recent 

concerns expressed in public comments on the draft SEIS about potential air quality impacts 

(EPA, 2010), representative emissions estimates are calculated in this appendix. 

On the basis of the similarities in design and construction of ISR facilities and the nature of 

associated nonradiological emissions, the nonroad combustion engine exhaust calculations in 

this appendix are based on a combination of proposal-specific and other representative 

information that the NRC staff consider adequate to support a conservative emissions screening 

analysis. The current calculations incorporate the best available information the applicant 

provided for the proposed action; representative information provided by other NRC applicants 

as applicable; and emissions factors developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). Mobile road (vehicle) combustion emissions were not calculated here, because these 

engine emissions are controlled at the source by mandated emission control technology and the 

magnitude of proposed road vehicle activity is small relative to existing road traffic (Section 4.3) 

of this SEIS. 

The calculations in this appendix were conducted to support the NRC evaluation of potential 

environmental impacts to air quality from the proposed action. These calculations are provided 

to meet NRC obligations pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended, to more completely disclose the potential environmental impacts from the proposed 

action. While NRC is responsible for assessing the potential environmental impacts from the 

proposed action, NRC does not have the authority to develop or enforce regulations to control 

nonradiological air emissions from equipment licensees used. This authority rests with the 

State of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ). To ensure the air quality of 

Wyoming is adequately protected, in addition to addressing all NRC regulatory requirements 

regarding radiological emissions, NRC applicants and licensees must also comply with all 

applicable state and federal air quality regulatory compliance and permitting requirements. 
Appendix D 

D.2 Nonroad Diesel Combustion Engine Exhaust Emissions 

Calculation Methods 

D.2.1 Well Drilling Emissions Calculations 

ISR facilities are constructed using commonly available construction equipment including truck 

mounted or mobile drilling rigs (NRC, 2009). Based on past estimates (NRC, 2004), NRC staff 

expect well drilling activities would represent the majority of combustion engine emissions 

during the construction period. Emissions from diesel combustion engines, including drilling 

rigs, that the staff evaluated for potential impacts to air quality include nitrogen oxides (NOx), 

carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter PM10, formaldehyde, volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), and carbon dioxide (CO2). CO2 emissions are also calculated to 

support NRC staff evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions in the SEIS. 

Diesel emissions were estimated using emission factors developed by EPA. Emission factors 

provide the ratio of the mass of a pollutant emitted to the atmosphere by a source engine to the 

level of activity of the emission source (Eastern Research Group, 1996). The level of activity of 

the emission source in an emission factor is represented by power output (in horsepower-hours) 

or fuel use represented by heat energy of combusted fuel in million British Thermal Units 

(MMBtu). EPA developed emission factors for different engine classes based on its review of a 

variety of engine test data (EPA, 1996; 2004). Currently available EPA documentation of 

emission factors for diesel combustion engines include AP-42 (EPA, 1996) and a more recent 

update of emission factors for the EPA NONROAD model (EPA, 2004). WDEQ recognizes 

EPA (1996) as a source for emission factors that may be used to estimate emissions from 

drilling rigs (WDEQ, 2010a), while the NONROAD model factors represent a more current data 

source. For the following calculations, the emission factors from AP-42 (EPA, 1996) were used. 

The updated emission factors for the NONROAD model are considered for context in the 

discussion of the calculated emissions results. 

WDEQ (2010a) provided methods for calculating emissions from drilling rigs based on fuel use. 

The WDEQ calculation methods are from worksheets it has provided to minor oil and gas 

emitters in a proposed ozone nonattainment area in southwestern Wyoming (WDEQ, 2010b). 

These methods were adapted to the current analysis and are summarized by the 

following equations 

 Etot,r,i = Ftot,r HCfuel EFi Uconv (D–1) 

where 

Etot,r,i ― annual total emissions for drilling rig type r and pollutant i [tons/yr] 

Ftot,r ― annual fuel use for drilling rig type r [gal/yr] 

HC fuel ― heat content of diesel fuel [Btu/gal] 

EFi,r ― emission factor for pollutant i from drilling rig type r [lb/MMBtu] 

Uconv ― unit conversion [MMBtu/1E+6 Btu][ton/2000lb] 

D–2 
Appendix D 

D–3 

and 

 Ftot,r = ∑nDTn,r FCr (D–2) 

where 

DTn ― duration of drilling for individual well n [hr] 

FCr ― hourly fuel consumption for drilling rig type r [gal/hr] 

Input parameters for well drilling equipment diesel emission calculations are provided in 

Tables D.2-1, D.2-2, and D.2-3. Proposed drilling activities include (i) drilling water wells for 

wellfield operations and associated monitoring and (ii) drilling deep disposal wells for disposal of 

operational liquid wastes. Water well drilling is expected to involve truck-mounted drilling 

equipment that requires, on average, 12 hours of drilling per well and consumes approximately 

9 L [2.5 gal] of diesel fuel per hour (LCI, 2010). These operational water wells would be drilled 

to the depth of the ore body {approximately 91 to 183 m [300 to 600 ft] (Uranerz, 2007)}. Deep 

disposal well drilling would go to a greater depth (several thousands of feet) relative to the water 

wells. Such drilling requires a more powerful drilling rig that consumes more fuel than a water 

well drilling rig. An NRC applicant estimated it takes approximately 528 hours and about 212 L 

[56 gal] of diesel fuel per hour (LCI, 2010) to complete one deep well. The applicant proposes 

to drill eight deep wells, although the drilling schedule has not been provided. Because the 

proposed wellfield development is phased over a period of years, for the base calculation of 

annual emissions from the Nichols Ranch Unit, the drilling of one deep well in the first year is 

assumed. To account for the differences in the two types of drilling operations (i.e., water wells, 

deep disposal wells), emissions calculations were conducted for each type of drilling activity. 

Input parameters for each activity are provided in Table D.2-1. 

D.2.2 Construction Equipment Emissions Calculations 

In addition to the use of drilling rigs, proposed wellfield construction involves the use of common 

diesel powered construction equipment that would also contribute to air emissions. Emissions 

from this equipment were calculated using emission factors based on power output and 

operating time using the following equation 

 Etot,r,i = HPr OTr EFi Uconv (D–3) 

where 

Etot,r,i ― annual total emissions for construction equipment type r and pollutant i 

 [tons/yr] 

HPr ― engine horsepower rating for construction equipment type r [hp] 

OTr ― operating time for construction equipment type r [hr/yr] 

EFi, ― emission factor for pollutant i for diesel industrial engines [lb/hp-hr] 

Uconv ― unit conversion [ton/2,000 lb] 
Appendix D 

Table D.2-1. Well Drilling Input Parameters for Emissions Calculations 

Parameter Symbol Value Remarks 

Duration of drilling activities for 525 

water wells [hr] 

∑DTn,rn 6,038 

Staff estimate for drilling 

one wellfield based on 

average per well drill time 

provided by an applicant* 

and the proposed number 

of wells for wellfield #1 

Hourly fuel consumption for truck 

mounted drilling rig [gal/hr]* FCr_water 2.5 Provided by an applicant* 

Annual fuel use for truck-mounted 

water well drilling rigs [gal/yr]* Ftot,r_water 15,095 

Staff calculated from 

drilling duration and 

hourly fuel consumption 

Duration of drilling activities for 1 deep 

waste disposal well [hr] ∑DTn.r 

n

528 Provided by an applicant* 

for drilling 1 deep well 

Hourly fuel consumption for deep well 

drilling rig [gal/hr]* FCr_deep 56.25 Provided by an applicant* 

Annual fuel use for deep well drilling 

rig [gal/yr]* Ftot,r_deep 29,700 

Staff calculated from 

drilling duration and 

hourly fuel consumption 

Heat content of diesel fuel [Btu/gal] HC fuel 137,000 Value from EPA AP–42† 

*LCI (2010) 

†EPA (1996) 

*To convert from gal to L, multiply by 3.785

Table D.2-2. Emissions Factors (EFi,) for Uncontrolled Diesel Industrial Engines 

(lb/MMBtu) 

Pollutant Value* 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 4.41 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.95 

Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 0.29 

Particulate Matter (PM10) 0.31 

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 164 

Formaldehyde 0.00118 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 0.35 

Source: EPA, 1996 (Chapter 3.3, Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-2) 

*To convert from lb/MMBtu to ng/J, multiply by 430

Table D.2-3. Emissions Factors (EFi,) for Large Stationary Diesel Engines (lb/MMBtu) 

Pollutant Value* 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 3.2 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.85 

Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 1.01 

Particulate Matter (PM10) 0.10 

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 0.85 

Formaldehyde 7.89E-5 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 0.09 

Source: EPA (1996, Chapter 3.4, Tables 3.4-1 and 3.4-3) 

D–4 
Appendix D 

Input parameters used in the construction equipment emissions calculations, including the types 

of equipment the applicant could use during the construction period, operating times for this 

equipment, and applicable emission factors, are provided in Tables D.2-4 and D.2-5. The 

information in Table D.2-4 summarizes detailed equipment emissions information an applicant 

(LCI, 2010) voluntarily submitted to WDEQ to support a survey of small emitters. Table D.2-5 

lists the applicable power-output-based emissions factors for diesel industrial engines. 

D.2.3 Reclamation Equipment Emissions Calculations 

The emissions during the construction period are expected to bound annual emissions from 

operations and aquifer restoration phases because the use of diesel-powered equipment during 

those phases is much less than during construction (NRC, 2004). Construction equipment use 

during decommissioning and reclamation (hereafter reclamation) is expected to be similar to the 

construction phase (NRC, 2004) because many aspects of reclamation, in effect, are the 

reverse of the activities conducted during construction. During construction, well drilling and 

facility construction activities predominate, while during reclamation diesel equipment is used for 

other activities such as well plugging and abandonment, equipment removal, and land 

reclamation. The applicant has planned a 1- to 2-year period for the reclamation of each 

wellfield as shown in Figure 2-1 of the final SEIS. 

Emissions for diesel equipment used for reclamation activities were calculated using the same 

methods as in Section D2.2 for construction equipment [Eq. (D–3)], although input parameters 

were revised for equipment horsepower and operating times to reflect available information on 

the proposed reclamation activities. The staff identified the most detailed and complete 

information on proposed activities in the surety estimate for the proposed facility 

(Uranerz, 2007). Limited information on equipment was provided in the applicant’s surety; 

however, because equipment needed for ISR reclamation work is expected to be similar among 

sites, the equipment was assumed to be similar to that another applicant described 

(EMC, 2007). Based on the available equipment information, specific equipment models were 

selected by reviewing WDEQ-provided documentation of commonly used reclamation 

equipment (WDEQ, 2009). 

Equipment horsepower information for specific models was obtained from manufacturer 

documentation. A few equipment items were only generally described in the surety estimate as 

truck or tow vehicles for well abandonment activities, and these were assumed to be rated at 

250 horsepower. Operating times for each item of equipment were derived from detailed 

information and assumptions on specific reclamation activities discussed in the applicant surety 

estimate (Uranerz, 2007), including building demolition floor removal, pipeline removal, well 

abandonment, and reclamation of disturbed surface areas such as wellfields, facilities areas, 

and access roads. Equipment usage was not explicitly called out in the applicant surety for 

specific activities (e.g., back hoe, track hoe, dozer, dump truck, scraper, motor grader), so 

operating times were estimated based, in part, on assumptions about which reclamation 

activities would utilize the equipment (e.g., back hoe and track hoe for excavation, the motor 

grader was assumed for road grading and grading cleared foundation areas, the dozer for 

ripping packed land surface areas, the dump truck for transporting excavated topsoil, and the 

scraper was assigned the same hours as for the construction work discussed in Section D2.2). 

Information on equipment productivity, such as grading or ripping rates and payload amounts, 

was obtained from the aforementioned WDEQ documentation (WDEQ, 2009). The resulting 

equipment and operation times are provided in Table D.2-6. The emissions factors used in the 

calculations are provided in Table D.2-5. 

 

D–5 
Appendix D 

Table D.2-4. Horsepower (hp) and Operating Times (hr/yr) for Diesel 

Construction Equipment 

Equipment 

Horsepower 

(HPr)

Operating Time 

(OTr)

Lull 944E Telehandler 110 515 

John Deere 710J Backhoe 126 410 

John Deere 410 Backhoe 66 275 

Truck 250 100 

John Deere Loader 200 60 

Scraper 600 60 

Blade 300 40 

Caterpillar D8 Dozer 321 15 

Source: LCI, 2010 

Table D.2-5. Emissions Factors (EFi,) for Uncontrolled Diesel Industrial 

Engines (lb/hp-hr) 

Pollutant Value* 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 0.031 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.00668 

Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 0.00205 

Particulate Matter (PM10) 0.00220 

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1.15 

Formaldehyde 0.00000826 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 0.00247 

Source: EPA (1996, Chapter 3.3, Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-2) 

*To convert from lb/hp-hr to kg/kw-hr, multiply by 0.608

Table D.2-6. Horsepower (hp) and Operating Times (hr) for Diesel 

Reclamation Equipment 

Equipment 

Horsepower 

(HPr)

Operating Time 

(OTr)

Dump Truck 250 1610 

Caterpillar 320DL Track Hoe 148 1350 

Heavy Truck 250 1050 

Caterpillar 430E Backhoe 101 900 

Lull 944E Telehandler 110 450 

New Holland 545D Tractor 63 120 

Caterpillar 657G Scraper 600 50 

Caterpillar D9 Dozer 474 38 

Caterpillar 16H Motor Grader 265 4 

Sources: Derived by staff from information in the following references: (1) EMC, 2007; (2) LCI, 2010; 

(3) Uranerz, 2007; (4) WDEQ, 2009. 

D–6 
Appendix D 

D.3 Results and Discussion 

The estimated annual emissions from well drilling and construction equipment are provided in 

Tables D.3-1 and D.3-2. These results apply to completing a single wellfield (Nichols Ranch 

Unit Production Area #1) and one deep disposal well. The total estimated annual emissions 

from both calculations combined are provided in Table D.3-3. The combined results for drilling 

and construction equipment show CO2 and NOx annual emissions are the highest of the 

pollutants evaluated. For well drilling equipment, the rig used for the deep disposal well 

generated higher annual emission estimates when compared to the emissions from drilling all 

the water wells for a single wellfield (525 wells). This result is explained by the larger, more fuel 

consuming, engine used by a deep well rig in comparison to the smaller water well rig and the 

long drilling time per well required for deep drilling. 

For example, the deep well drilling is estimated to emit 57 percent of the annual NOx drilling 

emissions, compared to water well drilling of 525 wells that represents 43 percent of the annual 

drilling NOx emission total. Compared with the calculated drilling emissions, the magnitude of 

the calculated construction equipment emissions is small. The total construction equipment 

emissions of NOx are 24 percent of the total annual NOx from all activities included in the 

calculations, while drilling activities constitute the remaining 76 percent of the total emissions. 

Additional factors considered in this analysis that could increase the annual emissions estimates 

include the overlap in planned wellfield construction activities and the number of deep disposal 

wells that the applicant might drill in a single year. While the applicant has proposed a 

phased approach to wellfield development that does not overlap within each unit 

(Uranerz, 2007, Table 7-5), wellfield development at the Nichols Ranch Unit does overlap with 

development activities at the Hank Unit for one quarter of the year. These two units are 

approximately 6 miles apart and are therefore considered separate emissions sources. 

Nonetheless, the estimated annual emissions, considering the development overlap between 

the two units, are approximated by increasing the annual water well drilling and construction 

equipment emissions in Tables D.3-1 and D.3-2 by 25 percent. This adjustment considers the 

annual emissions calculated for Nichols Ranch Unit #1 wellfield, and then accounts for the 

additional emissions from constructing Hank Unit # 1 wellfield during one quarter of that same 

year. The applicant plans a similar period of overlap during the year when Nichols Ranch 

Unit #2 wellfield and Hank Unit #2 wellfield are constructed and the emissions for that year 

would also be approximated by the aforementioned adjustment. The applicant has not provided 

a schedule for the deep well drilling; however, given the total number of proposed deep disposal 

wells is eight, this analysis provides two separate sets of emissions estimates. The first set 

assumes the applicant develops the first proposed wellfield and a portion of the second (as 

described above) and four deep disposal wells in one year. The second set of estimates uses 

the same wellfield development assumptions as the first set but assumes all eight deep disposal 

wells are drilled in the same year. The deep disposal well drilling emissions in these estimates 

are approximated by scaling the deep well drilling emissions Table D.3-1 by the number of deep 

disposal wells assumed. The results of applying these adjustments represent estimates of the 

maximum annual emissions calculated, which are provided in Table D.3-4. For the Modified 

Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3), none of the Hank Unit wellfields would be constructed and 

fewer deep disposal wells would be needed. For that alternative, annual emissions estimates 

would be slightly less than the annual results presented in Table D.3-4 that assume four deep 

disposal wells because the contribution from overlapping Hank wellfield construction would not 

occur. Because the results would decrease by a small amount (e.g., for NOx the recalculated 

value would be 29 t/yr [32 T/yr] or a decrease of about 6 percent from the value in Table D.3-4] 

annual emissions for the alternative are not reported separately in the table. 

D–7 
Appendix D 

Table D.3-1. Calculated Annual Emissions From Well Drilling Activities (tons/yr)* 

Drilling 

Activity NOx CO SO2 PM10 CO2 Formaldehyde VOCs 

Operational 

wellfield (water 

well) drilling 

4.6 0.98 0.30 0.32 170 0.0012 0.37 

Deep well 

drilling 6 2.0 0.10 0.20 340 0.0002 0.20 

Total 11 3.0 0.40 0.52 510 0.0014 0.57 

*Includes drilling and construction of the first proposed wellfield, and one deep disposal well

*To convert tons to metric tons, multiply by 0.907

Table D.3-2. Calculated Annual Emissions From Construction Equipment (tons/yr)* 

Equipment NOx† CO† SO2† PM10† CO2† Formaldehyde VOCs† 

Lull 944E 

Telehandler 0.88 0.19 0.058 0.062 33 0.00023 0.070 

JD 710J 

Backhoe 0.80 0.17 0.053 0.057 30 0.00021 0.064 

JD 410 

Backhoe 0.28 0.060 0.019 0.020 10 0.000075 0.022 

Truck 0.40 0.086 0.026 0.028 15 0.00011 0.032 

JD Loader 0.18 0.038 0.012 0.013 6.6 0.000047 0.014 

Scraper 0.53 0.11 0.035 0.038 20 0.00014 0.042 

Blade 0.29 0.043 0.013 0.014 7.4 0.000053 0.016 

CAT D8 Dozer 0.070 0.015 0.0046 0.0049 2.6 0.000019 0.0056 

Total 3.3 0.72 0.22 0.24 120 0.00089 0.27 

*Includes equipment used to support drilling and wellfield development operations 

*To convert tons to metric tons, multiply by 0.907

†NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter; CO2 = carbon 

dioxide; VOCs = volatile organic compounds

Table D.3-3. Total Calculated Annual Emissions From Drilling and Construction 

(tons/yr)* 

Activities NOx† CO† SO2† PM10† CO2† Formaldehyde VOCs† 

Well drilling and 

construction 14 4.0 0.62 0.76 630 0.0023 0.84 

*Includes drilling and construction of the first proposed wellfield, and one deep disposal well. Results are the sum 

of results from Tables D.3-1 and D.3-2 

*To convert tons to metric tons, multiply by 0.907 

†NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter; CO2 = carbon 

dioxide; VOCs = volatile organic compounds

 

D–8 
Appendix D 

Table D.3-4. Adjusted Annual Diesel Emissions From Drilling and Construction (tons/yr)*

Activities NOx† CO† SO2† PM10† CO2† Formaldehyde VOCs†

Development of the first 

proposed wellfield and a single 

deep well adjusted to add 

emissions from adding three 

more deep wells and 

constructing a portion of the 

second proposed wellfield 

34 10 1.0 1.5 1,700 0.0034 1.6

Development of the first 

proposed wellfield and a single 

deep well adjusted to add 

emissions from seven 

additional deep wells and 

constructing a portion of a 

second proposed wellfield 

58 18 1.4 2.3 3,100 0.0042 2.4

*

Results from Table D.3-3 adjusted to account for additional emissions from planned wellfield construction activities 

that overlap in time based on the proposed schedule. 

†NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 – particulate matter; CO2 = carbon 

dioxide; VOCs = volatile organic compounds 

*To convert tons to metric tons, multiply by 0.907

The emissions estimates are expected to be conservative because they are based on emissions 

factors applicable to engines that have no pollution controls. Table D.3-5 provides a 

comparison of the EPA AP-42 factors (EPA, 1996) that were used for the calculations in this 

appendix with updated emission factor values (EPA, 2004) that are based on more recent data 

that apply to engines with pollution controls (Tier 1 representing the first phase of standards that 

were mandated by the Federal Government in four phases of increasing limits). Table D.3-5 

shows calculated emission estimates for NOx and CO would be reduced approximately by a 

factor of 2 and PM10 and VOC emissions by a factor of 5 if the updated emission factors were 

used. Because the actual equipment that would be used is uncertain, the assumption of an 

applicant using older uncontrolled engines bounds the emissions if older equipment is selected 

for this work. That assumption also provides margin in the estimates if the actual selected 

equipment meets emission standards. 

The results of emissions calculations for reclamation activities are provided in Table D.3-6. 

Because wellfield reclamation for the Nichols Ranch Unit #1 wellfield is planned to take 1 year, 

the results in Table D.3-6 are considered representative of annual emissions from constructing 

that wellfield. According to the applicant schedule, wellfield reclamation activities for wellfields 

within each unit are not planned to overlap, however, reclamation activities do overlap across 

units for two quarters of a year (SEIS, Figure 2-1). For the period where overlap occurs, 

assuming the emissions for reclamation the Nichols Ranch Unit #1 wellfield are comparable to 

emissions for reclaiming the other wellfields, the annual reclamation emissions from both units 

(Nichols Ranch Unit #2 wellfield and Hank Unit #1 wellfield) is approximated by multiplying the 

total pollutant-specific results in Table D.3-6 by a factor of 1.25. This factor considers that Hank 

Unit #1 wellfield reclamation is scheduled for a 2 year period and two quarters overlap with 

Nichols Ranch Unit #2 wellfield reclamation, therefore, the emissions applicable to completing 

25 percent of a wellfield and facilities decommissioning effort are added to the totals in 

Table D.3-6 to account for the overlap period. The results of applying this adjustment represent 

the maximum annual emissions calculated for the reclamation phase, which are provided in 

D–9 
Appendix D 

Table D.3-5. Effect of Using Updated Emissions Factors That Account for 

Pollution Controls 

Pollutant 

1996 Uncontrolled 

Emission Factor for 

Diesel Industrial 

Engines (lb/hp-hr) 

2004 Updated Value 

(Tier 1 Controlled 

300–600 HP Diesel 

Engines)(lb/hp-hr) 

Reduction Ratio 

(Updated/ 

Uncontrolled) 

Nitrogen Oxides 

(NOx) 0.031 0.0132 0.42 

Carbon Monoxide 

(CO) 0.00668 0.00288 0.43 

Particulate Matter 

(PM10) 0.00220 0.00044 0.20 

Volatile Organic 

Compounds 

(VOCs) 0.00247 0.000446 0.18 

Sources: EPA, 2004; EPA, 1996 

*To convert from lb/hp-hr to kg/kw-hr, multiply by 0.608 

Table D.3-6. Calculated Diesel Equipment Emissions (tons/yr) From Reclamation of One

Wellfield and the Processing Facilities 

Equipment NOx CO SO2 PM10 CO2 Formaldehyde VOCs 

Dump Truck 6.2 1.3 0.41 0.44 230 0.0016 0.50 

Caterpillar 

320DL Track 

Hoe 

3.1 0.67 0.20 0.22 110 0.00082 0.25 

Heavy Truck 4.1 0.88 0.27 0.29 150 0.0011 0.32 

Caterpillar 430E 

Backhoe 1.4 0.30 0.09 0.10 52 0.00037 0.11 

Lull 944E 

Telehandler 0.77 0.17 0.051 0.054 28 0.00020 0.061 

New Holland 

545D Tractor 0.12 0.025 0.0077 0.0083 4.3 0.000031 0.0093 

Caterpillar 

657G Scraper 0.4.76 0.10 0.031 0.033 17 0.00012 0.037 

Caterpillar D9 

Dozer 0.28 0.060 0.018 0.020 10 0.000074 0.022 

Caterpillar 16H 

Motor Grader 0.020 0.0035 0.0011 0.0012 0.61 0.0000044 0.0013 

Total 16 3.5 1.1 1.2 600 0.0044 1.3 

To convert tons to metric tons, multiply by 0.907

 

D–10 
Appendix D 

Table D.3-7. For the Modified Action–No Hank Unit Alternative 3), because none of the Hank 

Unit wellfields (would be constructed, none would be reclaimed, and therefore, there would be 

no overlapping reclamation activities and the annual emissions estimates would be bounded by 

the results applicable to reclaiming one wellfield per year in Table D.3-6. 

During the proposed 5-year period allocated to decommission all wellfields, the magnitude of 

annual wellfield reclamation emissions for periods where reclamation activities do not overlap 

(see Table D.3-6) are generally higher than the annual emissions calculated for wellfield 

construction (see Table D.3-3), by approximately a factor of two or less for several of the 

pollutants evaluated; however, higher by only 14 percent for NOx. 

Comparing the maximum annual emissions calculated for the construction phase and the 

reclamation phase (i.e., considering overlapping activities in each phase), the levels of 

emissions are higher during construction (see Table D.3-4 results for four deep disposal wells) 

for some pollutants (NOx, CO, and CO2) and higher during reclamation (see Table D.3-7) for the 

others (SO2, PM10, formaldehyde, VOCs) by no more than a factor of 2, and about the same for 

PM10 and VOCs. When all deep disposal wells are assumed to be drilled in a single year, all the 

construction emissions estimates (except formaldehyde) are higher than the reclamation 

emissions. 

Cumulative emissions for the proposed action were also approximated using the calculated 

results for the development and reclamation of the proposed four wellfields and eight deep 

disposal wells. For the purpose of this analysis, cumulative emissions are the total lifecycle 

emissions from all phases of the proposed action. Because the principal diesel emissions from 

the proposed action are associated with equipment used for constructing and decommissioning 

the project, the analysis focuses on the emissions from those phases. The initial calculated 

annual emissions in Table D.3-3, and D.3-6 apply to constructing a single wellfield, drilling a 

single deep disposal well, and reclaiming a single wellfield and facilities. Assuming these 

emissions are representative of the construction and reclamation of the other wellfields to be 

developed, these results scale with the total number of wellfields and deep wells that are 

proposed. The cumulative emissions were conservatively approximated by multiplying the sum 

of the calculated pollutant-specific well drilling and construction emissions from Table D.3-3 and 

the reclamation emissions from Table D.3-6 by a factor of 4 and then adding four times the deep 

well drilling emission estimates in Table D.3-1. The resulting cumulative emissions totals are 

provided in Table D.3-8. In short, the cumulative emissions totals include the calculated diesel 

emissions from constructing 4 proposed wellfields, 8 proposed deep disposal wells, and 

Table D.3-7. Adjusted Annual Diesel Equipment Emissions (tons/yr) From Reclamation* 

Activities NOx† CO† SO2† PM10† CO2† Formaldehyde VOCs† 

Reclamation of the first 

proposed wellfield 

adjusted to approximate 

emissions from reclaiming 

one wellfield and a portion 

of another in a single year 

20 4.4 1.4 1.5 750 0.0054 1.6 

*

Results from Table D.3-6 are adjusted to account for additional emissions from planned reclamation activities that 

overlap in time based on the proposed schedule. 

†NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter; CO2 = carbon dioxide; 

VOCs = volatile organic compounds 

To convert tons to metric tons, multiply by 0.907

D–11 
Appendix D 

Table D.3-8. Estimated Cumulative Emissions From the Proposed Action* and Modified 

Action-No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) (tons) 

Activities NOx† CO† SO2† PM10† CO2† Formaldehyde VOCs† 

Proposed Action: Well 

drilling and construction of 

4 wellfields and 8 deep 

wells and reclamation of 

all wells and facilities 

146 37 7.2 8.5 6300 0.027 9.4 

Modified Action–No Hank 

Unit (Alternative 3): Well 

drilling and construction of 

2 wellfields and 4 deep 

wells and reclamation of 

all wells and facilities 

73 18 3.6 4.2 3200 0.014 4.7 

*The planned duration of the proposed action represents a phased construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and 

reclamation schedule for each wellfield and facilities over a 10-year period (Uranerz, 2007, Figure 3-12 and 

Table 7-5). Based on the NRC staff’s review of the applicant’s proposed schedule for the Nichols Ranch Unit 

(Uranerz, 2007, Figure 3-12 and Table 7-5), the activities for the Modified Action–No Hank Unit (Alternative 3) would 

be similarly phased and last approximately 8 years. 

†NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter; CO2 = carbon dioxide; 

VOCs = volatile organic compounds 

To convert tons to metric tons, multiply by 0.907 

reclaiming all wellfields and facilities over a 10-year period. The cumulative results are 

conservative, in part, because the (factor of 4) multiplier over counts the contribution from the 

plant facilities decommissioning that is included in each wellfield reclamation 

emissions calculation. 

D.4 References 

Eastern Research Group. “Report on Revisions to 5th Edition AP-42, Section 3.3 Gasoline and 

Diesel Industrial Engines”. Morrisville, North Carolina: Eastern Research Group. 

September 1996. 

Energy Metals Corporation (EMC). “Application for USNRC Source Material License Moore 

Ranch Uranium Project Campbell County, Wyoming.” Technical Report, Volume 1 and Volume 

3 Appendix D. Casper, Wyoming. September 2007. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Letter from C. Rushin, Acting Regional 

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to M. Lesar, Chief, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. “Subject: Re: NUREG–1910, Supplements 1, 2, and 3 Draft SEIS for 

Three Wyoming Uranium ISR Projects: Lost Creek ISR Project CEQ# 20090425; Moore Ranch 

ISR Project CEQ# 20090421; Nichols Ranch ISR Project CEQ# 20090423.” 

ADAMS No. ML100680712. March 3, 2010. 

EPA. “Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling—CompressionIgnition.” EPA420–P–04–009, NR–009c. Washington DC: EPA. April 2004. 

EPA. “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary and Point Area 

Sources.” AP–42, Fifth Edition, Chapters 3.3 and 3.4. Washington DC: EPA. October 1996. 

D–12