4156 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 192 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0788; FRL–9909–20– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AP43 

Health and Environmental Protection 

Standards for Uranium and Thorium 

Mill Tailings 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to add new 

health and environmental protection 

standards to regulations promulgated 

under the Uranium Mill Tailings 

Radiation Control Act of 1978 

(‘‘UMTRCA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’). The 

proposed standards will regulate 

byproduct materials produced by 

uranium in-situ recovery (ISR), 

including both surface and subsurface 

standards, with a primary focus on 

groundwater protection, restoration and 

stability. ISR has a greater potential to 

directly affect groundwater than does 

conventional milling. Therefore, by 

explicitly addressing the most 

significant hazards represented by ISR 

activities, these proposed standards are 

intended to address the shift toward ISR 

as the dominant form of uranium 

recovery that has occurred since the 

standards for uranium and thorium mill 

tailings were initially promulgated in 

1983. The general standards proposed 

today, when final, will be implemented 

by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC). This action also proposes to 

amend specific provisions in the current 

Health and Environmental Protection 

Standards for Uranium and Thorium 

Mill Tailings rule to address a ruling of 

the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, to 

update a cross-reference to another 

environmental standard and to correct 

certain technical and typographical 

errors that have been identified since 

the 1983 promulgation. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0788, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 202–566–9744. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation; 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0788. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Air and Radiation Docket, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ingrid Rosencrantz, Office of Radiation 

and Indoor Air, Radiation Protection 

Division, Mailcode 6608T, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: 202–343– 

9286; fax number: 202–343–2304; email 

address: Rosencrantz.ingrid@epa.gov. 

Executive Summary: The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to add new health and 

environmental protection standards to 

regulations promulgated under the 

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 

Control Act of 1978 (‘‘UMTRCA’’ or 

‘‘the Act’’). The proposed standards will 

regulate byproduct materials produced 

by uranium in-situ recovery (ISR), 

including both surface and subsurface 

standards, with a primary focus on 

groundwater protection, restoration and 

stability. ISR has a greater potential to 

directly affect groundwater than does 

conventional milling. Therefore, by 

explicitly addressing the most 

significant hazards represented by ISR 

activities, these proposed standards are 

intended to address the shift toward ISR 

as the dominant form of uranium 

recovery that has occurred since the 

standards for uranium and thorium mill 

tailings were initially promulgated in 

1983. The legal authority for this action 

is in Section 275 of the Atomic Energy 

Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended by 

Section 206 of the Uranium Mill 

Tailings Radiation Control Act 

(UMTRCA) of 1978. Health and 

environmental protection standards 

established by EPA under UMTRCA are 

implemented by NRC. See 42 U.S.C. 

2022(b) and (d). 

This action also proposes to amend 

specific provisions in the current Health 

and Environmental Protection 

Standards for Uranium and Thorium 

Mill Tailings rule to address a ruling of 

the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, to 

update a cross-reference to another 

environmental standard, and to correct 

certain technical and typographical 

errors that have been identified since 

the 1983 promulgation. 

The major provisions of today’s 

proposal include the following: 

• We are proposing to add an 

additional subpart within 40 CFR part 

192 to explicitly address groundwater 

protection at uranium ISR operations. A 

new subpart F is being proposed that 

would set standards that would apply to 

uranium ISR facilities only. The overall 

purpose of this subpart is to address the 

most significant hazards represented by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 4157 

ISR activities. This subpart adds the 

following: 

1. A section on applicability— 

§ 192.50 Applicability—that specifies 

the subpart will apply to the 

management of uranium byproduct 

materials during and following the 

processing of uranium ores using ISR 

methods. 

2. A section containing definitions— 

§ 192.51 Definitions and crossreferences. 

3. A section—§ 192.52 Standards—in 

which EPA proposes to specify the 

minimum 13 constituents for which 

groundwater protection standards must 

be met. The list includes the following: 

Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, 

lead, mercury, selenium, silver, nitrate 

(as N), molybdenum, combined radium226 and radium-228, uranium (total), 

and gross alpha-particle activity 

(excluding radon and uranium). 

4. A section discussing monitoring 

requirements—§ 192.53 Monitoring 

programs—that details the specific 

requirements of monitoring programs to 

be conducted during the preoperational, 

operational, restoration, stability and 

long-term stability phases. 

5. A section establishing requirements 

for corrective actions—§ 192.54 

Corrective action program. 

6. A section detailing the effective 

date of the new subpart—§ 192.55— 

Effective date. 

• As noted above, we are also 

proposing to amend certain provisions 

within the existing 40 CFR part 192 to 

address a ruling of the Tenth Circuit 

Court of Appeals, delete reference to an 

outdated standard and correct minor 

technical and typographical errors. 

The costs and benefits of this 

rulemaking are described briefly in the 

tables presented below. Costs quantified 

in Table 2 address costs of the rule that 

reflect appropriate characterization of 

the background data, and then ensuring 

that: (1) The post-operational 

groundwater is restored to that of the 

initial groundwater conditions and (2) 

the post-restoration groundwater 

conditions will remain stable. 

The proposed rule requires affected 

facilities to monitor groundwater for a 

longer period of time compared to 

current practice (estimated to be 9.5 

additional years if geochemical 

modeling indicates that conditions will 

remain stable, and estimated 32.5 

additional years if long-term stability 

monitoring continues for 30 years. The 

major costs associated with the 

proposed rule are the costs of these 

monitoring activities. National total 

annualized incremental costs of the 

proposed rule, based on likely 

implementation represented by the 

average cost of 30-year long-term 

stability monitoring with geochemical 

modeling to shorten the duration, is 

$13.5 million (in 2011 dollars), as 

shown in Table 2 below. EPA also 

examined potential impacts on small 

businesses that own and operate ISR 

operations. Using existing owner 

companies as examples of the firms that 

may own ISR operations subject to the 

proposed rule, EPA found that the 

estimated costs of complying with the 

proposed rule are 0.6% to 1.7% of 

estimated 2015 revenues for three small 

firms that own ISR operations. Because 

costs do not exceed 2% of estimated 

sales, and because EPA projects that 

fewer than 10 small businesses will be 

affected by the rule at any given time, 

EPA concluded that the proposed rule 

would not result in significant impacts 

for a substantial number of small 

entities. For information on how EPA 

estimated these costs, see Section 3 and 

Appendix D of the Economic Analysis. 

EPA conducted a qualitative 

assessment of the benefits of the 

proposed rule. EPA recognizes that 

groundwater is a valuable resource, and 

is becoming more valuable as 

groundwater use increases. While the 

aquifers in the vicinity of ISR operations 

are currently providing little extractive 

value (because of their locations and, for 

some areas, the fact that groundwater 

quality is low), in future years these 

resources may have increased value. A 

recent analysis (Poe et al, 2001) 

estimated the value to today’s 

households of protecting groundwater 

for future use ranged from $531 to $736 

per household. For this reason, EPA 

believes it is necessary to take a longer 

view of groundwater protection than 

taken in the past. Currently, monitoring 

groundwater conditions after restoration 

is typically conducted for a short period 

of time (EPA assumes 6 months for cost 

estimate purposes), which may not be 

long enough to detect instability in 

groundwater conditions. EPA’s 

proposed rule requires a 30 year longterm stability monitoring period, which 

may be shortened if geochemical 

modeling demonstrates that conditions 

in the restored wellfield will remain 

stable over time. 

The proposed rule will reduce the risk 

of undetected excursions of pollutants 

into adjacent aquifers. This in turn will 

reduce the human health risks that 

could result from exposures to 

radionuclides in well water used for 

drinking or agriculture in areas located 

down-gradient from an ISR. Because 

radionuclides are human carcinogens, 

the main health risk averted would be 

cancer. There is a benefit (estimated to 

be at least $8 million per premature 

death avoided) of reducing cancer 

deaths, but because we were unable to 

estimate how many cancer deaths 

would be averted, or when they would 

occur, EPA is unable to quantify this 

benefit. 

In addition to avoiding human health 

impacts, the proposed rule has the 

potential to detect excursions sooner 

and thus enable a faster remedial 

response. Because plumes detected 

during long-term stability monitoring 

would be smaller, costs of remediation 

would be potentially much lower. For a 

model mine unit, EPA estimated the 

averted remediation costs to range from 

$8.8 million to more than $500 million. 

EPA is unable to extrapolate this 

estimate to a national value, because we 

do not have a basis for estimating 

which, if any, wellfields would 

experience an undetected contaminant 

plume in the absence of the proposed 

rule. 

TABLE 1—CHARACTERIZATION OF THE

COSTS AND BENEFITS OF 40 CFR 

PART 192, SUBPART F 

Costs Benefits 

Annualized monitoring 

costs ranging from 

$12.5 to $14.1 million.

Protection of groundwater quality. 

Maintenance of financial assurance for 

up to 30 additional 

years per facility.

Possible protection of 

surface water quality. 

Potentially reduced 

risk of exposure of 

human or ecological receptors to radiological pollutants. 

Potentially reduced 

human health impacts, including 

cancer. 

Reduced remediation 

cost savings ($8.8 

million to $560 million for CMU). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4158 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF 40 CFR PART 192, SUBPART F WITH OPTIONS

[millions of 2011 dollars] 

Requirement Capital 

cost 

Annual 

cost Net benefit 

30 years with geochemical modeling ................................................................ a $25.2 $13.5 Not Quantified. 

30 Years, no shortening .................................................................................... 19.3 15.1 

a Capital costs are higher for the geochemical modeling option because more wells would be required. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Outline. The information in this 

preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments to EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

C. When would a public hearing occur? 

D. What documents are referenced in 

today’s proposal? 

E. Acronyms and Abbreviations 

F. Definitions 

II. Background Information 

A. What is the scope of this action? 

B. Uranium Extraction 

1. Conventional Mining and Milling 

2. Heap Leach 

3. In-Situ Recovery (ISR) 

C. What is the statutory authority for the 

proposed amendments? 

D. What are the existing requirements 

under 40 CFR part 192? 

E. Why does EPA believe new standards 

are necessary? 

1. What are the environmental impacts of 

uranium ISR? 

2. What analysis has EPA done to support 

the proposal? 

3. What came out of the Advisory from 

EPA’s Science Advisory Board? 

4. What efforts has the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission taken recently? 

F. What other EPA statutes and regulations 

are relevant? 

1. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

2. Clean Water Act (CWA) 

3. Clean Air Act (CAA) 

4. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) 

III. Summary of Today’s Proposal 

A. Proposed Standards—Subpart F 

1. Proposal of New Subpart—Subpart F— 

Public Health, Safety and Environmental 

Protection Standards for Byproduct 

Materials Produced by Uranium In-situ 

Recovery 

2. Addition of New Section on 

Applicability—§ 192.50 Applicability 

3. Addition of New Section Containing 

Definitions—§ 192.51 Definitions and 

Cross-References 

4. Addition of New Section Detailing 

Standards—§ 192.52 Standards 

5. Addition of New Section Discussing 

Monitoring Requirements—§ 192.53

Monitoring Programs 

6. Addition of New Section Discussing 

Requirements for Corrective Actions— 

§ 192.54 Corrective Action Program 

7. Addition of New Section Detailing the 

Effective Date of the New Subpart— 

§ 192.55—Effective Date 

B. Other Proposed Amendments 

1. Revision to Subpart C—Implementation 

2. Revision to Subpart D—Standards for 

the Management of Uranium Byproduct 

Materials 

IV. What is the rationale for today’s proposal? 

A. How does today’s proposal relate to 

existing 40 CFR part 192? 

B. What groundwater protection standards 

are we proposing for ISR facilities? 

1. Generally Applicable Groundwater 

Standards 

2. Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs) 

C. Adequate Characterization of 

Groundwater Prior to Uranium Recovery 

1. Establishing Restoration Goals 

D. Excursions 

E. Long-Term Stability Monitoring 

1. Thirty-Year Long-Term Stability 

Monitoring Period, With Provisions for 

Shortening That Time Period 

2. What other options did EPA consider for 

the long-term stability monitoring 

period? 

a. Required Thirty-Year Long-Term 

Stability Monitoring Period 

b. Narrative Standard With No Fixed 

Monitoring Period 

3. How will groundwater stability be 

determined? 

a. What do we propose for determining 

stability? 

b. Where will the determination of stability 

be made? 

F. Institutional Control 

G. Other Proposed Amendments 

1. Judicial Decision 

2. Miscellaneous Updates and Corrections 

a. Outdated Cross-Reference 

b. Technical Corrections 

V. Summary of Environmental, Cost and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the impacts to groundwater? 

B. What are the benefits of avoiding 

impacts to groundwater? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by the proposed 

standards include: 

Category NAICS 

code 1 Examples of regulated entities 

Industry: 

Uranium Ores Mining and/or 

Beneficiating.

212291 Facilities that extract or concentrate uranium from any ore processed primarily for its 

source material content. 

Leaching of Uranium, Radium or Vanadium Ores.212291 Facilities that extract or concentrate uranium from any ore processed primarily for its 

source material content. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 4159 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this proposed action. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments to EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information contained on a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

suggest alternatives, and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

Make sure to submit your comments 

by the comment period deadline 

identified. 

C. When would a public hearing occur? 

If anyone contacts the EPA requesting 

to speak at a public hearing concerning 

this proposed rule by February 25, 2015, 

we will hold a public hearing. If you are 

interested in attending the public 

hearing, contact Mr. Anthony Nesky at 

(202) 343–9597 to verify that a hearing 

will be held. If a public hearing is held, 

we will announce the date, time and 

venue on our Web site at http://

www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/

40CFR192.html. 

D. What documents are referenced in 

today’s proposal? 

We refer to a number of documents 

that provide supporting information for 

our uranium and thorium mill tailings 

standards. All documents relied upon 

by EPA in regulatory decision making 

may be found in our docket (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0788) accessible via http://

www.regulations.gov/. Other 

documents, e.g., statutes, regulations, 

and proposed rules, are readily available 

from public sources. The EPA 

documents listed below are referenced 

most frequently in today’s proposal. 

EPA 402/D–14–001 ‘‘Considerations 

Related to Post Closure Monitoring of 

Uranium In-Situ Leach/In-Situ Recovery 

(ISL/ISR) Sites,’’ Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2014. 

EPA 402/R–14–003 ‘‘Economic Analysis: 

Proposed Revisions to the Health and 

Environmental Protection Standards for 

Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings Rule 

(40 CFR part 192),’’ Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2014. 

EPA 530/R–09–007 ‘‘Statistical Analysis of 

Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA 

Facilities—Unified Guidance,’’ 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. 

E. Acronyms and Abbreviations 

The following acronyms and 

abbreviations are used in this document: 

ACL—alternate concentration limit 

AEA—Atomic Energy Act 

BID—Background information document 

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CWA—Clean Water Act 

CBI—Confidential Business Information 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

DOE—U.S. Department of Energy 

EIA—economic impact analysis 

EO—Executive Order 

EPA—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FR—Federal Register 

ISR—in-situ recovery, also known as in-situ 

leaching (ISL) 

l—liter 

MCLs—Maximum Contaminant Levels 

mg—milligram 

MOU—Memoranda of Understanding 

N—nitrate 

NRC—U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OMB—Office of Management and Budget 

RAC—Radiation Advisory Committee 

RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SAB—Science Advisory Board 

SDWA—Safe Drinking Water Act 

UIC—underground injection control 

U.S.—United States 

USD—United States dollar 

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

UMTRCA—Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 

Control Act of 1978 

U.S.C.—United States Code 

USDW—underground source of drinking 

water 

WL—Working Level 

F. Definitions 

The following terms are used in this 

document: 

Terminology Definition 

Adjacent Aquifer ................... An aquifer or portion of an aquifer that shares a border or end point with the exempted aquifer or the exempted 

portion of an aquifer. 

Alternate Concentration Limit 

(ACL).

Concentration limit approved by the regulatory agency for a groundwater constituent that has not been restored 

to its restoration goal after best practicable restoration activities have been completed following the process 

prescribed in 40 CFR 192.52(c)(2) thru 192.52(c)(5). 

Aquifer .................................. A geological ‘‘formation,’’ group of formations, or part of a formation that is capable of yielding a significant 

amount of water to a well or spring. See 40 CFR 144.3. 

Aquitard ................................ A confining bed that retards but does not prevent the flow of water to or from an adjacent aquifer. 

Background .......................... The condition of groundwater, including the radiological and non-radiological constituent concentrations, in the exempted aquifer, adjacent aquifers, and in both overlying and underlying aquifers, prior to the beginning of ISR 

operations. The background groundwater constituent concentrations in the production zone prior to the beginning of ISR operations is commonly referred to by the industry and regulatory bodies as the ‘‘baseline.’’ 

Beneficiation ......................... The initial attempt at liberating and concentrating a valuable mineral from extracted ore. This is typically performed by employing various crushing, grinding, and froth flotation techniques. 

Byproduct Material ............... See ‘‘Uranium Byproduct Material.’’ 

Constituent ........................... A detectable component within the groundwater. 

Exceedance .......................... An exceedance has occurred when, during stability or long-term stability monitoring, a groundwater protection 

standard is exceeded at any point of compliance well. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4160 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Terminology Definition 

Excursion .............................. The movement of fluids containing uranium byproduct material from an ISR production zone into surrounding 

groundwater. An excursion is considered to have occurred when, during operational or restoration phase monitoring, any two indicator parameters (e.g., chloride, conductivity, total alkalinity) exceed their respective upper 

control limits in any overlying, underlying, or perimeter monitoring well. Horizontal excursions refer to the lateral 

movement of the water, while vertical excursions indicate movement of water through aquitards above or below 

the production zone aquifer. 

Excursion Monitoring Well ... Wells located around the perimeter of the production zone (horizontal excursion wells) and in overlying and underlying aquifers (vertical excursion wells), which are used to detect any excursions from the production zone. 

Excursion monitoring wells can serve as the ‘‘point(s) of compliance’’ during all phases of ISR. 

Exempted Aquifer ................. An ‘‘aquifer,’’ or its portion, that meets the criteria in the definition of ‘‘underground source of drinking water’’ in 40 

CFR 144.3, but which has been exempted according to the procedures in 40 CFR 144.7. See 40 CFR 144.3. 

Extraction Well ..................... Well used to extract uranium enriched solutions from the ore-bearing aquifer; also known as a ‘‘Production Well.’’ 

Extraction and injection wells may be converted from one use to the other. 

Facility .................................. See ‘‘Uranium Recovery Facility.’’ 

Groundwater ......................... Water below the land surface in a zone of saturation. See 40 CFR 144.3. 

Indicator Parameter .............. A constituent, such as chloride, conductivity, or total alkalinity, whose ‘‘upper control limit’’ is used to identify an 

excursion. Indicator parameters are not contaminants, but relate to geochemical conditions in groundwater. 

Injection Well ........................ A well into which fluids are being injected. See 40 CFR 144.3. 

In-Situ Recovery (ISR) ......... A method of extraction by which uranium is leached from underground ore bodies by the introduction of a solvent 

solution, called a lixiviant, through injection wells drilled into the ore body. The process does not require the extraction of ore from the ground. The lixiviant is injected, passes through the ore body, mobilizes the uranium, 

and the uranium-bearing solution is pumped to the surface from extraction wells. The pregnant leach solution is 

processed to extract the uranium. 

Ion Exchange ....................... The process in which ions are exchanged between a solution and an insoluble solid. 

Listed Constituent ................ One of the thirteen groundwater constituents specified in Table 1 to subpart F of part 192. 

Lixiviant ................................ A liquid medium used to recover uranium from underground ore bodies through in-situ recovery. This liquid medium typically contains native groundwater and an added oxidant, such as oxygen and/or hydrogen peroxide, 

as well as sodium carbonate/bicarbonate or carbon dioxide. The lixiviant is introduced through injection wells 

into the ore body to mobilize the uranium. The resulting solution is then pumped via extraction wells to the surface, where the uranium is recovered from the solution for further processing, after which the lixiviant may be 

re-injected. 

Long-Term Stability Phase ... The period after the groundwater protection standards have been met, as determined by the regulatory agency. 

Maximum Constituent Concentration.The maximum permissible level of a constituent in groundwater, as specified in Table 1 to subpart A of part 192. 

Maximum Contaminant Level 

(MCL).

The maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water which is delivered to any user of a public water system. See 40 CFR 141.2. 

Mobilization .......................... Increasing the migration of constituents in groundwater by various chemical treatments. 

Monitoring Wells ................... Wells used to obtain groundwater levels and water samples for the purpose of determining the hydrologic regime 

and the amounts, types, and distribution of constituents in the groundwater. Wells are located in the production 

zone, around the perimeter of the production zone (horizontal excursion monitoring wells), and in overlying and 

underlying aquifers (vertical excursion monitoring wells). 

Operational Phase ............... The time period during which uranium extraction by in-situ recovery occurs. Operations begin when injection of 

lixiviant starts; operations end when the operator permanently ceases injection of lixiviant and recovery of uranium-bearing solution. 

Ore ....................................... The naturally occurring material from which a mineral or minerals of value (e.g., uranium) can be extracted. 

Overlying Aquifer .................. An aquifer that is immediately vertically shallower than (i.e., directly above) the production zone aquifer. 

Point(s) of Compliance ......... Site-specific location(s) where groundwater protection standards must be met. During all phases of ISR, excursion monitoring wells can serve as the points of compliance; during the restoration, stability and long-term stability phases, points of compliance may also include monitoring, injection and extraction wells in the production 

zone, as determined by the regulatory agency. 

Point(s) of Exposure ............ Intersection of a vertical plane with the boundary of the exempted aquifer. 

Precipitate ............................ To separate a substance (such as uranium) out of a solution as a solid. 

Preoperational Monitoring .... Measurement of groundwater conditions in the production zone, and in the groundwater up and down gradient 

from the production zone, as well as in overlying and underlying aquifers, prior to the operational phase. 

Production Zone ................... The portion of the aquifer in which ISR activities occur. The production zone lies within the wellfield. 

Regulatory Agency ............... The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or an Agreement State. 

Restoration (Act of) .............. The process of returning groundwater quality to preoperational conditions for the purpose of achieving restoration 

goal values for identified constituents. 

Restoration Goal .................. A concentration limit for an identified constituent in groundwater after restoration has occurred. The limit is obtained from the most protective regulatory standards in 40 CFR 141.62, 141.66, 141.80, 143.3, 264.94, and 

Table 1 to subpart A of this part, and from preoperational background levels in the wellfield, whichever is higher. 

Restoration Phase ................ The period immediately after lixiviant injection permanently ceases, during which restoration activities occur. 

Site ....................................... The land or water area where any facility or activity is physically located or conducted, including adjacent land 

used in connection with the facility or activity. See 40 CFR 144.3. 

Stability Phase ..................... The period after the restoration phase when groundwater protection standards are met and monitored to test for 

temporal stability. 

Solubilize .............................. To make a substance (such as uranium) soluble or more soluble. 

Underground Source of 

Drinking Water (USDW).

An aquifer or its portion: (a)(1) Which supplies any public water system; or (2) Which 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 total dissolved solids; and (b) Which is not an exempted aquifer. See 40 CFR 144.3. 

Underlying Aquifer ................ An aquifer that is immediately vertically deeper (i.e., directly below) than the production zone aquifer. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 4161 

1See 42 U.S.C. 7911(6) for the definition of a 

‘‘processing site.’’ 2See 60 FR 2854 (January 11, 1995) and 58 FR 

60340 (November 15, 1993). 3Byproduct material includes the tailings or 

wastes produced by the extraction or concentration 

of uranium from any ore processed primarily for its 

source material content. AEA section 11e.(2), 42 

U.S.C. 2014(e)(2). 4Under Section 274 of the AEA, the NRC may 

enter into an agreement with a State for 

discontinuance of the NRC’s regulatory authority 

and the State’s assumption of regulatory authority 

over specified radioactive materials and activities. 

The NRC must review and find the State’s 

regulatory program is adequate to protect public 

health and safety and compatible with the NRC’s 

regulatory program before entering into the Section 

274 agreement. The NRC continues oversight 

responsibilities of the Agreement State’s regulatory 

program through the Integrated Materials 

Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP). 5See 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 1. 

6The term ‘‘yellowcake’’ is still commonly used 

to refer to this material, although in addition to 

yellow, the uranium oxide material can also be 

black or grey in color. 

7http://www.epa.gov/radon/risk_

assessment.html. 

Terminology Definition 

Upper Control Limit (UCL) ... Preoperational concentrations of indicator parameters in horizontal and vertical excursion monitoring wells, as determined by the regulatory agency and contained in the license. 

Uranium Byproduct Material Waste produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium from any ore processed primarily for its source 

material content. Ore bodies depleted by uranium ISR operations and which remain underground do not constitute ‘‘uranium byproduct material.’’ 

Uranium Recovery Facility ... A facility licensed to process uranium ores for the purpose of recovering uranium and to manage uranium byproduct materials that result from processing of ores. Common names for these facilities include, but are not limited 

to, the following: a conventional uranium mill, an in-situ recovery (or leach) facility, and a heap leach facility or 

pile. 

Wellfield ................................ The area of an ISR operation that encompasses the array of injection, extraction, and monitoring wells and interconnected piping employed in the uranium in-situ recovery process. The area of the wellfield exceeds that of 

the production zone. 

II. Background Information 

A. What is the scope of this action? 

In 1983, EPA originally promulgated 

regulations at 40 CFR part 192, Health 

and Environmental Protection 

Standards for Uranium and Thorium 

Mill Tailings, in response to the 

statutory requirements of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended by the 

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 

Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). These 

standards have been amended several 

times, most recently in 1995, with the 

addition of standards to correct and 

prevent contamination of groundwater 

beneath and in the vicinity of inactive 

uranium processing sites.1 2 Pursuant to 

UMTRCA, our standards have been 

implemented by the Department of 

Energy (DOE) at inactive uranium 

milling sites and nearby contaminated 

‘‘vicinity properties’’ managing residual 

radioactive material and by the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) or NRC 

Agreement States at active sites 

managing byproduct material.3 4

Today’s proposal is limited to the 

following changes. We are proposing to 

add an additional subpart within 40 

CFR part 192 to explicitly address 

groundwater protection at uranium ISR 

operations. We are also proposing to 

amend certain provisions within the 

existing 40 CFR part 192 to address a 

ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court of 

Appeals, delete reference to an outdated 

standard and correct minor technical 

and typographical errors. We request 

public comment only on these proposed 

standards and amendments. We are not 

requesting, and will not respond to, 

public comments on any other 40 CFR 

part 192 provisions since they are 

beyond the scope of today’s proposal. 

B. Uranium Extraction 

The major deposits of uranium ores in 

the United States are located in the 

Colorado Plateau, the Wyoming Basin, 

the Texas Coastal Plain, and Nebraska. 

Recovery and processing of these ores 

have historically occurred by one of 

three methods: (1) Conventional mining 

and milling operations; (2) heap leach 

operations; and (3) in-situ (i.e., in place) 

recovery. Below we present a brief 

explanation of these uranium recovery 

methods. 

1. Conventional Mining and Milling 

Conventional mining and milling is 

one of the primary recovery methods 

currently used to extract uranium from 

uranium-bearing ore in much of the 

world and was formerly the 

predominant means of obtaining 

uranium in the United States. 

‘‘Remoteness from populated areas’’ and 

‘‘isolation of contaminants from 

groundwater’’ are key considerations in 

selecting mill locations under current 

siting criteria found in NRC 

regulations.5 Only one conventional 

mill in the United States is currently 

operating; all others are in standby 

status, in decommissioning (closure) or 

have already been decommissioned. 

Conventional uranium mines are 

either open-pit operations, where large 

volumes of uranium bearing material are 

excavated, or underground mines, 

where the uranium-bearing ore is 

extracted via mined openings into the 

subsurface. The extracted ore is then 

moved to the milling operation where 

the uranium is extracted by chemical 

treatments of the ore. The ores are 

crushed mechanically and then leached 

at the milling site. In most cases, 

sulfuric acid is the leaching agent, but 

alkaline solutions can also be used to 

leach the uranium, generally extracting 

90 to 95 percent of the uranium from the 

crushed ore. 

The mill then processes the uranium 

from the solution by solvent extraction 

using organic chemicals, or by an ion 

exchange process using resins designed 

to extract the uranium from the leaching 

solutions used to remove uranium from 

the crushed ore, then further extracts, 

precipitates, and finally dries the 

recovered uranium to produce a 

uranium oxide material, called 

‘‘yellowcake’’ because of its yellowish 

color.6 Finally, the yellowcake is 

packaged in special 55-gallon drums 

and transported to uranium conversion, 

enrichment and fuel fabrication 

facilities to produce fuel for use in 

nuclear power and research reactors. 

The recovery process produces both 

solid and liquid wastes (i.e., uranium 

byproduct material, or ‘‘tailings’’), 

which are transported from the 

extraction location to an on-site 

uranium byproduct material 

impoundment or pond. 

Uranium byproduct materials/tailings 

deposited into an impoundment or 

‘‘mill tailings pile’’ must be carefully 

monitored and controlled. This is 

because the mill tailings contain 

radioactive or heavy metal constituents, 

including thorium and radium. The 

radium decays to produce radon, which 

may then be released into the 

environment. Radon is a radioactive gas 

that may be inhaled into the respiratory 

tract; EPA has determined that exposure 

to radon and its daughter products 

contribute to an increased risk of lung 

cancer.7


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4162 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

8Acidic lixiviants react with carbonates (calcite 

and dolomite) contained in the host rock and 

precipitate calcium sulfate. The calcium sulfate 

clogs the well screens and process lines, 

significantly decreasing the efficiency of the 

leaching process. 

9Mudd, G.M. (2001). ‘‘Critical review of acid in 

situ leach uranium mining: 1. USA and Australia,’’ 

Environmental Geology, 41:390–403. 

10The gradient controls the direction of flow of 

water within a water-bearing formation. Used here, 

the purpose of a gradient is to contain water within 

the production zone so that it does not migrate 

beyond the wellfield. 

2. Heap Leaching 

Another method of uranium 

extraction that some facilities may use 

is known as heap leaching. This method 

has been used in situations where the 

uranium ore is of low grade or the 

geology of the ore body is such that 

conventional mining and milling is not 

cost effective. Although no such 

facilities currently operate in the United 

States, the heap leach process is used 

for uranium recovery in other parts of 

the world and has, to a limited extent, 

been used in the United States in the 

past. There are plans for at least one 

new heap leach facility to open in the 

U.S. within the next few years. 

With the heap leach process, small 

pieces of ore are placed in a large pile, 

or ‘‘heap,’’ on an impervious pad of 

plastic, clay, concrete, or asphalt, with 

perforated pipes under the heap. An 

acidic solution is then applied through 

drips or sprinklers over the ore to 

dissolve the uranium it contains. The 

uranium-rich solution drains into the 

perforated pipes, where it is collected 

and transferred to an ion exchange 

system to recover the uranium from the 

leaching solution. The heap is ‘‘rested,’’ 

meaning that there is a temporary 

cessation of application of acidic 

solution to allow for oxidation of the ore 

before leaching resumes. The ion 

exchange system extracts the uranium 

from the solution, which is processed 

into yellowcake either at the site or at 

another uranium recovery facility. The 

yellowcake is packed in special 55- 

gallon drums to be transported to 

uranium conversion, enrichment and 

fuel fabrication facilities to produce fuel 

for use in nuclear power and research 

reactors. 

3. In-Situ Recovery (ISR) 

In-situ recovery (ISR), also referred to 

as in-situ leach (ISL) (we will use the 

term ISR throughout this document), is 

now the dominant method of uranium 

recovery in the United States and much 

of the world. ISR research and 

development projects and associated 

pilot projects began in the 1960s in 

Wyoming with limited field 

applications. From the mid-1960s to the 

mid-1970s, interest in ISR methods 

increased, particularly in Texas and 

Wyoming, with 18 commercial and 9 

pilot-scale operations in place by 1980. 

During the 1980s, production of 

uranium by ISR was limited, but by the 

mid-1990s, uranium production by ISR 

reached 90 percent of United States 

production. Commercial and pilot 

operations demonstrated ISR as a viable 

uranium recovery technique where site 

conditions (e.g., geology and hydrology) 

are amenable to its use. This technology 

can produce a better return on 

investment than conventional mining 

and milling since it does not involve 

excavation of large volumes of ore or 

disposal of large volumes of byproduct 

material. Therefore, the cost to produce 

uranium is generally lower. The trend in 

uranium production has shifted toward 

the ISR process. In 2013, in the United 

States, there were six operating ISR 

facilities and 12 facilities proposed for 

licensing, licensed but not operating, or 

undergoing restoration. 

In-situ recovery is defined as the 

underground recovery by oxidation/

solubilization of uranium from the ore 

body (host rock—typically sandstone) 

into the groundwater by using native 

groundwater into which oxidizing and 

complexing chemicals have been added. 

This solution is known as lixiviant. 

Lixiviant is pumped into the ore zone 

through a set of injection wells and 

removed through extraction wells, 

followed by recovery of uranium at the 

surface by processing of the extracted 

waters. 

The ore bodies most amenable to ISR 

are known as ‘‘roll front’’ deposits, 

which are formed when uranium in the 

oxidized groundwater encounters an 

area of the host formation where 

chemically reducing conditions exist. 

These reducing conditions are strong 

enough to chemically reduce and 

precipitate the uranium into a less 

soluble form, thus forming the ore zone. 

As new oxidized uranium enters the 

front, it continues to be chemically 

reduced, precipitate and deposit in 

successive ‘‘rolls’’. The injection of a 

lixiviant essentially reverses the 

geochemical reactions that originally 

formed the uranium deposit. The 

oxidizing agents in the lixiviant create 

an oxidizing environment that 

solubilizes the uranium from the 

formation and allows it to enter into the 

groundwater. Other components of the 

lixiviant (usually bicarbonate ions) act 

to enhance the solubility of the oxidized 

uranium in the groundwater. The 

uranium, along with other constituents 

present in the formation that have been 

mobilized (e.g., metals such as 

molybdenum, selenium, and arsenic), 

are then collected from the ore zone by 

extraction wells that pump the solution 

to the surface. At the surface, the 

uranium is collected by a system of 

piping that feeds to a processing facility, 

where the uranium is recovered in ion 

exchange columns and either further 

processed on-site into yellowcake, or 

transported to another facility for 

processing into yellowcake. After 

processing, the extracted and processed 

waters are recharged with the lixiviant 

chemicals and pumped back down into 

the ore zone for reuse in extracting more 

uranium. The yellowcake is 

subsequently transported to uranium 

conversion, enrichment, and fuel 

fabrication facilities to produce fuel for 

use in nuclear power and research 

reactors. 

Two general types of lixiviant 

solutions can be used, loosely defined 

as ‘‘acidic’’ or ‘‘alkaline’’ systems. 

Acidic lixiviants were used early in the 

development of ISR in the United 

States, but site-specific conditions at the 

sites showed that acidic lixiviants were 

generally unsuitable.8 9 In the United 

States, the geology and geochemistry of 

the majority of the uranium ore bodies 

favors the use of alkaline lixiviants such 

as bicarbonate/carbonate and oxygen. 

Other factors in the choice of the 

lixiviant are the uranium recovery 

efficiencies, operating costs, and the 

ability to achieve satisfactory 

groundwater restoration after 

production ceases. 

In order to control and contain the 

flow of groundwater within the 

production zone, an inward hydraulic 

gradient is established using the 

injection and extraction (also known as 

production) wells.10 To create and 

maintain this gradient, more water is 

removed from the production zone than 

is injected (commonly referred to by 

industry as the ‘‘bleed rate’’). The 

extracted liquid (groundwater mixed 

with lixiviant) goes through the 

recovery process to extract uranium. 

The processed water may be either 

recharged with lixiviant and re-injected 

to continue the recovery process or used 

to flush out the remaining lixiviant and 

mobilized uranium during the 

restoration process. Any waste water not 

reused may be injected into a deep well 

for disposal or be sent to an 

impoundment on site (often called an 

evaporation pond or a holding pond). 

The waste water generated during and 

after operations at an ISR facility, as 

well as all evaporation pond sludges 

derived from such waste waters, have 

been determined to be uranium 

byproduct material by the NRC, bringing 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 4163 

11NRC (2000). ‘‘Recommendations on Ways to 

Improve the Efficiency of NRC Regulations at In 

Situ Leach Uranium Recovery Facilities.’’ Staff 

Requirements—SECY–99–013. 

12See EPA (2014). ‘‘Considerations Related to 

Post Closure Monitoring of Uranium In-Situ Leach/ 

In-Situ Recovery (ISL/ISR) Sites.’’ This document 

can be found in the docket for today’s proposed 

rule. (Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0788). 

13See 40 CFR 146.10, ‘‘Plugging and Abandoning 

Class I, II, III, IV, and V Wells.’’ 

14See 42 U.S.C. 2022. 

15 ‘‘Source material’’ is defined as ‘‘(1) Uranium 

or thorium or any combination of uranium or 

thorium in any chemical or physical form; or (2) 

Ores that contain, by weight, one-twentieth of one 

percent (0.05 percent), or more, of uranium or 

thorium, or any combination of uranium or 

thorium.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 2014(z), 10 CFR 20.1003. 

16Although the statute covers both uranium and 

thorium mill tailings sites, there are no existing 

thorium mill tailings sites. 

17With the restriction that EPA not require any 

RCRA permit for the processing, possession, 

transfer, or disposal of byproduct material. 

them under the jurisdiction of 

UMTRCA.11

The wellfield of an ISR operation is 

configured to efficiently exploit the 

underlying uranium ore zone based on 

the subsurface data collected prior to 

construction of the wellfield. The 

wellfield typically includes a series of 

closely spaced arrays of injection wells 

(each array typically has 4 to 6 injection 

wells spaced on the order of many tens 

to, at most, a few hundred feet apart) 

with an extraction well in the center of 

each array.12 Each of these arrays is 

intended to work as a unit to control the 

flow of groundwater bearing the 

lixiviant so that the injected solution is 

captured by the extraction wells. The 

spacing of the injection and extraction 

wells is determined by the hydrologic 

properties of the ore zone, as evidenced 

by hydrologic testing during the 

exploration of the site, wellfield 

construction and monitoring well 

construction and operation. 

During operations there is a risk of the 

lixiviant and/or mobilized constituents 

spreading beyond the capture zone of 

the wellfield. This poses a risk of 

groundwater contamination off site and 

in some cases surface water 

contamination where groundwater 

discharges to surface water. Monitoring 

wells are positioned around the 

production zone to detect increases in 

indicator parameters that would signal 

an excursion of the lixiviant or 

mobilized constituents from an ISR 

wellfield into surrounding groundwater. 

The operator of the ISR facility typically 

remediates any detected excursions by 

taking corrective actions such as ceasing 

injection and pumping water out of 

wells near the excursion. The detection 

and remediation of excursions is a major 

regulatory operational concern and 

needs to be carefully monitored by the 

operators and the regulatory agencies. 

After the ore body has been depleted 

to uranium levels that are no longer 

economically valuable, the operator will 

cease injecting lixiviant and begin 

restoration of the ore zone aquifer 

within the wellfield(s) to return 

conditions to their preoperational state 

to the extent practicable. Extracted 

water, typically treated through reverse 

osmosis and often in combination with 

added reducing agents, is injected into 

the ore zone to flush out the remaining 

lixiviant and to attempt to restore the 

geochemistry of the ore zone to its 

original background (baseline) 

condition. Other procedures also may be 

used to bring about chemically reducing 

conditions in an attempt to immobilize 

the uranium (along with any other 

mobilized metals) remaining within the 

ore zone. 

Once the groundwater at the site has 

gone through restoration and sufficient 

time has passed such that the licensees 

can demonstrate that chemical 

conditions are stable, the injection and 

extraction wells are properly plugged 

and abandoned,13 the wellfield 

infrastructure (pipes, header houses, 

etc.) is removed, and surface operations 

equipment (impoundment liners, 

buildings, etc.) is dismantled and 

shipped offsite for appropriate reuse or 

disposal. The site is officially 

decommissioned when the radioactive 

materials license is terminated by the 

regulatory agency (i.e., NRC or NRC 

Agreement State). Because no long-term 

disposal facilities remain at 

decommissioned ISR sites, there is no 

perpetual care and monitoring as occurs 

with conventional mill tailings sites. 

C. What is the statutory authority for the 

proposed amendments? 

EPA is proposing these new standards 

and amendments under its authority in 

Section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act 

(AEA) of 1954, as amended by Section 

206 of the Uranium Mill Tailings 

Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 

1978.14

Section 206 of UMTRCA authorizes 

EPA to promulgate general standards for 

the protection of public health, safety, 

and the environment from radiological 

and non-radiological hazards associated 

with (a) residual radioactive materials 

located at specifically listed inactive 

uranium milling sites, nearby 

contaminated ‘‘vicinity properties,’’ and 

depository sites for such materials 

selected by the Secretary of Energy 

(commonly referred to as Title I sites); 

and (b) the processing and the 

possession, transfer, and disposal of 

byproduct material at sites at which ores 

are processed primarily for their 

uranium and thorium source material 

content 15 or which are used for the 

disposal of such byproduct material 

(commonly known as Title II sites). See 

42 U.S.C. 2022.16 These health, safety 

and environmental standards are 

contained in 40 CFR part 192 and are 

implemented by the NRC and its 

Agreement States, and the DOE. 

Title I of UMTRCA covers inactive 

uranium milling sites, nearby 

contaminated ‘‘vicinity properties,’’ and 

depository sites. EPA was directed to set 

general standards that were consistent 

with the requirements of the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act (later amended as 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act, or RCRA) to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

Title II of the Act covers operating 

uranium processing or disposal sites 

licensed by the NRC or Agreement 

States. EPA was directed to promulgate 

generally applicable standards to protect 

public health, safety, and the 

environment from hazards associated 

with processing, possession, transfer 

and disposal of byproduct material. 

Such standards were to address both 

radiological and non-radiological 

hazards; further, standards applicable to 

non-radiological hazards were to be 

consistent with the standards required 

under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act (i.e., RCRA).17 NRC was 

required to implement these standards 

at Title II sites. See 42 U.S.C. 2022(b), 

(d). 

D. What are the existing requirements 

under 40 CFR part 192? 

Requirements for inactive uranium 

milling sites, vicinity properties, and 

depository sites (i.e., Title I sites) are 

addressed under subparts A, B and C of 

40 CFR part 192. Since today’s proposal 

does not impact Title I sites, they will 

not be discussed further in this section. 

Requirements currently applicable to 

active uranium processing and disposal 

sites, including ISR sites (i.e., Title II 

sites) can be found in subpart D of 40 

CFR part 192 (hereafter ‘‘subpart D’’). 

Subpart D contains provisions for 

managing uranium byproduct materials 

during and following the processing of 

uranium ores, and restoration of 

disposal sites following any such use of 

those sites. For purposes of today’s 

proposal, provisions related to 

groundwater protection are of most 

interest. To fulfill the statutory mandate 

described in section II.C of this 

preamble, we derived these provisions 

from the RCRA groundwater monitoring 

framework applicable to hazardous 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4164 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

18See 40 CFR part 264, ‘‘Standards for Owners 

and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, 

Storage, and Disposal Facilities.’’ See particularly 

subpart F, ‘‘Releases from Solid Waste Management 

Units.’’ 

19The design and construction requirements for 

surface impoundments are also taken from 40 CFR 

part 264. See subpart K, ‘‘Surface Impoundments,’’ 

specifically 40 CFR 264.221. 

20EPA (1991). ‘‘Protecting the Nation’s 

GroundwaterGroundwater: EPA’s Strategy for the 

1990s,’’ 21Z–1020. 

waste disposal sites.18 Today’s proposal 

further adapts that framework to better 

address the specific situation presented 

by ISR technology. 

Though standards at subpart D apply 

to ISR facilities, ISR was not the 

predominant uranium extraction 

method at the time the standards were 

promulgated. Subpart D addresses 

contamination of aquifers resulting from 

releases of contaminants from uranium 

mill tailings impoundments, which are 

surface structures (engineered units) 

designed to contain uranium byproduct 

material (e.g., conventional tailings 

impoundments, evaporation or holding 

ponds). The RCRA hazardous waste 

framework, which is intended to 

prevent, detect, and mitigate 

contamination of groundwater resulting 

from releases of hazardous waste being 

held in an engineered unit, is directly 

applicable to this situation.19 A basic 

RCRA hazardous waste management 

unit is an engineered unit, designed, 

constructed, and installed to prevent 

any migration of wastes out of the unit 

to the adjacent subsurface soil, 

groundwater or surface water at any 

time during the unit’s operating life, 

during closure and during post-closure. 

At ISR sites, however, the 

groundwater has already been 

influenced by the natural mineralization 

associated with the uranium roll front 

deposits. In essence, the ‘‘management 

unit’’ that is the potential source of 

contamination is the natural setting 

itself, though extraction of the uranium 

from the deposit alters the geochemistry 

of the ore-bearing formation and may 

increase the concentration of 

radionuclides and other metals in the 

water. Restoration activities attempt to 

restore the original geochemistry to the 

subsurface. However, at present, 

monitoring to verify restoration 

generally lasts for only a period of a few 

years at most. We are proposing to 

establish standards that will require 

licensees to ensure that the results of 

their restoration process(es) persist 

through time, thereby limiting the future 

potential for groundwater to be 

degraded from undetected, long-term 

changes in groundwater from ISR 

operations. 

E. Why does EPA believe new standards 

are necessary? 

We believe that ISR-specific standards 

are necessary because uranium ISR 

operations are very different from 

conventional uranium mills and the 

existing standards do not adequately 

address their unique aspects. 

In particular, we believe it is 

necessary to take a longer view of 

groundwater protection than has been 

typical of current ISR industry practices. 

Although the presence of significant 

uranium deposits typically diminishes 

groundwater quality, current industry 

practices for restoration and monitoring 

of the affected aquifer may not be 

adequate to prevent either the further 

degradation of water quality or the more 

widespread contamination of 

groundwater that is suitable for human 

consumption. 

Because monitoring after restoration 

is typically conducted for only a short 

period, we find it difficult to 

characterize the probability or 

magnitude of future contamination 

problems, or the costs involved in 

remediating such future contamination. 

Such costs are not now borne by ISR 

licensees, nor is there any guarantee that 

they could be held responsible if 

contamination were detected by new 

monitoring implemented years, decades 

or even longer after the end of site 

activities once the facility is officially 

decommissioned and the license is 

terminated by the NRC or Agreement 

State. It is likely, however, that the costs 

of such future remediation would far 

exceed the costs of the more extensive 

monitoring (in all phases of site activity) 

that we are proposing today, together 

with the costs of any additional 

restoration or prompt corrective action 

that may be required to address any 

issues identified as a result of the more 

extensive monitoring. In this sense, 

perhaps a generalized future cost of 

groundwater remediation can be viewed 

as a proxy for the value of groundwater 

and its protection. Similarly, because 

ISR activities often take place in areas 

that are sparsely populated, and any 

subsequent contamination may take 

years, decades or even longer to reach 

groundwater being consumed by 

humans, it is difficult to characterize the 

benefits of our proposal by applying 

typical Agency metrics, such as the 

number of cancers averted. 

We also recognize, however, that our 

efforts to protect groundwater must 

consider the use, value, and 

vulnerability of the resource, as well as 

social and economic values. We believe 

it is important to protect groundwater to 

ensure the preservation of the nation’s 

currently used and potential 

underground sources of drinking water 

(USDWs) for present and future 

generations. Also, we believe it is 

important to protect groundwater to 

ensure that where it interacts with 

surface water it does not interfere with 

the attainment of surface-water-quality 

standards; these standards are also 

necessary to protect human health and 

the integrity of ecosystems. 

Thus, taking a more qualitative view 

of the situation leads us more broadly to 

consider the impacts on future 

groundwater uses. In many areas of the 

country, particularly in western states 

where ISR activities are most likely to 

take place, groundwater is a scarce and 

valuable resource that is being rapidly 

depleted to support increased demands. 

There is evidence that some 

communities are making efforts to 

utilize groundwater that is not of 

‘‘good’’ quality, and in our view this 

trend will only increase. 

Another critical issue in groundwater 

protection is that groundwater generally 

is not directly accessible. Thus, it is 

much more difficult to monitor and/or 

decontaminate groundwater than is the 

case with other environmental media. 

Because of the expenses and difficulties 

associated with remediation of 

contaminated groundwater, we believe 

it is prudent and cost-effective to 

prevent the occurrence of such 

contamination rather than rely on the 

cleanup of preventable pollution. 

Thus, the Agency believes that it is in 

the national interest to preserve the 

quality of groundwater resources to the 

extent practicable, and that the best way 

to do so is to prevent contamination by 

addressing its source.20 We believe 

today’s proposal, which focuses on the 

source of potential contamination at ISR 

sites by stricter application of 

groundwater standards and more 

extensive monitoring to ensure that 

groundwater restoration will endure, is 

a reasonable and responsible approach 

to achieving this goal. 

1. What are the environmental impacts 

of uranium ISR? 

As noted earlier, ISR facilities affect 

the environment in ways that are both 

distinct from, and more complicated 

than, conventional mill tailings sites. 

The alteration of large subsurface areas 

through injection of chemical solutions 

also has the potential to cause changes 

in groundwater at significant distances 

downgradient. The migration of 

constituents liberated from the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 4165 

21Extraction wells are also used during the 

restoration phase to control the migration of 

constituents liberated from the subsurface. 

22Hall, Susan (2009). ‘‘Groundwater Restoration 

at Uranium In-Situ Recovery Mines, South Texas 

Coastal Plain.’’ U.S. Geological Survey. 

23For example, Hall, Susan (2009). ‘‘Groundwater 

Restoration at Uranium In-Situ Recovery Mines, 

South Texas Coastal Plain.’’ U.S. Geological Survey. 

24Borch, T., N. Roche and T.E. Johnson (2012), 

‘‘Determination of Contaminant Levels and 

Remediation Efficacy in Groundwater at a Former 

In Situ Recovery Uranium Mine.’’ Journal of 

Environmental Monitoring, 14:1814–1823. 

25EPA (2012), ‘‘Groundwater Modeling Studies at 

In Situ Leaching Facilities and Evaluation of Doses 

and Risks to Off-Site Receptors from Contaminated 

Groundwater.’’ 

subsurface is controlled during the 

operational phase through the use of 

extraction wells.21

Once uranium recovery operations at 

a wellfield are complete, efforts to 

restore groundwater in the wellfield 

begin. Without such efforts, 

contaminants could migrate 

hydrologically downgradient from the 

ISR site. Restoration efforts largely 

consist of injecting and extracting water 

to flush out the remaining mobilizing 

solutions (i.e., lixiviant) and chemical 

treatments designed to reverse the 

chemical process and return the 

prevailing chemical conditions 

(oxidizing) in the subsurface to their 

preoperational chemically reducing 

state. 

Much remains unknown about the 

geochemical stability of restored 

wellfields once ISR operations have 

ceased. Long-term environmental 

impacts may result if restoration 

processes do not return aquifers to their 

preoperational state, or if restored levels 

do not persist over time and 

groundwater degrades through the slow 

release of residual contaminants. Most 

ISR sites historically have been unable 

to meet restoration goals for all 

constituents even after extensive 

effort.22 Because the past practice of 

monitoring after restoration has 

typically been for a very limited time 

period, we do not know if the goals that 

are met for the short-term are 

maintained for a longer time. 

The restoration process itself is 

extremely complex and difficult to 

control. The fact that significant 

quantities of uranium and other 

constituents have been removed from 

the natural setting may affect flow 

patterns and create discontinuities that 

further complicate or retard the 

restoration process. Originally, uranium 

was precipitated from groundwater 

moving through pore spaces in the host 

medium, which altered the flow paths 

on a local level throughout the deposit 

as the deposition of uranium continued 

and changed the porosity and 

permeability of the host medium. Once 

uranium extraction processes begin, 

fluids are pumped into the deposit to 

mobilize the precipitated uranium and 

remove it; the porosity and permeability 

of the host rock are also affected. 

Because the uranium is not initially 

distributed evenly throughout the 

deposit (because of the natural 

variations in the host rock properties), 

the extraction process cannot be 

assumed to remove all of the uranium; 

in fact, it does not. The restoration 

process likewise cannot be assumed to 

fully restore the porosity and 

permeability characteristics of the host 

rock to the exact conditions that existed 

before the ISR operations began. These 

changes in hydrologic properties in the 

host rock during extraction and 

restoration processes can have the net 

effect of altering flow paths within the 

deposit on a local level. Such largely 

unavoidable, incomplete restoration 

efforts may result in pockets of slowly 

leaching contaminants that may migrate 

out of the production zone over time. 

In the absence of explicit regulatory 

language addressing ISR facilities, NRC 

and its Agreement States have used 

guidance and license conditions to 

implement many aspects of 

groundwater protection programs, 

including the selection of restoration 

goals and post-restoration monitoring. 

Based upon the information that we 

have reviewed,23 we believe an even 

more rigorous approach is warranted for 

(a) determining background 

groundwater concentrations, which are 

necessary to establish appropriate 

restoration goals, (b) establishing 

restoration goals, and (c) demonstrating 

the continued stability of groundwater 

after restoration. In addition, prolonged 

stability monitoring is needed to 

provide the necessary level of 

confidence that groundwater quality 

will not degrade over time or promote 

contaminant migration in the future. 

We recognize that it is difficult to 

reach a definitive conclusion regarding 

the frequency and extent to which longterm contamination has been or is likely 

to be a problem at ISR sites, because 

post-restoration stability monitoring 

typically occurs for a relatively short 

timeframe, a few years at most; 

nevertheless, we believe the available 

information supports our concerns in 

this matter. Because the lixiviant used 

during operations oxidizes not just the 

uranium but the entire production zone, 

the effect from adding reducing agents 

to restore the wellfield may just be 

temporary. If these reducing agents 

migrate out of the production zone, reoxidation of the uranium in the 

‘‘restored’’ wellfield may occur. This is 

especially likely if the natural reducing 

agents originally present in the 

production zone (i.e., organic materials 

and iron sulfide minerals) were 

sufficiently depleted during ISR 

operations. To determine if remobilization of constituents 

precipitated by the restoration process 

will occur, longer-term monitoring of 

the site is warranted. 

We are aware of the potential for 

geochemical conditions in the restored 

wellfield to alter over time. The ISR 

process can cause a loss of the 

chemically reducing potential in the ore 

zone. Over time, as oxidizing 

groundwater makes its way into the 

abandoned wellfield, re-oxidation could 

occur. Given the slow groundwater 

travel times in these deposits, it would 

take even longer time for the degraded 

water to make its way to water supply 

wells downgradient of the production 

zone aquifer and be detected there. 

Therefore, when we speak of long-term 

alteration of the groundwater, we imply 

timeframes of decades (or longer) rather 

than a few years. 

2. What analysis has EPA done to 

support the proposal? 

There is only very limited information 

in the open literature 24 on the stability 

of a restored wellfield after ISR 

operations have ended. Typically, postrestoration monitoring concludes and 

license termination proceeds within a 

matter of several years after the 

restoration phase ends. The behavior of 

the restored wellfield in the long-term, 

i.e., decades or longer after the ISR 

operations end, has not been examined. 

The potential for re-mobilization of the 

contaminants is possible and this 

concern is the impetus for proposing 

longer post-restoration monitoring 

periods. 

We have assessed exposure scenarios 

and exposure pathways for potentially 

hazardous constituents (mainly 

radionuclides) and found that migration 

of contaminants within the ore-bearing 

aquifer and slow movement of 

contaminants into upper aquifers 

through discontinuities or disruptions 

(e.g., abandoned boreholes) and other 

possible failure scenarios (leaks, spills, 

etc.) have the potential to result in 

significant exposures to individuals 

outside the production areas.25 These 

assessments suggest that a robust 

regulatory approach is advisable in 

order to prevent various failure 

scenarios that may occur during and 

after ISR operations, and to mitigate the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4166 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

26EPA (2014), ‘‘Considerations Related to Post 

Closure Monitoring of Uranium In-Situ Leach/InSitu Recovery Sites.’’ 

27 Ibid. 

28 40 CFR 264.97(h) & (i). 

29http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/

WebCommittees/BOARD. 

30EPA 402/D–14–001 ‘‘Considerations Related to 

Post Closure Monitoring of Uranium In-Situ Leach/ 

In-Situ Recovery (ISL/ISR) Sites,’’ Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2014. 

31All information related to the advisory is 

located at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/ 

sabproduct.nsf/c91996cd39a82f6485257424006

potential adverse effects of any such 

failures. 

In examining the technical literature 

pertaining to ISR operations, we have 

found that some modeling studies 

indicate that the uranium recovery 

operations can result in the 

development of relatively slower 

groundwater pathways through the 

wellfield, as well as the persistence of 

injected lixiviant within the production 

zone. These results suggest that the 

typically short post-remediation 

monitoring periods prior to license 

terminations may fail to detect 

subsequent contaminant migration out 

of the wellfield along these slow 

transport paths. We are proposing 

stability monitoring periods longer than 

the current practice and requirements to 

address these situations. Statistical 

analyses of well water chemistry data 

over a relatively short time (a year or 

two) alone does not in itself 

demonstrate that slow pathways are 

absent or that the groundwater will 

remain in a chemically reduced state 

over the long term. We believe that only 

a combination of longer stability 

monitoring and geochemical modeling 

using site-specific data can provide 

confidence that the ISR site poses no 

long-term hazards, and we are 

proposing such provisions today. 

We have also examined various 

statistical approaches that might be 

suitable for evaluating long-term 

groundwater stability.26 We gave special 

attention to the requirements for data to 

be used in deciding, with a given level 

of statistical confidence, that stability 

was achieved over a specified period of 

time. While we do not recommend any 

specific statistical method be applied 

universally to all ISR situations (because 

the hydrogeology and geochemistry of 

ISR sites are not uniform by nature and 

because there is more than one 

statistical method that can be used), we 

do believe that the method(s) chosen 

must be justified by the quality and 

quantity of the field data collected. 

Linear regression techniques are 

typically used to examine time series 

measurements (concentrations of 

groundwater constituents measured 

over time intervals) for the presence of 

trends in the data (i.e., to determine if 

the data show increases or decreases in 

the measured concentrations over time). 

While this type of analysis is relatively 

simple and can be used for quick 

screening to identify the presence of 

strong linear trends, it is often not 

sufficiently rigorous when used with 

field data because of significant 

limitations on the data sets. For linear 

regression assessments, the data must 

have a normal distribution and constant 

variance (two requirements that are 

difficult to demonstrate with field data). 

The data must have few or no values 

below the analytical detection limits for 

the measured parameter, and minimal 

outliers in the data or cyclical patterns 

(e.g., no detectable seasonality in the 

case of shallow aquifers). Field data 

rarely meet these conditions. Parametric 

and nonparametric techniques are more 

rigorous than simple linear regression 

but also have specific data demands. 

Parametric statistical tests require more 

complete data sets but require less data 

overall to reach the same statistical 

confidence levels as non-parametric 

tests, which are more tolerant of data 

shortcomings such as missing data in a 

series of measurements. Less than 

perfect data sets are common in field 

efforts, making non-parametric 

techniques potentially more useful in 

practice. These methods are extensively 

assessed in the background information 

document.27 The EPA document, 

‘‘Statistical Analysis of Groundwater 

Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities— 

Unified Guidance’’ (2009), offers 

appropriate guidance on the level of 

confidence to be attained for 

demonstrating stability before regulatory 

decisions are made to terminate the 

operating license and release the 

wellfield for other uses. For RCRA 

monitoring results, where the intent is 

to ensure contaminants do not migrate 

out of the unit and into the uppermost 

aquifer, a confidence level of 95 percent 

is expected to support a regulatory 

action to terminate the permit.28 We 

believe an equivalent degree of 

confidence in the long-term stability of 

a restored ISR wellfield is appropriate. 

3. What came out of the Advisory from 

EPA’s Science Advisory Board? 

In early 2011, we approached EPA’s 

Science Advisory Board (SAB) 29 to 

obtain advice regarding the complex 

scientific and technical issues related to 

groundwater protection at ISR sites. The 

SAB is an independent advisory body 

established by Congress in 1978 with a 

broad mandate to advise the Agency on 

technical matters. The SAB typically 

interacts with EPA programs through 

one of the following processes: (1) A 

consultation, which is a conceptual 

evaluation at the early stages of an 

action; (2) an advisory, which is 

typically a more detailed evaluation to 

address specific technical issues during 

development of a rule or technical 

guidance; or (3) a review, which is a 

detailed evaluation of a completed 

action to determine how the Agency 

incorporated science into its decisionmaking. The SAB will often conduct a 

review of an action on which it had 

previously weighed in through a 

consultation or advisory. 

We sought an advisory with the 

Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC), 

which is the committee of the SAB 

specializing in radiation issues. For 

purposes of this advisory, the RAC was 

augmented with several additional 

experts with specialized knowledge of 

geochemistry or hydrogeology pertinent 

to ISR. 

We prepared a report outlining the 

technical issues involved in 

groundwater protection during the life 

cycle of an ISR facility 30 and requested 

that the RAC comment on the following: 

(1) The technical areas described in 

the report and their relative importance 

for designing and implementing a 

groundwater monitoring network; 

(2) The proposed approaches for 

characterizing background (baseline) 

groundwater chemical conditions in the 

pre-operational phase and proposed 

approaches for determining the duration 

of such monitoring to establish 

background (baseline) conditions; 

(3) The approaches considered for 

monitoring in the long-term stability 

phase and the approaches considered 

for determining when groundwater 

chemistry has reached a ‘‘stable’’ level; 

and 

(4) Suitable statistical techniques that 

would be applicable for use with 

uranium ISR applications (particularly 

for the areas in items 2 and 3 above), as 

well as the subsequent data 

requirements for their use. 

Public meetings/teleconferences of 

the advisory committee were held from 

July 12, 2011 through December 21, 

2011, and included a two-day meeting 

in July 2011 with presentations by EPA 

management and staff, discussions with 

the RAC members, comments from 

members of the public, and initial 

reporting assignments for the RAC. NRC 

staff also attended the meetings and 

provided valuable input for the 

committee. 

The RAC submitted its final report on 

February 17, 2012.31 EPA responded to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 4167 

90127/0314cef928df63cc8525775200482fa

3!OpenDocument. 

32EPA (2014), ‘‘Considerations Related to Post 

Closure Monitoring of Uranium In-Situ Leach/InSitu Recovery Sites.’’ 

33 ‘‘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.’’ 10 CFR part 40 

more broadly covers ‘‘Domestic Licensing of Source 

Material.’’ 

34For example, see NRC (2003). ‘‘Standard 

Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction 

License Applications (NUREG–1569).’’ Available at 

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

nuregs/staff/sr1569/. 

35NRC (2003). ‘‘Options and Recommendations 

for NRC Deferring Active Regulation of GroundWater Protection at In Situ Leach Uranium 

Extraction Facilities.’’ SECY–03–0186. 

36NRC (2006). ‘‘Status of the Development of 

Memoranda of Understanding with Nebraska and 

Wyoming, Regarding the Regulation of 

Groundwater Protection at Their In Situ Leach 

Uranium Recovery Facilities.’’ SECY–05–0123. 

37NRC (2006). ‘‘Regulation of Groundwater 

Protection at In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction 

Facilities.’’ Staff Requirements—COMJSM–06– 

0001. 

38NRC (2011). ‘‘NRC Regulatory Agenda: 

Semiannual Report, July–December 2010.’’ 

NUREG–0936; Vol. 29, No. 2. 

39After reviewing health effects studies, EPA sets 

a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG), the 

maximum level of a contaminant in drinking water 

Continued 

each recommendation and updated its 

draft report as part of the technical 

background information document for 

this proposal.32 Among the more 

prominent RAC recommendations are 

the following: 

• Identify indicators, both chemical 

and radioactive, for establishing 

conditions pre- and post-operationally, 

not limited to those with regulatory 

limits, but also including non-hazardous 

constituents that can affect the behavior 

of, or serve as surrogates for, 

constituents of interest; 

• Devote at least as much effort to 

defining background groundwater 

conditions as to post-operational trend 

monitoring; 

• Consider challenging and 

fluctuating ambient circumstances in 

background characterization; 

• Build in flexibility to modify the 

design and implementation of 

monitoring programs as new 

information becomes available; 

• Carefully qualify the meaning of 

‘‘return to preoperational groundwater 

quality’’; 

• Match sampling frequency and 

duration to information needs for 

hydrogeologic model confirmation; 

• Present a survey of methods to 

determine sufficient well number and 

density; and 

• Select statistical evaluation 

approach in terms of strengths and 

weaknesses to suit questions to be 

answered. 

We believe today’s proposal 

appropriately addresses these issues and 

incorporates the advice of the RAC. 

4. What efforts has the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission taken recently? 

NRC regulates uranium mills and mill 

tailings in accordance with Appendix A 

to 10 CFR part 40.33 Appendix A 

incorporates EPA’s 40 CFR part 192 

standards. NRC has developed guidance 

related to ISR activities 34 and has 

implemented facility requirements 

through license conditions. Agreement 

States regulating ISR facilities have 

taken a similar approach. 

In recent years, NRC has recognized 

the desirability of ISR-specific 

regulations. NRC has been concerned 

with the potential for duplicative or 

conflicting groundwater protection 

requirements at ISR sites where NRC 

implements UMTRCA requirements but 

the EPA, or a state with primary 

enforcement responsibility (‘‘primacy’’), 

also regulates the injection associated 

with ISR through its Underground 

Injection Control (UIC) authorities, 

which are derived from EPA under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act (see Section 

II.F.1 of this document). In 2003, NRC 

staff recommended that NRC enter into 

a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) with the affected states (at the 

time, Wyoming and Nebraska) to defer 

active regulation of groundwater to the 

states.35 This recommendation was 

approved by the Commission. 

Upon further investigation, however, 

NRC staff reported to the Commission 

that ‘‘the Nebraska and Wyoming 

groundwater protection programs were 

found to be not equivalent to the NRC’s 

groundwater protection program.’’ 

Specifically, both states required 

restoration of groundwater to ‘‘a quality 

of use’’ consistent ‘‘with the uses for 

which [it] was suitable prior to’’ the ISR 

operation, rather than to levels 

consistent with NRC and EPA 

restoration standards under UMTRCA.36

After considering this information, 

the Commission determined in 2006 

that the appropriate action was 

‘‘initiation of a rulemaking effort 

specifically tailored to groundwater 

protection programs at in situ leach 

(ISL) uranium recovery facilities.’’ 

Further, the Commission directed that 

‘‘[t]he staff should focus on eliminating 

dual regulation by the NRC and EPA of 

groundwater protection. The NRC 

should retain its jurisdiction over the 

wellfield and groundwater under its 

Atomic Energy Act authority, but 

should defer active regulation of 

groundwater protection programs to the 

EPA or the EPA-authorized state 

through EPA’s underground injectioncontrol permit program.’’ 37

EPA disagreed with the approach 

recommended by the Commission. EPA 

has always held the position that 

UMTRCA is the controlling legal 

authority for protection of groundwater 

and NRC is obligated to implement the 

40 CFR part 192 standards to carry out 

that function at ISR sites. Reliance on 

the requirements of the UIC program 

alone would not adequately address 

groundwater protection at ISR facilities, 

given that the purpose of the UIC 

program is to prevent endangerment of 

underground sources of drinking water 

(USDWs), not to address restoration of 

groundwater. Moreover, if the 

groundwater is not considered a USDW, 

as is typically the case at ISR sites, it is 

not protected under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act (SDWA). Reliance on the UIC 

program alone would also likely lead to 

inconsistent levels of protection since 

states can implement more stringent 

requirements than the national UIC 

requirements and, as NRC discovered, 

states with authority to implement the 

UIC program may not have groundwater 

protection requirements consistent with 

those that have been applied to 

conventional mills. EPA decided to 

address groundwater protection at ISR 

facilities by amending its UMTRCA 

standards, as we are proposing to do 

today. The Commission subsequently 

decided that the NRC rulemaking 

should be deferred until EPA’s revised 

standards are final.38

F. What other EPA statutes and 

regulations are relevant? 

There are several other EPA 

environmental statutes and regulations 

that are relevant to ISR facilities and 

operations. The Safe Drinking Water 

Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act are all detailed below. It should be 

noted that UMTRCA requires us to 

establish protections consistent with the 

requirements of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act. 

1. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

The Safe Drinking Water Act (42 

U.S.C. 300f et seq., 1974) is the main 

federal law that addresses drinking 

water. Under the SDWA, EPA sets 

health-based standards for drinking 

water to protect against naturally 

occurring and anthropogenic 

contaminants that may be found in 

drinking water.39 EPA and states work 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4168 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on 

the health of persons would occur, and which 

allows an adequate margin of safety. MCLGs are 

non-enforceable public health goals. Since MCLGs 

consider only public health and not the limits of 

detection and treatment technology, sometimes they 

are set at a level which water systems cannot meet. 

When determining an MCLG, EPA considers the 

risk to sensitive subpopulations (infants, children, 

the elderly, and those with compromised immune 

systems) of experiencing a variety of adverse health 

effects. Once the MCLG is determined, EPA sets an 

enforceable standard. In most cases, the standard is 

a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), the 

maximum permissible level of a contaminant in 

water which is delivered to any user of a public 

water system. The MCL is set as close to the MCLG 

as feasible. EPA must determine the feasible MCL 

or treatment technique which the Safe Drinking 

Water Act defines as the level that may be achieved 

with the use of the best available technology, 

treatment techniques, and other means which EPA 

finds are available (after examination for efficiency 

under field conditions, not solely under laboratory 

conditions), taking cost into consideration. 

40SDWA does not regulate private wells that 

serve fewer than 25 individuals or have fewer than 

15 service connections. 

41SDWA Section 1421(c)(2)(C)(2) states: 

‘‘Underground injection endangers drinking water 

sources if such injection may result in the presence 

in underground water which supplies or can 

reasonably be expected to supply any public water 

system of any contaminant, and if the presence of 

such contaminant may result in such system’s not 

complying with any national primary drinking 

water regulation or may otherwise adversely affect 

the health of persons.’’ 42 U.S.C. 300h(d)(2). 

42EPA defines six classes of underground 

injection well. Uranium in-situ recovery operations 

are permitted as Class III wells. 40 CFR 146.5(c)(2). 

43The presence of minerals or hydrocarbons that 

are, or are expected to be, commercially producible, 

is one of these specified conditions; this would 

likely be the situation at a proposed ISR site. 40 

CFR 146.4. 

44 40 CFR part 145, ‘‘State UIC Program 

Requirements.’’ 

45 40 CFR 144.7(b)(2) & (3). 

46 40 CFR 146.10(a)(4). 

together to implement those standards 

at public water systems.40 Implementing 

regulations in 40 CFR part 141 include 

the establishment of national primary 

drinking water standards. 

The SDWA also addresses sources of 

drinking water, including underground 

sources, which may be used by public 

water systems or private well owners. 

As required by the SDWA, EPA 

established regulations for UIC 

programs to prevent underground 

injection that endangers drinking water 

sources.41 Under this program, the 

Agency has a permit system to prevent 

endangerment of USDWs. It prohibits 

any injection activity that allows the 

movement of fluid containing any 

contaminant into underground sources 

of drinking water if the presence of that 

contaminant may cause a violation of 

any primary drinking water regulation 

or otherwise adversely affect the health 

of persons. EPA’s UIC regulations, 

including permit requirements, are 

found at 40 CFR parts 144–148. They 

address construction, operation, 

monitoring, reporting, and plugging and 

abandonment of injection wells to 

prevent the movement of fluids into any 

USDW.42

EPA’s UIC regulations for Class III 

wells protect USDWs by prohibiting the 

movement of any contaminant into the 

underground source of drinking water 

(e.g., injection of fluids or release or 

migration of naturally occurring 

contaminants into an underground 

source of drinking water). A USDW is 

defined in EPA regulations as any 

aquifer or its portion (a)(1) which 

supplies a public water system or (2) 

which 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 

total dissolved solids; and (b) which is 

not an exempted aquifer. The receiving 

aquifer must not meet the definition of 

a USDW. An aquifer or a portion of an 

aquifer may be exempted from the 

protections afforded USDWs if (a) it 

does not currently serve as a source of 

drinking water and (b) it cannot now 

and will not in the future serve as a 

source of drinking water because one of 

four specified conditions is met,43 or the 

total dissolved solids content of the 

groundwater is more than 3,000 mg/l 

and less than 10,000 mg/l and it is not 

reasonably expected to supply a public 

water system. 

The construction of a Class III 

injection well at an ISR facility requires 

a UIC permit be obtained. Currently, ISR 

facilities are injecting lixiviant and 

extracting uranium from within 

exempted aquifers. If an underground 

injection well is used for injection into 

an exempted aquifer or a portion of an 

exempted aquifer, it is still regulated to 

protect the non-exempt portions of the 

USDW and other nearby USDWs. The 

scope of coverage of an aquifer 

exemption request is typically the 

portion of the USDW affected by the 

activity. It is possible that future ISR 

facilities will inject lixiviant and extract 

uranium from ore deposits that are 

within poorer quality aquifers that do 

not meet the definition of USDW; 

although an aquifer exemption would 

not be necessary in such a case, an UIC 

permit would still be required. 

EPA has established minimum 

requirements for states or tribes to 

obtain authority to implement the UIC 

program.44 To obtain ‘‘primacy’’ to 

implement the UIC program for Class III 

wells, states or tribes must adopt and 

submit to EPA for approval, UIC Class 

III injection well requirements that are 

at least as stringent as EPA’s minimum 

requirements. The state or tribe may 

establish and implement requirements 

more stringent than the EPA UIC 

regulations, but not less stringent than 

the minimum federal requirements. 

Further, primacy states have the 

authority to identify and propose 

aquifers for exemption as part of their 

initial UIC program submission, or 

subsequent to program approval; 

however, these proposed exemptions 

generally must be affirmatively 

approved by the EPA.45

Aquifer exemptions have been a 

source of confusion regarding the 

applicability of our UMTRCA standards, 

which we hope to clarify today in this 

rule. There are limited UIC 

requirements relating to restoration of 

the exempted portion of the aquifer; 46

furthermore, an aquifer exemption does 

not eliminate the need to comply with 

the requirements of UMTRCA. The 

aquifer exemption provides relief from 

certain UIC requirements under the 

SDWA, thereby allowing injection into 

aquifers that would otherwise meet the 

definition of a USDW. The part 192 

standards, however, are promulgated 

under a different statute. Therefore, an 

aquifer exemption under the SDWA 

does not relieve the licensee of the 

obligation to remediate environmental 

contamination resulting from activities 

regulated under UMTRCA. Today’s 

proposal clarifies that EPA standards 

issued pursuant to UMTRCA do apply 

within the exempted portion of the 

aquifer. 

2. Clean Water Act (CWA) 

The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 

et seq., 1972) requires the establishment 

of water quality standards for, and 

regulation of pollutant discharges into, 

waters of the United States. The CWA’s 

definition of ‘‘pollutant’’ includes 

radioactive materials, 33 U.S.C. 1362(6); 

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 122.2 

define the term ‘‘pollutant’’ to include 

radioactive materials ‘‘except those 

regulated under the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et 

seq.) . . . .’’ Radioactive materials 

covered by the AEA are those 

encompassed in its definitions of 

source, byproduct, and special nuclear 

materials. See 42 U.S.C. 2014. The 

radioactive materials EPA may regulate 

under the CWA ‘‘are those not 

encompassed in the definition of source, 

byproduct or special nuclear materials 

as defined by the [AEA] and regulated 

pursuant to that Act.’’ See Train v. 

Colorado Public Interest Research 

Group, Inc., 426 U.S. 1, 11 (1976). 

Under the CWA, EPA has implemented 

pollution control programs, such as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 4169 

47 ‘‘Standards for Owners and Operators of 

Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal 

Facilities.’’ 

48These requirements also apply to any uranium 

byproduct impoundments (i.e., ponds) that are 

removed at the end of licensed operations. 

setting technology-based wastewater 

discharge limitations and standards for 

various industries. Subpart C of 40 CFR 

part 440 provides technology-based 

effluent limitations guidelines and 

standards applicable to discharges from 

mills at which uranium, radium and 

vanadium are extracted. Permits for 

discharges to surface waters must 

include applicable technology-based 

limits, as well as any more stringent 

water quality-based effluent limits 

necessary to achieve water quality 

standards established under Section 303 

of the CWA, including state narrative 

criteria for water quality. 

3. Clean Air Act (CAA) 

EPA regulates radionuclide emissions 

through its authority under the CAA, 42 

U.S.C. 7401 et seq. The Agency has 

promulgated regulations for controlling 

radon emissions from operating 

uranium byproduct materials 

impoundments located at uranium 

recovery facilities, including ISR sites, 

at 40 CFR part 61, Subpart W. 

4. Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA) 

The Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) 

was passed in 1976 as an amendment to 

the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, to 

ensure that solid wastes are managed in 

an environmentally sound manner. 

RCRA gives EPA the authority to control 

hazardous waste from ‘‘cradle-to-grave.’’ 

This includes the generation, 

transportation, treatment, storage, and 

disposal of hazardous waste (Subtitle C). 

RCRA also set forth a framework for the 

management of non-hazardous solid 

wastes (Subtitle D). RCRA has been 

further amended to extend its 

application; for example, the 1986 

amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to 

address environmental problems that 

could result from underground tanks 

storing petroleum and other hazardous 

substances. 

UMTRCA requires that generally 

applicable standards promulgated under 

its authority by EPA for non-radiological 

hazards be consistent with the standards 

issued under Subtitle C of the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act (now RCRA) that are 

applicable to those same hazards. The 

most appropriate RCRA regulations that 

bear on the ISR process are contained in 

40 CFR part 264.47 These regulations 

deal with functionally relevant issues 

such as requirements for: The siting, 

design and operation of impoundments; 

monitoring groundwater around landbased storage and disposal facilities; 

detecting contaminant releases and 

conducting subsequent corrective 

actions; and establishing the duration of 

compliance monitoring periods. These 

requirements are easily applied to 

conventional mill tailings 

impoundments, which are to be 

constructed to RCRA standards, 

although they are expected to remain 

under institutional control for much 

longer periods.48 Similarly, we believe 

many of the requirements and concepts 

should be applicable to the long-term 

behavior of an ISR site after uranium 

extraction has ceased and the operators 

have made efforts to restore the 

wellfield to conditions that existed 

before the uranium recovery operation 

began. Conceptually, at that stage there 

is similarity between a closed hazardous 

waste disposal facility and a restored 

ISR wellfield in the sense that both 

strive to avoid off-site migration of 

contaminants. The intent of the 

groundwater monitoring efforts at these 

two types of facilities share the common 

objective of verifying that containment 

of contaminants meets expectations. 

The location of compliance point(s) for 

monitoring data collection, performance 

measures for assessing compliance with 

regulatory requirements, duration of the 

monitoring program and the extent of 

data necessary for regulatory decisionmaking are areas that we believe can be 

adapted to better fit the unique aspects 

of the ISR application. These subjects 

are discussed in the next section. 

III. Summary of Today’s Proposal 

Today’s proposal is limited to the 

following items. First, we are proposing 

new standards to explicitly address 

groundwater protection at uranium ISR 

facilities. Second, we are proposing to 

amend existing provisions only as 

necessary to address a judicial decision, 

an outdated reference and known 

typographical and grammatical errors. 

At this time, we request public 

comment only on these proposed 

standards and amendments. We are not 

requesting, and will not respond to, 

public comments related to any other 

provisions since they are beyond the 

scope of today’s proposal. The rationale 

for these elements of our proposal is 

discussed in Section IV of this 

document. 

A. Proposed Standards (Subpart F) 

1. Proposal of a New Subpart—Subpart 

F—Public Health, Safety and 

Environmental Protection Standards for 

Byproduct Materials Produced by 

Uranium In-Situ Recovery 

A new subpart F is being proposed 

that would set standards that would 

apply to uranium ISR facilities only. 

2. Addition of a New Section on 

Applicability—§ 192.50 Applicability 

We are proposing applicability 

language under subpart F that specifies 

the subpart will apply to the 

management of uranium byproduct 

materials during and following the 

processing of uranium ores using ISR 

methods. 

3. Addition of a New Section Containing 

Definitions—§ 192.51 Definitions and 

Cross-References 

To help ensure consistency with 

subparts A, B, C, D and E, all terms in 

the proposed subpart shall carry the 

same meaning as previously defined, 

unless otherwise specified. To help 

ensure clarity, the new subpart will 

contain numerous definitions specific to 

ISR. The following terms are defined: 

TERMINOLOGY

Adjacent Aquifer 

Alternate Concentration Limit (ACL) 

Aquifer 

Background 

Constituent 

Exceedance 

Excursion 

Excursion Monitoring Well 

Exempted Aquifer 

Extraction Well 

Indicator Parameter 

Injection Well 

In-Situ Recovery (ISR) 

Listed Constituent 

Lixiviant 

Long-Term Stability Phase 

Maximum Constituent Concentration 

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) 

Monitoring Wells 

Operational Phase 

Overlying Aquifer 

Point(s) of Compliance 

Point(s) of Exposure 

Preoperational Monitoring 

Production Zone 

Restoration (Act of) 

Restoration Goal 

Restoration Phase 

Site 

Stability Phase 

Underlying Aquifer 

Upper Control Limit (UCL) 

Uranium Recovery Facility 

Wellfield 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4170 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

49See 42 U.S.C. 2022(c)(3). 50See 42 U.S.C. 2114(c). 

4. Addition of a New Section Detailing 

Standards—§ 192.52 Standards 

In the new subpart, EPA proposes to 

specify the minimum 13 constituents for 

which groundwater protection 

standards must be met. The list includes 

the following: Arsenic, barium, 

cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, 

selenium, silver, nitrate (as N), 

molybdenum, combined radium-226 

and radium-228, uranium (total), and 

gross alpha-particle activity (excluding 

radon and uranium). See section II.F.1 

of the preamble and footnote for 

background. After groundwater 

restoration, the concentration of each 

listed constituent within the exempted 

aquifer of an ISR wellfield must remain 

at or below the most protective 

standards under the SDWA (40 CFR 

141.61, 141.62, 141.66, 141.80 and 

143.3), values from RCRA standards (40 

CFR 264.94), or Table 1 to subpart A of 

part 192, except in cases where the 

measured preoperational background 

concentration is higher than the most 

stringent value in the applicable 

regulations. In such cases, the measured 

background concentration will serve as 

the restoration goal. The proposed 

language allows for the regulatory 

agency to set groundwater protection 

standards for additional constituents as 

necessary, consistent with site 

conditions. 

The new subpart also describes the 

process for requesting and approving 

alternate concentration limits (ACLs) 

after restoration has taken place. 

5. Addition of a New Section Discussing 

Monitoring Requirements—§ 192.53

Monitoring Programs 

In addition to the constituents to be 

monitored at ISR facilities, the new 

subpart also details the specific 

requirements of monitoring programs to 

be conducted during the preoperational, 

operational, restoration, stability and 

long-term stability phases. 

6. Addition of a New Section 

Establishing Requirements for 

Corrective Actions—§ 192.54

Corrective Action Program 

Should an excursion be detected or 

the proposed groundwater standards be 

exceeded at the excursion monitoring 

wells or long-term stability compliance 

wells at any licensed ISR site, we 

propose to require that a corrective 

action program be put into place as soon 

as is practicable and no later than 90 

days after an excursion or an 

exceedance is discovered. Similar to the 

approach taken in subpart D, we 

propose that the corrective action 

program put into place meet the 

specifications of § 264.100. 

7. Addition of a New Section Detailing 

the Effective Date of the New Subpart— 

§ 192.55 Effective Date 

We are proposing that the rule go into 

effect 60 days after it is promulgated in 

the Federal Register, the legal minimum 

amount of time between promulgation 

of the new subpart and its effective 

date.49

B. Other Proposed Amendments 

1. Revision to Subpart C— 

Implementation 

In an effort to address an outdated 

reference, EPA proposes to remove 

mention of the Grand Junction Remedial 

Action Criteria (10 CFR 712); the criteria 

were removed from the CFR between 

1981 and 1982. In addition, EPA 

proposes to delete language citing 

certain remedial options that ‘‘may 

provide reasonable assurance of’’ radon 

decay product concentration reductions. 

The final report for the Grand Junction 

Remedial Action Program, issued in 

1989, stated that the methods were not 

effective over the long term. 

2. Revision to Subpart D—Standards for 

the Management of Uranium Byproduct 

Materials 

EPA proposes to amend the heading 

of Subpart D. The proposed amendment 

will remove an inaccurate citation of 

EPA’s authority. In order to correct 

certain typographical and grammatical 

errors that have been identified in 

Subpart D since promulgation, EPA 

proposes the following technical 

corrections: 

Section Proposed technical correction and reason 

§ 192.31(a) ............................................... Replace ‘‘Uranium Mill Tailings Rediation Control Act’’ with ‘‘Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control 

Act’’ to correct a typographical error. 

§ 192.31(f) ................................................ Replace ‘‘pile containing uranium by product materials’’ with ‘‘pile containing uranium byproduct materials’’ to correct a typographical error. 

§ 192.32(a)(2)(v) ...................................... Replace ‘‘laser fusion, of soils, etc.’’ with ‘‘laser fusion of soils, etc.’’ to correct a grammatical error. 

EPA is also proposing to modify 

§ 192.32(a)(2)(v) in order to delete the 

NRC requirement to obtain concurrence 

from EPA before NRC may approve an 

alternate requirement or proposal under 

AEA section 84(c).50 This portion of 

§ 192.32(a)(2)(v) was effectively struck 

down by the Tenth Circuit Court of 

Appeals in Environmental Defense Fund 

vs. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, 866 F.2d 1263 (10th Cir. 

1989). 

IV. What is the Rationale for today’s 

proposal? 

Groundwater is one of our nation’s 

most precious resources. A significant 

portion of the U.S. population draws on 

groundwater for its potable water 

supply. In addition to serving as a 

source of drinking water, people use 

groundwater for irrigation, stock 

watering, food preparation, personal 

health and hygiene, and various 

industrial processes. When that water is 

radioactively contaminated, each of 

those uses becomes a radiation exposure 

pathway for people. Groundwater 

contamination is also of concern to us 

because of potential adverse impacts 

upon ecosystems, particularly sensitive 

or endangered ecosystems. For these 

reasons, it is a resource that needs 

protection. 

A number of federal and state laws 

have been passed through the years to 

protect drinking water. At the federal 

level, the SDWA (discussed in detail in 

Section II.F.1) establishes the basic 

framework for protecting the drinking 

water used by public water systems in 

the United States. This law contains 

requirements for ensuring the safety of 

the nation’s public drinking water 

supplies. At the state level, many 

similar drinking water and water use 

laws have been passed. 

Groundwater is also a valuable and 

dwindling resource, particularly in 

western states where most ISR activities 

are anticipated. EPA views protecting 

groundwater as a fundamental part of its 

mission. Particularly in cases where 

groundwater is directly threatened by an 

activity, as it is by the ISR technology, 

EPA believes it has a special duty to 

ensure that the authority of all 

applicable federal statutes (e.g., 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 4171 

UMTRCA and the SDWA) are used to 

help protect the groundwater and that 

appropriate standards to protect public 

health, safety and the environment are 

developed and implemented. 

We anticipate the objection that the 

presence of uranium deposits typically 

results in groundwater of poor quality, 

and not a pristine source of drinking 

water. We recognize that this is often 

the case, and that the volume of water 

affected by the mineralized zone may be 

significant. We do not, however, see this 

as a reason to allow this groundwater to 

be further degraded. The increasing 

scarcity of groundwater is leading some 

communities to consider using sources 

of water that previously would have 

been considered non-potable, using 

advanced treatment to make it suitable 

for livestock or human consumption. 

Since such advanced treatment may not 

be economically feasible for some 

communities, it is all the more 

important to prevent, as much as 

reasonably possible, additional 

degradation of the groundwater. 

A guiding philosophy in radioactive 

waste management, as well as waste 

disposal in general, has been to avoid 

imposing burdens on future generations 

for clean-up efforts as a result of 

management approaches that are 

reasonably anticipated to result in 

pollution in the future. Adhering to the 

concept of sustainability, we should not 

knowingly impose undue burdens on 

future generations. Imposing 

performance requirements that avoid 

polluting resources that reasonably 

could be used in the future, therefore, is 

a more appropriate choice than 

imposing clean-up burdens on future 

generations. ISR facilities use significant 

volumes of water during both operations 

and restoration. We believe it is 

reasonable to make every effort to 

ensure that ISR activities leave 

groundwater in no worse condition than 

pre-ISR operational status. 

A. How does today’s proposal relate to 

existing 40 CFR part 192? 

In 1983, EPA promulgated regulations 

at 40 CFR part 192 in response to the 

statutory requirements of UMTRCA. At 

the time, uranium recovery from ore 

was done almost exclusively by 

conventional milling processes, where 

at most a few pounds of uranium were 

recovered for each ton of ore mined and 

processed. The wastes from the milling 

process (the tailings and raffinates, i.e., 

uranium byproduct materials) were 

disposed of in large piles on the surface 

at mill sites, posing contamination risks 

to surface water, groundwater, and soils, 

both on and off site. Liquid wastes were 

often discharged into rivers. 

Contaminants of concern consisted 

primarily of radionuclides and nonradioactive metals, radon gas and 

organics. Concerns that these tailings 

piles would be a continuing source of 

radiation exposure and environmental 

contamination unless properly 

reclaimed and managed were the 

driving force behind the passage of 

UMTRCA. The statute’s intent was to 

contain tailings in engineered 

impoundments to prevent the further 

dispersion and misuse of the material. 

This measure would also protect 

uncontaminated aquifers from becoming 

contaminated by the uranium mill 

tailings impoundments and prevent 

radon emissions through performance 

specifications for radon barriers 

(covers). Because the major 

environmental risk at that time was 

perceived to come from the 

conventional uranium mill tailings, 

which already existed in large volumes, 

other uranium recovery technologies, 

including ISR, received little attention. 

As stated earlier, ISR has surpassed 

conventional milling as the dominant 

form of uranium extraction in the 

United States and is expected to 

predominate in the future. The ISR 

process presents different 

environmental concerns from 

conventional milling. ISR does not 

generate large volumes of solid waste 

materials or require permanent tailings 

impoundments. The ISR process does, 

however, directly alter groundwater 

chemistry, posing the challenge of 

groundwater restoration and long-term 

subsurface geochemical stabilization 

after the ISR operational phase ends. 

With ISR, the ‘‘milling’’ of uranium ore 

is performed within the ore zone aquifer 

by injection of lixiviants. As stated 

earlier, the lixiviants can also liberate 

other elements, particularly metals that 

are often found co-located with uranium 

deposits. Their migration outside the 

production zone can potentially 

contaminate surrounding aquifers. 

Furthermore, when processing of the ore 

zone is no longer economically viable, 

ISR operators can release the site for 

future use, either by selling the land or 

returning the property to the original 

owner. The operators are required to 

restore the aquifer to its original 

geochemical conditions, to the extent 

possible, and to show some level of 

stability in the geochemistry of the 

production zone before terminating the 

license and making the site available for 

other uses. Whereas conventional mill 

tailings piles are under perpetual 

institutional control, current NRC 

regulations allow for ISR sites to 

terminate their licenses, essentially 

ending regulatory oversight of the site. 

Today, EPA is reaffirming that ISR 

facilities are subject to the 40 CFR part 

192 requirements. We seek to provide 

clear direction on how to monitor 

groundwater in and around the 

production zone during all phases of the 

ISR facility’s lifecycle, and how to 

demonstrate geochemical stability at 

these sites. 

We believe there has been some 

uncertainty about how to apply the 

current standards, which are more 

targeted to conventional mills, to ISR 

sites. In addition, there has been 

confusion about applicability of 

UMTRCA restoration requirements at 

aquifers that have been exempted from 

the standards of the SDWA. With the 

prospect of additional ISR facilities 

beginning operations, we believe it is 

necessary to clarify these issues. 

Therefore, we are proposing additional 

groundwater protection provisions to 40 

CFR part 192 that are specific to 

uranium ISR facilities and consistent 

with the SDWA and RCRA. We believe 

these provisions are necessary to ensure 

that ISR sites are not released from 

regulatory control until it can be 

reasonably demonstrated that 

groundwater will not degrade over time. 

Specifically, we are proposing 

provisions that will result in long 

lasting protection of surrounding 

aquifers. The provisions specify how to 

determine preoperational background 

conditions that will be used to set 

appropriate restoration goals, applicable 

standards and alternate concentration 

limits. We are also proposing 

specifications for long-term 

groundwater stability monitoring and a 

corrective action program that is 

triggered if excursions/exceedances do 

occur. We view these as the key 

elements in ensuring that ISR sites do 

not become a source of continuing or 

widespread contamination after the ISR 

operation is terminated. 

Sufficient data must be collected to 

characterize the conditions existing 

within and outside the proposed 

production zone to set appropriate 

groundwater protection standards (i.e., 

restoration goals) that account for the 

variability in geochemistry frequently 

encountered in mineralized regions. 

Subsequent to the end of uranium 

production, the regulator must ensure 

that alternate standards are approved 

only after restoration has been 

attempted and it is clearly demonstrated 

that the initial groundwater protection 

standard(s) cannot be achieved, or once 

achieved, cannot be maintained. Such 

approval should take place only after 

the operator has made reasonable and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4172 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

51Hall, Susan (2009). ‘‘Groundwater Restoration 

at Uranium In-Situ Recovery Mines, South Texas 

Coastal Plain.’’ U.S. Geological Survey. 

52 Darling, Bruce (2008). ‘‘Report on Findings 

Related to the Restoration of Groundwater at In-Situ 

Uranium Mines in South Texas.’’ Southwest 

Groundwater Consulting, LLC. 

53Fettus, G. and M.G. McKinzie (2012). ‘‘Nuclear 

Fuel’s Dirty Beginnings: Environmental Damage 

and Public Health Risks from Uranium Mining in 

the American West.’’ Natural Resources Defense 

Council. 

54 It should be noted that we are not proposing 

to establish specific requirements related to the 

technical aspects of groundwater restoration (i.e., 

what methods to use for restoration or which 

statistical methods to use for assessing temporal 

stability of the groundwater chemical state). 

55 40 CFR 264.94, Table 1. 

56 47 FR 32285, July 26, 1982. The use of MCLs 

as standards for groundwater protection anticipated 

the Agency’s Ground Water Protection Strategy, 

first developed in 1984 and updated in 1991. Under 

the Strategy, MCLs provide a benchmark for 

groundwater protection. Contamination of 

groundwater above MCLs is viewed as a failure of 

pollution prevention. 

57Endrin, lindane, methoxychlor, toxaphene, 

2,4–D, and 2,4,5–TP Silvex. These constituents are 

unlikely to be present at ISR sites. 

58 66 FR 6976, January 22, 2001; and 65 FR 76708, 

December 7, 2000, respectively. 

satisfactory efforts to achieve and 

maintain the initial standard(s) and 

fully considered a number of factors. 

Whether the initial goals are met or 

alternate concentration limits are 

approved, conditions must be shown to 

be stable and groundwater quality must 

not degrade over time, as is possible 

when: lingering amounts of lixiviant 

solution remain in isolated pockets 

within the wellfield; reducing 

conditions are not fully reestablished; 

and/or the long-term stability 

monitoring period is too short compared 

to the time it takes for groundwater to 

move through the aquifer. Therefore, the 

operator must monitor groundwater at 

the site for a sufficiently long period 

after restoration is complete and use 

statistically significant results to 

provide a reasonable demonstration that 

long-term stability has been achieved. 

This demonstration can include 

geochemical modeling to confirm the 

persistence of stability of the 

groundwater chemistry. Geochemical 

modeling can provide a defensible 

demonstration of an aquifer’s natural 

capacity to maintain stability, which 

statistics alone cannot provide. 

Although the selection and application 

of geochemical models will be on a sitespecific basis, geochemical models that 

have been used to predict the fate and 

transport of uranium at ISR facilities 

include PHT3D, PHREEQC, and PHAST. 

We intend for today’s proposal to 

eliminate any confusion about the 

relationship of the aquifer exemption 

process to restoration requirements at 

ISR sites. We further recognize that the 

application of the existing standards in 

40 CFR part 192 to ISR sites is not as 

straightforward as it could be. 

Nevertheless, we believe there is 

sufficient information available to 

indicate that practices related to 

groundwater protection at ISR facilities 

have not been sufficiently rigorous to 

provide confidence either that 

groundwater is being restored 

appropriately or that such restoration 

will persist into the reasonably 

foreseeable future.51 52 53 We believe 

today’s proposal addresses these issues 

in a manner that is both logical and 

implementable;54 we solicit comment 

on our view of the current situation and 

the overall approach of our proposal. 

B. What groundwater protection 

standards are we proposing for ISR 

facilities? 

We are proposing today to establish 

groundwater protection standards 

consistent with those applied to 

conventional mills in 40 CFR part 192, 

subpart D. That is, the licensee will use 

as the applicable standard during 

restoration and long-term stability 

monitoring either (1) the background 

concentrations of groundwater 

constituents measured prior to the start 

of the ISR operational phase; or (2) a 

specified regulatory level, whichever is 

higher. In certain circumstances, the 

licensee may request that the regulatory 

agency approve an alternate 

concentration limit. 

1. Generally Applicable Groundwater 

Standards 

We emphasize again that the 

groundwater protection standards 

currently found in 40 CFR part 192 

apply to ISR sites. These standards 

address both radiological and nonradiological constituents. The standards 

applicable to non-radiological 

constituents adopted the requirements 

for groundwater monitoring at RCRA 

hazardous waste sites.55 These generally 

applicable standards were originally 

based upon EPA’s 1976 Maximum 

Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in drinking 

water (40 CFR part 141).56 See section 

II.F.1 of the preamble and footnote for 

background. EPA further specified 

radiological and non-radiological 

constituents of concern at mill tailings 

sites. Following the same approach, we 

are proposing today to specify, as Table 

1 to subpart F, the constituents that 

must be monitored at ISR sites, as 

appropriate. The required constituents 

mirror those included in Table 1 to 

subpart A of 40 CFR part 192, with the 

exception of the six pesticides.57

We are not proposing to establish new 

numerical standards in the rule. EPA’s 

preferred option for carrying over and 

updating the groundwater protection 

standards in the new ISR-specific 

subpart F is to incorporate, by reference, 

the most protective standards issued 

under the SDWA (40 CFR 141.61, 

141.62, 141.66, 141.80 and 143.3), 

values from RCRA standards (40 CFR 

264.94), and the maximum constituent 

concentrations found in Table 1 to 

subpart A of 40 CFR part 192. By 

incorporating these standards by 

reference, the new subpart F would 

automatically update if those 

concentration values change in the 

standards under SDWA or RCRA and 

thereby, be self-implementing. Upon 

promulgation, licensees currently in 

restoration, stability monitoring or longterm monitoring at a given wellfield at 

a licensed facility would continue to be 

held to the standard(s) in place at the 

time of licensing for those given 

wellfield(s), unless the regulatory 

agency determines otherwise. Operating 

wellfields, new wellfields and 

expansions of wellfields would be 

required to meet the newly promulgated 

standards. This option would make the 

groundwater protection standards under 

the proposed subpart consistent with all 

relevant current and future standards 

under SDWA and RCRA. We believe 

that this approach will more effectively 

keep the groundwater protection 

standards current with the Agency’s 

policies while providing for regulatory 

certainty. The standards in the existing 

portion of 40 CFR part 192 are outdated 

for arsenic and uranium, both of which 

have had new MCLs established since 

the year 2000.58 Today’s proposal 

would update the standards for arsenic 

and uranium as they apply to ISR 

facilities. Should the Agency propose to 

update its MCLs or RCRA standards at 

some point in the future, stakeholders 

will have the opportunity to comment 

on the potential impacts to ISR 

activities. 

We are also considering the 

alternative approach of placing a static 

table of restoration goals in the new 

subpart F. The table would list the 13 

required constituents for which 

groundwater protection standards must 

be met, and also provide the specific 

numeric concentration value associated 

with each constituent. If this option is 

promulgated in the final rule, the 

standards would not automatically 

update with any future changes to 

standards under the SDWA or RCRA but 

would remain static. Under this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 4173 

59These criteria are also reproduced for Title I 

sites in 40 CFR 192.02(c)(3)(ii). 60EPA (1987). ‘‘Alternate Concentration Limit 

Guidance, Interim Final,’’ provides guidance to 

RCRA facility permit applicants and writers 

concerning the establishment of RCRA Alternate 

Concentration Limits. The guidance lists 19 factors, 

or criteria, that are used to evaluate ACL requests. 61 ‘‘Class of use’’ designates the potential uses of 

groundwater based on its quality. For example, 

groundwater that is not suitable for human 

consumption may be designated for livestock. Class 

of use typically encompasses a range of constituent 

concentration values. 

62NRC (2009). ‘‘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.’’ NRC 

Regulatory Issue Summary 2009–05. 

63 Darling, Bruce (2008). ‘‘Report on Findings 

Related to the Restoration of Groundwater at In-Situ 

Uranium Mines in South Texas.’’ Southwest 

Groundwater Consulting, LLC. 

64Hall, Susan (2009). ‘‘Groundwater Restoration 

at Uranium In-Situ Recovery Mines, South Texas 

Coastal Plain.’’ U.S. Geological Survey. 

65Fettus, G. and M.G. McKinzie (2012). ‘‘Nuclear 

Fuel’s Dirty Beginnings: Environmental Damage 

and Public Health Risks from Uranium Mining in 

the American West.’’ Natural Resources Defense 

Council. 

66 ‘‘[A] licensee may propose alternatives to 

specific requirements adopted and enforced by the 

Commission under this chapter. Such alternative 

proposals may take into account local or regional 

conditions, including geology, topography, 

hydrology and meteorology. The Commission may 

treat such alternatives as satisfying Commission 

requirements if the Commission determines that 

such alternatives will achieve a level of 

stabilization and containment of the sites 

concerned, and a level of protection for public 

health, safety, and the environment from 

radiological and nonradiological hazards 

associated with such sites, which is equivalent to, 

to the extent practicable, or more stringent than the 

level which would be achieved by standards and 

requirements adopted and enforced by the 

Commission for the same purpose and any final 

standards promulgated by the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency in accordance 

with section 2022 of this title.’’ 42 U.S.C. 2114(c), 

emphasis added. 

67EPA guidance on application of ACLs under 

RCRA makes a similar distinction between the 

‘‘point of compliance’’ and the ‘‘point of exposure,’’ 

emphasizing that in granting ACLs, (1) groundwater 

plumes should not increase in size or concentration 

above allowable health or environmental exposure 

levels; (2) increased property holdings should not 

Continued 

approach, the Agency would initiate 

future changes to standards through a 

notice-and-comment rulemaking 

specifically for 40 CFR part 192. 

In order for an ISR operation to 

proceed, a UIC permit is required and 

typically, an aquifer exemption is 

needed as well. The exemption 

effectively removes from the protection 

of the SDWA, an aquifer or portion of 

an aquifer that would otherwise meet 

the definition of an underground source 

of drinking water. The wellfield used by 

the ISR operation to extract the uranium 

deposit may constitute only a portion of 

the overall exempted area. As noted in 

Section II.E.1 of this document, there is 

no similar exemption for the aquifer 

from the requirements of UMTRCA, nor 

does UMTRCA contemplate such a 

concept. We emphasize again that the 

SDWA-based aquifer exemption does 

not relieve the operator of an ISR facility 

of the obligation to remediate 

environmental contamination resulting 

from activities regulated under 

UMTRCA, both within and outside the 

exempted portion of the aquifer. 

2. Alternate Concentration Limits 

(ACLS) 

Consistent with RCRA, EPA currently 

allows the use of ACLs if the operator 

is unable to restore groundwater to 

either preoperational background 

conditions/concentration levels or the 

applicable restoration goals. Today we 

propose to clarify the requirements for 

requesting and granting ACLs in the 

production zone, after restoration efforts 

have taken place. While the 19 criteria 

to be considered in granting ACLs are 

spelled out for Title II sites in 40 CFR 

192.32(a)(2)(iv) through incorporation of 

40 CFR 264.94(b), they have not always 

been implemented as intended.59 60 In 

the past, NRC and Agreement States 

have issued secondary class-of-use 

restoration goals at ISR sites, but these 

goals were typically less restrictive than 

meeting background concentration 

levels.61 NRC no longer recognizes 

class-of-use as an appropriate standard 

for restoration of groundwater at 

uranium ISR facilities; 62 secondary 

class-of-use restoration goals are 

inconsistent with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 192 and 10 CFR part 40, 

Appendix A. There is evidence that 

relaxed restoration standards have been 

granted in Agreement States,63 and 

some instances where ACLs have been 

identified and approved by the regulator 

before restoration efforts have been 

initiated and/or completed.64 65 We 

believe these situations can result in 

insufficient protection of groundwater; 

in particular, we believe it only is 

appropriate to establish restoration goals 

based on a thorough characterization of 

the preoperational environment and not 

to approve ACLs unless it has proven 

impracticable to achieve or maintain the 

initial restoration goals or return to 

background conditions after restoration. 

With this proposal, we specify the 

conditions that must be met prior to 

requesting an ACL and emphasize the 

factors that must be considered in 

establishing and approving ACLs. These 

factors specify that, if ACLs are deemed 

necessary or appropriate after all best 

practicable restoration activities have 

been completed, they must not pose a 

substantial present or potential hazard 

to human health or the environment.66

ACLs can be established for carcinogens 

and/or non-carcinogens. When 

considering the potential for health risks 

caused by human exposure to known or 

suspected carcinogens, ACLs should, 

where practicable, be established at 

concentration levels that represent a 

cumulative excess lifetime risk to an 

average individual at no greater than 

10¥4 (one chance in ten thousand). 

The regulatory agency may face 

situations in which the operator will 

request ACLs. If after extensive effort 

the operator determines that the initial 

restoration goals for one or more 

constituents cannot be achieved as 

required in the license, the operator may 

request and the regulatory agency may 

approve the levels that have been 

achieved as provisional ACLs and 

determine that restoration is complete 

(i.e., that there is no statistically 

significant trend in the concentrations 

of regulated species over time). Then, 

the operator may request and the 

regulatory agency may approve final 

ACLs if post-restoration monitoring 

indicates three consecutive years of 

stability at the 95 percent confidence 

level. The approval of final ACLs, 

however, would not by itself satisfy the 

requirements for long-term stability 

monitoring. 

In the second case, after restoration is 

complete, the operator may find that 

post-restoration monitoring detects 

increases in the concentration of one or 

more constituents of concern. 

Depending on the statistical significance 

of the increase, the regulatory agency 

may determine that further attempts at 

restoration or corrective action are 

needed. If the situation persists after 

such action is taken, the regulatory 

agency may choose to wait and see if the 

increase levels off (i.e., stabilizes). If 

stabilization does occur, the operator 

may request and the regulatory agency 

may approve final ACLs if postrestoration monitoring indicates three 

consecutive years of stability at the 95 

percent confidence level. 

An additional consideration is the 

potential effect of ACLs on groundwater 

downgradient of the wellfield. The 

granting of ACLs could be viewed as 

inconsistent with the purpose of 

groundwater restoration, which is to 

prevent contamination of groundwater 

resources beyond the production zone. 

However, NRC has in recent years 

adopted an approach defining the 

‘‘point of exposure’’ as the aquifer 

exemption boundary, where the initial 

restoration goal must be met. We 

propose to adopt a similar approach 

today.67 This will ensure that the nonVerDate Sep<11>2014 23:16 Jan 23, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26JAP2.SGM 26JAP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4174 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

be used to allow a greater ACL; and (3) ACLs should 

not be established so as to contaminate off-site 

groundwater above allowable health or 

environmental exposure levels. See http://

www.epa.gov/wastes/hazard/correctiveaction/

resources/guidance/gw/acl.htm. 

68EPA (2014). ‘‘Considerations Related to Post 

Closure Monitoring of Uranium In-Situ Leach/InSitu Recovery Sites.’’ 

69For example, owners and operators of 

hazardous waste facilities are required to have a 

monitoring system that can ‘‘represent the quality 

of background water that has not been affected by 

leakage from a regulated unit.’’ 40 CFR 264.97(a)(1). 

70EPA (2014). ‘‘Considerations Related to Post 

Closure Monitoring of Uranium In-Situ Leach/InSitu Recovery Sites.’’ 

71 ‘‘At least one full year prior to any major site 

construction, a preoperational monitoring program 

must be conducted to provide complete baseline 

data on a milling site and its environs. Throughout 

the construction and operating phases of the mill, 

an operational monitoring program must be 

conducted to measure or evaluate compliance with 

applicable standards and regulations; to evaluate 

performance of control systems and procedures; to 

evaluate environmental impacts of operation; and to 

detect potential long-term effects.’’ 

72 12. NRC (2006). ‘‘Status of the Development of 

Memoranda of Understanding with Nebraska and 

Wyoming, Regarding the Regulation of 

Groundwater Protection at Their In Situ Leach 

Uranium Recovery Facilities.’’ SECY–05–0123. 

endangerment condition of the UIC 

permit will be sustained. We believe the 

decision to grant an ACL is among the 

most important that the regulatory 

agency can make. We believe our 

proposal appropriately clarifies the 

situations in which ACLs can be 

considered and emphasizes the factors 

that must be considered, thereby making 

the overall process more rigorous. 

However, we also recognize that the 

regulatory agency may need to spend 

additional effort to evaluate the full 

record of activities at the site in order 

to determine whether an ACL is 

appropriate, and at what level. Because 

the long-term protectiveness of this 

decision may not be fully understood 

until well after site activities conclude 

and the license is terminated, we 

encourage the regulatory agency to 

inform and seek input from the affected 

public when ACLs are being considered. 

We believe this request would 

constitute a license amendment 

significant enough to warrant an 

opportunity for public comment, if not 

public hearings. 

C. Adequate Characterization of 

Groundwater Prior to Uranium Recovery 

To design and operate an ISR facility, 

the chemical composition and 

hydrology of the groundwater in and 

around the ore body must first be 

rigorously characterized. Defining the 

configuration of the ore zone and 

designing the production zone for 

uranium recovery requires detailed 

subsurface information obtained from 

geophysical investigations, including 

but not limited to logs and cores.68 In 

addition, the groundwater in the 

production zone is also characterized to 

determine the proposed chemical 

composition of the lixiviant and to 

determine background groundwater 

chemistry by which to set restoration 

goals for the post-production phase of 

the ISR operation (i.e., the efforts to 

return the groundwater chemical 

conditions in the production zone to 

those that existed prior to the uranium 

recovery efforts). The preoperational 

chemical composition of the 

groundwater in the production zone is 

called ‘‘baseline’’ in practice within the 

ISR industry and by NRC. In EPA 

documents and regulations the term 

‘‘background’’ is used to indicate the 

original state of groundwater before 

activities take place that may introduce 

contamination into the groundwater, 

such as leakage of contaminants from a 

surface or near-surface waste disposal 

cell or an underground source of 

contamination such as leaking storage 

tanks or disposal wells.69

For the ISR method, there are a 

number of ‘‘backgrounds’’ involved, the 

most important being the preoperational 

background within the portion of the 

ore zone where uranium production 

will take place (i.e., the production 

zone). Knowledge of this background is 

necessary to design the leaching process 

and set restoration goals—two very 

important steps in the ISR operation. 

‘‘Background’’ groundwater 

composition data are also needed in 

portions of the aquifer surrounding the 

wellfield and in overlying and 

underlying aquifers that may have 

communication with the uranium orebearing aquifer to determine whether 

excursions occur during operations, and 

to determine whether seasonal 

variations in groundwater chemistry are 

occurring in shallow aquifers. 

Background data are also needed for 

geochemical modeling of the 

groundwater in the production zone and 

downgradient to support assessments of 

the natural capacity of the restored 

production area and downgradient 

portion of the exempted aquifer to 

maintain long-term stability of the 

restored wellfield. 

There are spatial and temporal 

designations for the various 

‘‘backgrounds’’ measured in relation to 

an ISR operation. For instance, 

preoperational background is 

determined above, below, around and 

within the wellfield in the exempted 

aquifer. The preoperational background 

downgradient of the wellfield and in 

aquifers above and below the 

production zone are needed to detect 

any excursions that may occur during 

the ISR operational phase or restoration 

phase. The uses of the various 

‘‘backgrounds’’ are described in the 

technical background information 

document supporting this rulemaking.70

NRC requires establishment of 

background at uranium recovery sites in 

its regulations at 10 CFR part 40, 

Appendix A, Criterion 7; 71 most of the 

implementing requirements are found in 

guidance and license conditions. 

Today’s proposal includes provisions to 

ensure that operators adequately 

characterize preoperational conditions 

inside and outside the wellfield. This 

characterization is necessary to establish 

appropriately protective restoration 

goals that are representative of the 

wellfield, accounting for natural 

variability. There is evidence that 

regulators and operators have at times 

used high-end values to represent the 

overall wellfield or have used a 

generalized ‘‘class-of-use’’ for the 

groundwater to set restoration goals.72

We do not believe this is appropriate, as 

we explain below. 

Today’s proposal also specifies that 

the preoperational groundwater 

monitoring program must account for 

the effects of well installation and 

development on the groundwater 

characteristics. The physical act of 

penetrating the aquifer to install the 

well can cause localized changes in 

constituent concentrations or chemical 

parameters, which can lead to a 

misleading picture of background 

conditions. This can, in turn, result in 

selection of artificially high restoration 

goals. It is important that the operator 

allow a sufficient interval of time 

between well installation and sampling 

to allow localized disturbances to 

dissipate and ensure that background 

conditions are accurately characterized. 

1. Establishing Restoration Goals 

The successful protection of 

groundwater at ISR sites begins with the 

selection of rigorous and appropriate 

restoration goals. As described in 

Section III.B of this preamble, 

restoration goals will be established as 

the preoperational background 

concentration or as a specified 

regulatory level for that constituent, 

whichever is higher. 

This is more complicated than it 

might seem. ISR wellfields may cover 

areas of 10 acres or more, and the 

presence of mineralized zones often 

means that there is significant 

variability within the proposed 

production area. As a result, background 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 4175 

73EPA (2014). ‘‘Considerations Related to Post 

Closure Monitoring of Uranium In-Situ Leach/InSitu Recovery Sites.’’ 74See 40 CFR 264.98. 

concentrations in one area of the 

wellfield may diverge significantly from 

those measured elsewhere. The 

question, then, is whether it is possible 

to select a single level that is 

representative of the entire wellfield 

and, if not, how measurements should 

be evaluated. 

We stated previously that we do not 

believe it is appropriate to select among 

high-end measurements as 

representative values for restoration. It 

might be argued, however, that restoring 

a given well to its preoperational values 

would be an indication that restoration 

would be equally successful in the rest 

of the wellfield. This might be the case 

at sites where remediation of 

groundwater is focused on removing a 

contaminant that has been introduced 

from outside the system; however, we 

question the general application of this 

assumption at ISR sites. As discussed 

earlier, the initial deposition 

(precipitation) of uranium 

mineralization is uneven and alters the 

porosity and permeability of the host 

rock. The extraction and restoration 

processes at ISR sites are imperfect and 

further alter the distribution of the 

uranium in the deposit. Flow paths and 

velocities in local areas are altered as a 

result of changes in porosity and 

permeability that occur from the 

removal of material from pore spaces 

and later re-precipitation. It is possible 

that areas of heavy and lighter 

mineralization or groundwater 

concentrations can change from the 

distribution existing before uranium 

recovery to that after restoration, 

reflecting the degree to which the 

oxidizing and reducing agents contact 

the mineralization. As a result of these 

changes, ‘‘hot spots’’ may be found at 

wells that initially registered lower 

constituent concentration 

measurements, and vice versa. 

Because of the site-specific nature of 

this variability, we are proposing today 

that operators utilize background 

measurements from across the wellfield, 

combined with appropriate statistical 

techniques, to determine restoration 

goals. As appropriate, goals may be 

developed for individual wells, groups 

of wells, or the entire wellfield. The 

point(s) of compliance for restoration 

will be determined by the operator and 

regulatory agency after a thorough 

technical evaluation of the operator’s 

geophysical investigation. 

D. Excursions 

During the operational and restoration 

phases at an ISR wellfield, it is possible 

that lixiviant or byproduct fluids can 

escape the capture zones of the 

extraction wells and move toward the 

monitoring well ring surrounding the 

production zone. The placement of the 

injection and extraction wells, 

combined with their relative pumping 

rates, are designed to prevent such 

movement,73 but heterogeneities in the 

aquifer characteristics and difficulties in 

maintaining perfect performance of the 

wellfield can lead to lateral excursions 

as well as excursions into overlying and 

underlying aquifers (i.e., vertical 

excursions). Detecting these excursions 

is a prime focus of regulatory attention. 

Indicators of excursions (e.g., increases 

in concentrations of certain indicator 

parameters, such as, but not limited to, 

chloride ion concentrations above the 

preoperational background) are 

typically defined in the license 

conditions, as are requirements for 

reporting excursions to the regulatory 

authorities and corrective action 

requirements once an excursion is 

detected. The excursion monitoring 

wells are positioned far enough away 

from the injection and extraction wells 

so as to not be affected by the 

production processes, but close enough 

to detect excursions in a timely manner. 

The spacing of wells within the 

monitoring ring must prevent 

contaminants from passing between the 

wells. The excursion monitoring wells 

should also be far enough from the 

aquifer exemption boundary to ensure 

that any necessary corrective action can 

be taken before a USDW is adversely 

impacted. We have seen instances 

where the outer monitoring ring is 

essentially coincident with the 

boundary of the exempted aquifer. We 

do not believe this practice is 

appropriate. While it may allow the 

operator to limit the amount of land 

dedicated to the ISR facility, it provides 

little margin for error in preventing 

contaminants from reaching protected 

aquifers (i.e., USDWs), and may hamper 

corrective actions should they be 

needed. 

Today we are proposing to adopt a 

definition of ‘‘excursion’’ consistent 

with that used by NRC in license 

conditions. Under this definition, an 

excursion is identified when two or 

more indicator parameters are measured 

at levels exceeding their upper control 

limits (essentially, background levels) at 

perimeter monitoring wells or in 

monitoring wells in overlying or 

underlying aquifers. Thus, an excursion 

can take place vertically between 

aquifers as well as horizontally within 

the aquifer from which uranium is being 

extracted. 

This approach differs somewhat from 

that taken under RCRA to detect 

releases of hazardous constituents, so it 

is important that we distinguish 

between the two approaches and 

explain why our proposed approach is 

more suitable in the ISR context and 

consistent with law. 

Monitoring under RCRA is conducted 

to detect any evidence that an 

engineered hazardous waste unit (e.g., a 

landfill or impoundment) has failed. To 

that end, the detection monitoring 

program includes not only indicator 

parameters that might signal a change in 

groundwater chemistry or quality, but 

also hazardous constituents contained 

in the waste unit.74 The statistically 

significant detection of any monitored 

parameter or constituent triggers further 

investigation and potentially corrective 

action. Because the engineered unit has 

been introduced into the environment 

and the monitoring takes place at the 

edge of the unit, it is unlikely that a 

detection can be attributed to the 

natural variability in the groundwater at 

the site. Detection of a single parameter 

or constituent appropriately triggers 

action in this case because, in addition 

to remediating groundwater, the failure 

of the unit itself must be addressed to 

prevent further releases. 

By contrast, at an ISR site all 

constituents that may be ‘‘released’’ are 

part of the natural setting, and their 

presence in groundwater may vary over 

time. Only the lixiviant is introduced 

from outside the natural system. 

Therefore, the ‘‘indicator parameters’’ 

are typically those that most reflect the 

lixiviant properties. For example, 

chloride is often incorporated into the 

lixiviant as a tracer; similarly, because 

the lixiviant mobilizes uranium by 

increasing alkalinity, a significant 

increase in alkalinity at excursion 

monitoring wells may signal that 

lixiviant has escaped the production 

zone extraction wells. Because the 

lixiviant typically moves more rapidly 

than the mineral constituents, increases 

in the properties associated with the 

lixiviant will most likely be detected 

well before the other constituents reach 

the excursion monitoring wells. The 

presence of these parameters in the 

natural groundwater accounts for the 

reliance on detecting two such 

parameters at levels above their upper 

control limits to signal an excursion, 

rather than only one. 

We believe this approach to defining 

excursions (i.e., relying on two indicator 

parameters) is reasonable and has been 

shown to be workable in practice. We 

are also proposing to define ‘‘upper 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4176 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

75See NRC (2003). ‘‘Standard Review Plan for In 

Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications.’’ NUREG–1569, page 5–40. 

76EPA (2009). ‘‘Statistical Analysis of 

Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities— 

Unified Guidance.’’ 

77NRC (2003). ‘‘Standard Review Plan for In Situ 

Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications.’’ 

NUREG–1569. 

78 Ibid, page 5–41. 

79EPA (2014). ‘‘Considerations Related to Post 

Closure Monitoring of Uranium In-Situ Leach/InSitu Recovery Sites.’’ 80 Ibid. 

control limit’’ consistent with NRC’s use 

of the term. The ‘‘upper control limit’’ 

defines the level of an indicator 

parameter that, when two of which are 

detected at excursion monitoring wells, 

would signal an excursion; as described 

above, indicator parameters will 

typically be identified in the facility 

license. 

It is important that the upper control 

limits be set appropriately to account for 

both background levels of indicator 

parameters and the characteristics of the 

lixiviant. We agree with NRC that 

‘‘upper control limit concentrations of 

the chosen excursion indicators should 

be set high enough that false positives 

(false alarms from natural fluctuations 

in water chemistry) are not a frequent 

problem, but not so high that significant 

groundwater quality degradation could 

occur by the time an excursion is 

identified.’’ 75 We have heard some 

concerns that upper control limits have 

in some cases been established at levels 

that would be unlikely to be exceeded 

under any conditions, thereby 

eliminating the possibility of detecting 

an excursion altogether. Such a 

situation must be avoided. 

Upper control limits can be calculated 

using various statistical techniques, but 

are often derived by adding a multiple 

of the standard deviation to the mean of 

a distribution. EPA’s Unified 

Guidance 76 covers methods that can be 

used to develop control limits or 

prediction limits, which serve a similar 

function. NRC staff describes its current 

view of acceptable practice in NUREG– 

1569 77: ‘‘The staff has decided that in 

areas with good water quality (total 

dissolved solids less than 500 mg/l), 

setting the upper control limit at a value 

of 5 standard deviations above the mean 

of the measured [background] 

concentrations is an acceptable 

approach.’’ 78

The potential for excursions may also 

be a factor in the facility’s decision to 

stop operations and enter the restoration 

phase. In some cases, conventional mills 

may enter a standby period, in which 

they stop processing ore with the intent 

to resume operations at some point in 

the future (the price of uranium is often 

the decisive factor in these decisions). 

In some cases, mills have remained on 

standby for years at a time. For an ISR 

facility, however, such a ‘‘standby’’ 

period is inappropriate because the 

migration of constituents mobilized by 

the prior injection of lixiviant continues 

even if the decision is made to stop 

extracting uranium. Excursions beyond 

the production zone are more likely to 

occur if the gradient within the 

wellfield is not maintained. In our view, 

stopping the extraction cycle must be 

interpreted as an end to the operational 

phase and should trigger initiation of 

the restoration phase. We are interested 

in stakeholder views on this 

interpretation. 

E. Long-Term Stability Monitoring 

Perhaps the most significant aspect of 

today’s proposal involves the actions to 

be taken by the operator after 

groundwater restoration is complete. If 

insufficient monitoring is conducted, 

either in duration, frequency, or in the 

number of wells used to sample the 

wellfield, it is very possible to reach 

premature conclusions of stability. In 

such cases, residual lixiviant or 

localized areas within the production 

zone that have not stabilized may cause 

continued mobilization of uranium and 

other constituents after monitoring is 

terminated, potentially leading to 

contamination downgradient or beyond 

the boundary of the exempted aquifer. 

Today’s proposal contains provisions 

related both to the duration of the 

monitoring and to the sufficiency of the 

data necessary to determine that 

stability has been achieved. 

After the ISR operational phase ends, 

the altered chemical state has to be 

returned to the preoperational 

conditions, to the extent possible, so 

that uranium and other contaminants do 

not migrate outside the wellfield. 

Treatments to re-establish chemically 

reducing conditions (which greatly 

reduce the uranium concentration in the 

ore zone groundwater) can restore 

groundwater constituents to 

preoperational background levels to a 

large extent, although experience has 

shown that restoration of all 

constituents to the preoperational 

background level is seldom 100 percent 

successful.79 In addition, the chemically 

reducing conditions initially present, 

and the mechanisms that maintained 

these conditions originally, may not be 

restored sufficiently to persist over the 

long-term. Re-oxidation of treated 

groundwater-host rock systems in other 

situations has been observed, and postrestoration monitoring at ISR locations 

has historically been relatively short, 

typically six months to periods of no 

more than a few years. A slow reoxidation process with the resulting 

potential for enhanced migration of 

uranium and other contaminants may 

not be detected during a relatively short 

post-restoration monitoring period. 

Such an event could occur if the 

oxidizing agents in the lixiviant 

significantly removed the reducing 

agents originally present in the ore zone 

(e.g., organic material and iron sulfide 

minerals) that were responsible for 

sequestering the uranium to form the 

ore deposit in the first place. Over time, 

naturally oxygenated waters entering 

the ore zone from up gradient could reoxidize the uranium removed from 

solution during the restoration process, 

mobilizing it once again and 

transporting it downgradient beyond the 

wellfield. To determine whether a trend 

of increased concentrations is occurring, 

it is necessary to monitor over long 

periods of time and use statistical 

techniques to analyze the data. This is 

particularly important if the trend in 

increased concentrations is relatively 

slow and the natural variability in the 

well samples is relatively high. These 

difficulties point to the need for longer 

post-restoration monitoring periods than 

historically performed. However, as 

discussed earlier, the choice of 

appropriate statistical techniques to 

determine the presence or absence of 

trends in monitoring data can be 

complicated by shortcomings in the 

monitoring database, such as missing 

measurements, ‘‘nondetects,’’ analytical 

errors and other causes that are difficult 

to avoid in practice for long timeframe 

monitoring efforts.80 We have 

considered several options for the 

length of the long-term stability 

monitoring period as described below. 

1. Thirty-Year Long-Term Stability 

Monitoring Period, With Provisions for 

Shortening That Time Period 

The initial part of our proposal for 

long-term stability monitoring addresses 

the duration of monitoring. Specifically, 

we are proposing that a facility must 

demonstrate three consecutive years of 

stability monitoring and then maintain 

long-term stability monitoring for an 

additional period of 30 years; this 

timeframe can be shortened by 

demonstrating long-term geochemical 

stability through modeling, as described 

below. In determining the appropriate 

length of long-term stability monitoring 

to provide confidence that the restored 

wellfield conditions will remain stable 

over time, and considering our statutory 

direction for consistency with RCRA 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 4177 

81See 40 CFR 264.117(a)(1). 

82EPA (2014). ‘‘Considerations Related to Post 

Closure Monitoring of Uranium In-Situ Leach/InSitu Recovery Sites.’’ 

83This decision authority is also present in RCRA 

regulations: ‘‘. . . any time during the post-closure 

period for a particular unit, the Regional 

Administrator may . . . shorten the post-closure 

care period applicable to the hazardous waste 

management unit. . . if he finds that the reduced 

period is sufficient to protect human health and the 

environment . . .’’ 40 CFR 264.117(a)(2). 

84The Agency recently took a similar approach in 

defining the post-injection monitoring timeframe 

applicable to Class VI wells used for carbon dioxide 

geologic sequestration. Owners or operators of Class 

VI injection wells are required to monitor for at 

least 50 years after the cessation of injection, unless 

an alternative timeframe is approved. Further, the 

monitoring period can be shortened if it can be 

demonstrated, based on monitoring and other sitespecific data, that the project no longer poses an 

endangerment to USDWs. See 40 CFR 146.93(b). 

85 ‘‘If the owner or operator is engaged in a 

corrective action program at the end of the 

compliance period specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, the compliance period is extended until the 

owner or operator can demonstrate that the groundwater protection standard of § 264.92 has not been 

exceeded for a period of three consecutive years.’’ 

40 CFR 26.96(c). ‘‘The owner or operator may 

terminate corrective action measures taken beyond 

the period equal to the active life of the waste 

management area (including the closure period) if 

he can demonstrate, based on data from the groundwater monitoring program under paragraph (d) of 

this section, that the ground-water protection 

standard of § 264.92 has not been exceeded for three 

consecutive years.’’ 40 CFR 264.100(f). 

requirements, we find that some 

direction can indeed be found in the 

RCRA regulatory framework. For RCRA 

hazardous waste disposal facilities, a 

post-closure monitoring period of thirty 

years is required before permit 

termination can occur.81 Since an 

engineered RCRA disposal facility for 

the containment of chemically 

hazardous waste is similar in concept to 

relying upon a chemically treated ISR 

wellfield to contain the potential spread 

of contaminants, we believe it is 

reasonable to conclude that a thirty-year 

long-term stability monitoring period for 

ISR activities is a consistent application 

of RCRA requirements. We have 

examined various statistical techniques 

for determining the presence or absence 

of trends in monitoring data, under 

assumed levels of natural variability and 

extent of trending, and concluded that, 

under reasonable values for these 

variables, a thirty-year monitoring 

period is a reasonable length of time to 

detect upward trends in constituent 

concentrations.82

We recognize that a thirty-year 

monitoring period would be 

significantly longer than current 

practice and that stability may be 

achieved in a shorter timeframe. 

Therefore, we are also proposing a 

provision that would allow the 

regulatory agency to shorten the 

monitoring period 83 if the operator can 

both demonstrate geochemical stability 

through monitoring and support a 

conclusion of long-term stability 

through geochemical modeling. We 

believe that modeling, which can 

provide confidence that a geochemical 

environment exists to prevent uranium 

and other constituents from remobilizing, is an important element of 

any decision to shorten the monitoring 

period. Further, we believe this 

provision will encourage operators to 

expend more effort in preoperational 

site characterization, which will 

improve their modeling efforts.84

We are proposing that three 

consecutive years of stability be 

demonstrated through monitoring as a 

prerequisite before the modeling would 

be considered as justification for 

reducing the monitoring period. The 

three-year stability demonstration 

begins when sufficient monitoring data 

have been collected to allow a showing 

of statistical significance at a specified 

level of confidence. This three-year 

demonstration period has its roots in the 

RCRA framework, where it is a metric 

for the success of corrective action after 

groundwater contamination has been 

detected.85 We also see this situation as 

analogous to the restoration of the ISR 

wellfield. Stability would be 

demonstrated statistically at the 95 

percent confidence level, which we 

believe will help to ensure that 

operators collect data of sufficient 

quantity to support regulatory 

judgments. Stability would be 

demonstrated using statistical tests with 

sufficient power to detect trends with a 

false negative rate no higher than 5 

percent. We believe this will ensure that 

operators collect data of sufficient 

quantity and quality with adequate 

power to support regulatory judgments. 

As noted in Section II.E.2 of this 

document, a 95 percent confidence 

threshold can also be found in the 

RCRA monitoring program. 

2. What Other Options Did EPA 

Consider For the Long-Term Stability 

Monitoring Period? 

In addition to the option described 

above, EPA considered two alternatives 

related to the duration of long-term 

stability monitoring. We are interested 

in receiving comments and data on all 

three options described. 

a. Required Thirty-Year Long-Term 

Stability Monitoring Period 

The second option we considered also 

relies on the RCRA regulatory 

framework. In this alternative, no 

provision for shortening the long-term 

stability monitoring time frame is 

permitted; thirty years of groundwater 

monitoring is required. This alternative 

provides a significant increase in the 

monitoring period over current industry 

practice, and the extended time would 

provide added confidence that the 

restored wellfield chemistry is 

remaining stable through this period of 

time. Thirty years of consistent 

statistical performance (i.e., no upward 

trending) would provide strong support 

for concluding that groundwater 

systems will remain in a chemically 

reduced state over time. If upward 

trending of contaminant concentrations 

was observed during the monitoring 

period under this approach, the operator 

would be required to perform additional 

corrective action, after which the 

monitoring period would begin again. 

We ultimately decided not to pursue 

this option because it does not 

sufficiently recognize the site-specific 

aspects of aquifer restoration or give 

operators the incentive to reach license 

termination sooner by conducting 

geochemical modeling. 

b. Narrative Standard With No Fixed 

Monitoring Period 

We also considered the option of a 

performance-based standard without 

explicitly calling for a long-term 

monitoring period. We considered 

requiring that two conditions be met 

(i.e., return of the physical hydrologic 

system to a condition similar to the 

preoperational flow regime and stability 

of the geochemical environment) before 

license termination. To meet the first 

condition, return of the physical 

hydrologic system, no significant 

residual influences from the injectionextraction restoration cycle could 

remain after restoration. This would 

include conditions such as hydraulic 

head and flow direction. Depending on 

the site, this would likely take many 

months and perhaps a year or more. To 

meet the second condition, stability of 

the geochemical environment, the 

operator would have to show that the 

groundwater chemistry is statistically 

stable at a 95 percent confidence level 

for a duration of time sufficient to 

account for site conditions. These site 

conditions would include such things as 

variability of constituents in the 

wellfield, groundwater velocity, 

constituent travel times and any 

seasonal influences. We expect it to take 

at least several years to collect data 

sufficient to achieve the 95 percent 

confidence level. With this approach, 

the regulatory agency would have 

maximum flexibility in determining 

whether to establish general 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4178 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

86EPA (2014). ‘‘Considerations Related to Post 

Closure Monitoring of Uranium In-Situ Leach/InSitu Recovery Sites.’’ 

87 Ibid. 

88See 40 CFR 264.97(h) & (i). 

requirements or approach each site on 

an individual basis. 

Ultimately, we decided against this 

approach for several reasons. Statistical 

analyses alone, without the added 

requirement of long-term monitoring or 

the option of geochemical modeling, 

would provide no assurance that 

groundwater systems will remain in a 

chemically reduced state over a longer 

time frame than that used for data 

collection. Furthermore, this option 

does not incorporate RCRA’s thirty-year 

post-closure period. As previously 

stated, UMTRCA requires that generally 

applicable standards promulgated under 

its authority by EPA for non-radiological 

hazards be consistent with the standards 

issued under Subtitle C of RCRA. Based 

on these two reasons, we feel that this 

approach has greater potential for 

premature termination of the license. 

Furthermore, ambiguity in the narrative 

nature of such standards has the 

potential to provoke litigation and make 

implementation difficult. 

3. How will groundwater stability be 

determined? 

The success of a groundwater 

restoration effort will be measured 

ultimately not only by whether the 

restoration goals are achieved, but also 

by whether those levels can persist and 

the geochemistry of the groundwater 

remain stable in the long term. The 

primary intent of the restoration effort is 

to return the chemical condition of the 

groundwater in the production zone to 

the state that existed prior to the 

initiation of the ISR operations; 

restoring the hydrologic regime is also 

important. The persistence in time (i.e., 

stability) of the chemical condition 

developed during restoration is the 

ultimate measure of success for the 

aquifer restoration effort. We define 

stability as the state in which the 

concentrations of the constituents in the 

groundwater remain relatively constant 

over time, with no significant upward 

trending. The key factor in determining 

stability, then, is developing a 

meaningful measure by which to 

determine whether trending is 

occurring. Such a measure must address 

the sufficiency of the data collected, 

both over time and in its spatial 

distribution within the wellfield. We 

discussed the proposed monitoring 

timeframes in the previous section. The 

remainder of this section describes how 

we propose to determine whether 

groundwater chemistry is stable and 

where we propose to apply this method. 

a. What do we propose for determining 

stability? 

There are some similarities between a 

hazardous waste land disposal situation 

and an ISR operation that allow us to 

draw on the RCRA experience for 

developing standards. Both the RCRA 

disposal technology and the postoperation aquifer restoration efforts for 

an ISR operation are intended to prevent 

contaminants from migrating in the 

environment. However, there are some 

differences that apply to developing ISR 

standards. An ISR production zone 

differs from a hazardous waste disposal 

situation in that the contaminants of 

potential concern (largely uranium and 

radium) were present at significant 

levels entrained within the host rock of 

the aquifer before ISR operations began 

and will still be present, to some extent, 

in the groundwater after the aquifer 

restoration effort has ended; the process 

will not completely remove them. The 

concentrations of contaminants of 

potential concern are subject to natural 

temporal variations both before and 

after ISR operations, and this variability 

must be taken into consideration in 

setting standards for judging the 

adequacy of aquifer restoration. Because 

of this natural variability, repeated 

sampling of the post-restoration 

groundwater must be done to judge the 

adequacy of the restoration process. To 

assess when the chemical condition in 

the wellfield groundwater has become 

stable, statistical measures and analyses 

are necessary for examining temporal 

variations in the water composition data 

collected over a period of time. Today 

we are proposing to establish a 

statistical level of confidence as the 

standard for determining stability of 

post-restoration groundwater. We 

believe this is a relatively simple and 

straightforward way to represent the 

level of rigor we believe is necessary to 

conclude that concentrations of 

important constituents in the 

groundwater are not increasing 

significantly over time. 

Determining when groundwater 

compositions have achieved temporal 

stability will be a site-specific decision, 

dependent on the natural variability at 

the site, which is in turn dependent on 

many site-specific factors (e.g., spatial 

variations in uranium mineral 

distribution within the aquifer, 

variations in other chemical 

constituents that affect uranium 

dissolution), the frequency of sample 

collection, and the magnitude of any 

trends in composition that may be 

present relative to the magnitude of 

natural variability. Chapter 7 of the 

technical background information 

document supporting this rulemaking 

discusses these aspects of stability 

monitoring in much greater detail and 

illustrates the relationships between 

sampling frequency and data trends 

with time.86 Because of the site-specific 

interplay between the variables that 

affect stability, we are not proposing to 

specify what statistical methods the 

operator should use to make this 

determination. There are a variety of 

methods available that could prove 

appropriate given the specific 

conditions at each site. These would 

include both parametric and nonparametric methods. We recommend 

that readers consult EPA’s ‘‘Statistical 

Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring 

Data at RCRA Facilities—Unified 

Guidance’’ (2009), which provides 

exhaustive discussion of methods that 

have been considered for use in the 

RCRA program. Further discussion of 

statistical methods for determining 

trends in groundwater data may also be 

found in EPA’s technical background 

information document, which was 

prepared to support this proposal.87 We 

emphasize that the choice of statistical 

method must be based on the quantity 

and quality of the available data and 

must be justified accordingly to the 

implementing regulatory agency. 

The intent of the statistical analysis of 

groundwater monitoring data is to avoid 

a situation where a wellfield that is 

unstable is judged to have reached 

temporal and spatial stability. An 

appropriate statistical analysis will help 

to ensure that the regulatory decision 

reflects a high degree of confidence in 

the interpretation of the monitoring 

data. We are proposing that a statistical 

confidence level of upper 95 percent 

confidence limit be used to determine 

stability over time. This level of 

confidence is often used in regulatory 

applications, including in the RCRA 

groundwater monitoring framework.88

We believe that an equivalent level of 

confidence, and its implications for 

sampling and analysis of groundwater 

composition data, is appropriate for 

consistency with RCRA approaches and 

requirements and the statutory direction 

applicable to this rulemaking. We 

believe a confidence level of this rigor 

will make it necessary for operators to 

collect an appropriate amount of data 

that clearly demonstrates that the 

restored ISR aquifer is geochemically 

stable and that UMTRCA requirements 

have been met. The frequency of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 4179 

89See 40 CFR 264.116 and 264.119. 

90 In 1972, Public Law 92–314 created the Grand 

Junction Remedial Action Program to reduce 

radiation exposures inside structures affected by 

uranium tailings. The U.S. Surgeon General 

published cleanup guidelines for the voluntary 

project. 

91Colorado Department of Health (1989). ‘‘Final 

Report on the Grand Junction Remedial Action 

Program.’’ 

sampling that will provide meaningful 

data must be determined from sitespecific conditions, such as 

groundwater flow rates. Another 

consideration is that stability sampling 

may be misleading if the operator has 

not allowed sufficient time for the 

natural system to recover to the point 

where the injection-extraction cycle is 

no longer influencing groundwater flow 

parameters in the wellfield, particularly 

in the immediate area around the 

monitoring wells. 

b. Where will the determination of 

stability be made? 

We have noted that a restored ISR 

wellfield essentially functions as a 

RCRA hazardous waste management 

unit. In this sense, when restoration is 

completed successfully, and the 

chemistry of the groundwater has been 

returned to a reducing environment, the 

uranium and other constituents that 

were mobilized are essentially ‘‘locked 

in’’ to the subsurface, as are hazardous 

constituents that are contained by RCRA 

engineered units. Following this 

reasoning, it might be considered 

appropriate for the outer boundary of 

the restored ISR wellfield to be 

designated as the point of compliance 

with the groundwater standards. 

However, we are not proposing to take 

this approach. 

Today we are proposing that each 

well within the wellfield be considered 

for use as a point of compliance for 

purposes of determining stability after 

restoration is determined to be complete 

(note that today’s proposal does not 

address the point of compliance for the 

regulatory agency’s determination that 

restoration is complete, which may be a 

more complicated matter). We believe 

that this is appropriate given the size of 

some wellfields (on the order of 

hundreds of acres) and the significant 

variability that is typically present in 

the mineralized zone. We believe such 

an approach will more readily inform 

both the operator and regulatory agency 

of localized trending, which may then 

be remedied as appropriate. If the 

licensee is able to demonstrate that a 

particular well is sufficiently 

representative of groundwater 

conditions in a larger area, the 

regulatory agency may approve the use 

of one well to demonstrate stability in 

the area covered by a larger number of 

wells. 

F. Institutional Control 

Institutional controls are intended to 

maintain long-term cognizance of the 

nature and location of particular 

activities that were done at a specific 

site, in this case the location of the 

uranium ore zone exploited by an ISR 

process. Institutional controls can 

prevent inadvertent intrusions or 

adverse consequences for future use of 

the site. Institutional controls are 

commonly described as active or 

passive. Active controls are measures 

such as guards and fences posted 

around a site. Passive controls could be 

the erection of signs or placards at a site. 

We are not proposing to establish 

institutional controls for ISR facilities. 

Active maintenance of the site will 

cease with the termination of the 

license, which will occur when the 

regulatory agency determines that all 

license conditions have been met. In 

this sense, we do not view the long-term 

stability monitoring period as an 

institutional control following the ISR 

restoration phase; rather, we view it as 

a period of active surveillance to 

determine the long-term success of the 

restoration effort. 

Nor are we proposing to establish 

passive controls, either at the site or in 

documents such as local land records. 

Requirements for survey plats or other 

records to be maintained would be 

consistent with RCRA requirements for 

hazardous waste facilities; however, 

these typically apply when waste 

management units remain at the site and 

are intended to restrict disturbance of 

the site.89 Though we are not proposing 

that such records be established for ISR 

sites, we strongly encourage NRC and 

Agreement States to include such 

provisions in ISR licenses since ISR 

sites will not be restricted from sale or 

further development. Such provisions 

could simply inform the subsequent 

owner of the previous ISR, groundwater 

restoration activities and aquifer 

exemption on the property. 

G. Other Proposed Amendments 

EPA has identified several non-ISR 

related provisions within 40 CFR part 

192 that should be updated and 

amended. The issues that we propose to 

address today include: 

• Amending § 192.32 to address a 

ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court of 

Appeals; 

• Deleting reference to Grand 

Junction Remedial Action Criteria (10 

CFR 712) at § 192.20(b)(3) since the 

criteria have been removed from the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); and 

• Correcting minor typographical and 

grammatical errors found in §§ 192.31 

and 192.32. 

1. Judicial Decisions 

Section 192.32 has been affected by a 

ruling from the Tenth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. Under § 192.32(a)(2)(v), NRC 

was required to obtain EPA concurrence 

for approval of ACLs in groundwater 

restoration. This provision was 

effectively struck down by the Tenth 

Circuit Court of Appeals in 

Environmental Defense Fund v. U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 866 

F.2d 1263, 1268–1269 (10th Cir. 1989), 

when the Court ruled that NRC has 

authority under AEA section 84(c) to 

independently make these site-specific 

ACL determinations, and that NRC has 

no duty to obtain this EPA concurrence. 

Therefore, today we are proposing to 

revise 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(v) by deleting 

this EPA concurrence requirement. 

2. Miscellaneous Updates and 

Corrections 

EPA is proposing an amendment to 

address an area of part 192 where 

reference is made to another 

environmental regulation that has since 

been removed from the CFR. EPA is also 

proposing several technical corrections 

to address known typographical and 

grammatical errors. 

a. Outdated Cross-Reference 

Section 192.20(b)(3) refers to criteria 

that no longer exist in the CFR. Because 

of this, EPA is proposing to eliminate 

reference to the Grand Junction 

Remedial Action Criteria, which once 

existed at 10 CFR part 712. 

In addition, language in § 192.20(b)(3) 

cites methods that did not prove 

effective during the Grand Junction 

Remedial Action Program.90 The final 

report for the program clearly states that 

filtration (by high efficiency filters or by 

electrostatic precipitators) and sealants 

(mainly epoxy-based resins) were not 

effective over the long term, and were 

not recommended as remedial options 

for radon mitigation.91 EPA proposes to 

eliminate the language referencing 

sealants and filtration. 

b. Technical Corrections 

Since promulgation of 40 CFR part 

192, several typographical and 

grammatical errors have been identified. 

Today, EPA is proposing amendments 

in §§ 192.31(a), 192.31(f) and 

192.32(a)(2)(v) to address these 

technical errors (e.g., spelling mistakes, 

misplaced comma). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4180 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

92See EPA (2014). ‘‘Economic Analysis: Proposed 

Revisions to the Health and Environmental 

Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium 

Mill Tailings Rule (40 CFR part 192).’’ This 

document which can be found in the docket for this 

proposed rule. (Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0788). 

93See Committee on Valuing Ground Water, 

National Research Council (1997), ‘‘Valuing Ground 

Water: Economic Concepts and Approaches,’’ 

which discusses both the extraction value (e.g., 

value of groundwater used for drinking water, 

industrial water supply, and agriculture) and the 

value of in situ services (e.g., buffer against periodic 

shortages in surface water supplies, protect water 

quality by maintaining the capacity to dilute and 

assimilate groundwater contaminants, etc.). 

94See EPA (2014). ‘‘Economic Analysis: Proposed 

Revisions to the Health and Environmental 

Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium 

Mill Tailings Rule (40 CFR part 192).’’ 

95EPA (2014). ‘‘Economic Analysis: Proposed 

Revisions to the Health and Environmental 

Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium 

Mill Tailings Rule (40 CFR part 192).’’ 

V. Summary of Environmental, Cost 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the impacts to 

groundwater? 

EPA has conducted a qualitative 

assessment of the benefits of the 

proposed rule and the expected effects 

on human and environmental health.92

The rule would require thorough 

characterization of background 

groundwater conditions within the ore 

zone and surrounding aquifers, and 

would put in place an automatic 

updating feature so that the 

requirements affecting ISR operations 

are always consistent with requirements 

of the SDWA and the RCRA. The 

proposed rule would also require a 

longer period of monitoring, 30 years, to 

ensure that conditions in the exempted 

aquifer had been restored, achieved 

steady-state and remain stable. Further, 

EPA allows facilities to use geochemical 

modeling to demonstrate that 

groundwater conditions will remain 

stable, and thereby reduce the duration 

of stability monitoring to less than 30 

years. These provisions help to ensure 

that, after the ISR operation’s license is 

terminated and the site is closed, 

groundwater conditions do not 

deteriorate. Since a closed ISR facility 

has no regulatory oversight, EPA 

expects that the improved monitoring 

program being proposed will reduce the 

risk of contaminating valuable 

groundwater resources, thus also 

reducing unintended exposure of 

human and ecological receptors to 

radiological and non-radiological 

constituents in groundwater. To the 

extent that such exposures are reduced, 

associated human health risks such as 

cancer may also be reduced. 

Groundwater is a valuable resource, 

particularly in the Western United 

States where uranium ISR is most 

common. Although EPA is unable to 

quantify the value of the groundwater 

resources that would be protected by the 

proposed rule, EPA nevertheless 

believes that the groundwater resources 

are likely to become more valuable over 

time. Reducing the risk of 

contamination of groundwater also 

protects surface water bodies to which 

affected aquifers discharge. If 

groundwater near an ISR facility were to 

become contaminated due to remobilization of uranium and other 

constituents, it might be many years 

before the contamination was 

discovered, especially under current 

practice where stability monitoring only 

lasts a year or two. Benefits associated 

with protecting other potential services 

provided by groundwater are also 

expected.93

B. What are the benefits of avoiding 

impacts to groundwater? 

In order to illustrate the potential 

benefits of avoiding impacts to 

groundwater, EPA estimated the costs of 

corrective action that would be required 

if uranium and other constituents 

remobilized in groundwater over time, 

resulting in contamination.94 By 

preventing groundwater contamination 

(or causing it to be discovered sooner), 

the proposed rule reduces the corrective 

action costs incurred to remediate the 

contamination. Based on groundwater 

contamination simulations (using a 

model facility approach under varying 

assumptions), the cost of remediation 

would far exceed the costs of complying 

with the proposed rule, both on an 

annual and total basis. Using a 

hydrological model, EPA estimated that 

cleaning up the plume of contamination 

could require 100 years of pump and 

treat remediation. In addition, if 

contamination were detected after 

decommissioning of a site, it is possible 

that the costs of remediation would be 

borne by the taxpayer or by the owner 

of the property, rather than by the 

uranium company responsible. Because 

we cannot anticipate how many ISR 

operations might experience 

deteriorating groundwater conditions 

after decommissioning or how long it 

would be before the contamination 

would be detected, EPA was unable to 

estimate potential avoided costs of 

remediation on a national scale. 

However, EPA believes they could be 

substantial. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

Using information about the uranium 

extraction industry and estimated 

incremental costs that would result from 

the rule as proposed today, EPA 

examined the economic impacts that 

may result from the revisions to 40 CFR 

part 192.95

EPA’s study estimates that affected 

ISR operators would incur costs to 

comply with the proposed rule, which 

would require comprehensive preoperational characterization of the site 

(including characterization of 

geochemical conditions downgradient 

of the production zone), careful 

monitoring during the operation, 

restoration of groundwater quality, at 

least three years of stability monitoring, 

and 30 years of long-term stability 

monitoring, with the potential to 

shorten the duration based on modeling 

and monitoring of downgradient 

geochemical conditions. Using existing 

ISR operations as models for ISR 

operations that would be affected by the 

rule, projecting that 2015 ISR uranium 

production will be 9.5 million pounds, 

and using average estimated costs of 

complying with the proposed rule, EPA 

estimates that the proposed rule would 

increase the average cost of uranium 

production at ISR facilities by 

approximately $1.50 per pound of 

uranium (2.9%), and that annual costs 

incurred by individual ISR facilities 

would vary from $304,000 to $9.5 

million, depending on the scale of the 

ISR facility. Nationally, EPA estimates 

that the incremental total annual cost of 

the proposed rule would be 

approximately $13.5 million. 

Discounted at 7%, the estimated present 

value of the stream of national costs 

would be approximately $181 million. 

Discounted at 3%, the estimated present 

value of national costs would be 

approximately $290 million. 

EPA estimated the impact of the 

proposed rule on the market for 

uranium using a simplified model of the 

U.S. market for uranium in 2015. The 

partial equilibrium model estimated 

market impacts and revealed: (a) 

Changes in the quantity of uranium 

purchased by U.S. civilian owners and 

operators of nuclear power plants, (b) 

changes in the domestic sales of 

uranium and imports, and (c) changes in 

the market price for uranium. EPA 

found that overall, the market quantity 

of uranium purchased for use in electric 

generation would decline by less than 

0.1% and the market price would 

increase by approximately 0.4%. 

Domestic ISR facilities would decrease 

their production by approximately 

3.8%, and imports of uranium would 

increase by less than 1%. Because the 

cost of uranium is a very small share of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 4181 

96See sensitivity analysis results in Table D–1 of 

EPA (2014). ‘‘Economic Analysis: Proposed 

Revisions to the Health and Environmental 

Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium 

Mill Tailings Rule (40 CFR part 192).’’ The total 

estimated wellfield acreage for most ISR operations 

is under 500 acres (see Table 3–7 of EPA EA(2014). 

‘‘Economic Analysis: Proposed Revisions to the 

Health and Environmental Protection Standards for 

Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings Rule (40 CFR 

part 192).’’ 

the cost of electricity, EPA estimates 

that the cost of generating electricity 

would increase by less than 0.1%. 

Although the national total annual cost 

of the proposed rule (approximately 

$13.5 million, based on average costs) is 

well below the $100 million threshold 

that is one of the criteria used to 

identify a significant regulatory action, 

the industry has only a small number of 

companies operating a small number of 

ISR operations. EPA used existing ISR 

operations and the companies that own 

them as models for the types of facilities 

and companies that would potentially 

be affected by the proposed rule. EPA 

thus estimated that individual ISR 

facilities could incur annual costs of 

compliance between $304,000 and $9.5 

million, depending on the 

characteristics of the ISR facility and the 

costing assumptions used.96 For small 

firms owning ISR facilities, EPA’s 

analysis estimates cost-to-sales ratios of 

0.6% to 1.7%. Because costs are 

generally less than 2% of company 

sales, EPA estimates that compliance 

costs would not cause a significant 

impact. Further, EPA estimates that only 

a few small businesses (ten or fewer, 

based on current information) would be 

affected by the proposed rule at a given 

time. Thus, EPA concludes that the rule 

would not have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ The 

Executive Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may ‘‘raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order.’’ 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; no reporting 

requirements are imposed on affected 

facilities by this rule. This rule will not 

in-and-of itself create any new 

information collection requirements that 

require approval of the OMB. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

whose company has less than 500 

employees and is primarily engaged in 

leaching or beneficiation of uranium, 

radium or vanadium ores as defined by 

NAIC code 212291; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. Of these three 

categories, only small businesses are 

potentially affected by the proposed 

rule; no small organizations or small 

governmental entities have been 

identified that would be impacted by 

the proposed revisions to part 192. 

This proposed rule is estimated to 

impact approximately 18 uranium 

recovery facilities that are currently 

operating or may operate in the near 

future. The 18 uranium recovery 

facilities are owned by 10 firms, of 

which eight are believed to be small. 

The proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 

192 would apply to the six ISRs 

operating in 2013. These ISRs are as 

follows: (1) Crow Butte (Nebraska) and 

(2) Smith Ranch-Highland (Wyoming), 

owned by Cameco Resources; (3) Alta 

Mesa (Texas), owned by Mestena 

Uranium, LLC; (4) Willow Creek 

(Wyoming), owned by Uranium One, 

Inc.; (5) Hobson-La Palangana (Texas), 

owned by Uranium Energy Corp.; and(6) 

Lost Creek(Wyoming), owned by UrEnergy Inc. Using the fewer than 500 

employees’ criterion Mestena Uranium, 

LLC, Ur-Energy, Inc., and Uranium 

Energy Corp. qualify as small 

businesses, while Cameco Resources 

and Uranium One, Inc. are both large 

businesses. 

In addition to the six ISRs operating 

in 2013, an additional ISR has been 

licensed in the state of Wyoming: 

Nichols Ranch, owned by Uranerz 

Uranium Corp. Uranerz Uranium Corp. 

qualifies as small business. 

Eleven other ISRs are at some stage of 

licensing or permitting, or are 

undergoing restoration. These include: 

(1) Dewey-Burdock in South Dakota 

owned by Powertech Uranium Corp.; (2) 

Moore Ranch in Wyoming, owned by 

Uranium One, Inc.; (3) Kingsville Dome, 

(4) Rosita, and (5) Vasquez, all in Texas 

and owned by Uranium Resources Inc.; 

(6) Crownpoint and (7) Church Rock, 

both in New Mexico and owned by 

Uranium Resources Inc.; (8) Ross in 

Wyoming, owned by Strata Energy, Inc., 

(9) Goliad in Texas, owned by Uranium 

Energy Corp.; (10) Antelope-Jab in 

Wyoming, owned by Uranium One, Inc., 

and (11) Reno Creek in Wyoming, 

owned by Bayswater E&P. All of these 

companies, except for Uranium One, 

Inc., are small businesses. 

To evaluate the significance of the 

economic impacts of the proposed 

revisions to 40 CFR part 192, EPA 

estimated the costs that would be 

incurred by existing facilities, based on 

their estimated production and EPA’s 

estimated cost per pound of U3O8. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4182 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Of the 18 ISR facilities identified 

above, 13 are owned by a total of eight 

small businesses; the other five are 

owned by two large businesses. EPA’s 

economic impact analysis estimated that 

for the three small firms currently 

operating ISR facilities, costs of the 

proposed rule would range from 0.6% to 

1.7% of estimated company sales, 

depending on the costing assumption 

used. Because the costs are generally 

estimated to be less than 2% of sales, 

impacts for these firms would not be 

significant. In addition, fewer than 10 

small firms are likely to be affected by 

the proposed rule at any time, so the 

number of firms potentially incurring 

costs to comply with the rule is not a 

substantial number. Thus, EPA 

concludes that the proposed rule would 

not result in a significant impact to a 

substantial number of small entities. 

No small organizations or small 

governmental entities have been 

identified that would be impacted by 

the proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 

192. We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or the private sector in any 

one year. Using the six ISR operations 

operating in 2013 as examples of typical 

ISR facilities, EPA estimates that total 

annual costs of complying with the rule 

for six such ISR facilities, would be 

$13.5 million. The proposed rule 

imposes no enforceable duties on any 

State, local or Tribal governments or the 

private sector. Thus, this rule is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 or 205 of UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements or obligations that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments; the rule does not contain 

requirements that apply to such 

governments nor does it impose 

obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. None of the 

facilities subject to this action are 

owned and operated by State 

governments, and nothing in the 

proposed rule will supersede State 

regulations. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this proposed 

rule. 

EPA recognizes that Agreement States 

will have a substantial interest in this 

rule revision since they have primary 

responsibility for implementation of 40 

CFR part 192 standards. In the spirit of 

Executive Order 13132 and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed rule 

from State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). The action imposes requirements 

on licensees of ISR facilities and not 

tribal governments. Although Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action, EPA sought opportunities to 

provide information to tribes and tribal 

representatives during the review of 40 

CFR part 192. EPA specifically solicits 

additional comment on this proposed 

action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5– 

501 of the Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. Because this 

action addresses environmental 

standards intended to mitigate health or 

safety risks, it is subject to Executive 

Order 13045. We evaluated several 

regulatory strategies for assuring 

groundwater restoration and stability at 

ISR facilities and selected the option 

providing most assurance that 

groundwater systems will remain in a 

chemically reduced state, thereby 

limiting contamination of groundwater. 

The proposed rule is expected to reduce 

children’s risk of exposure to 

contaminated groundwater by 

improving monitoring to detect and 

correct contamination. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. This 

proposed rule will not adversely 

directly affect productivity, 

competition, or prices in the energy 

sector. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards of the type 

indicated in NTTAA. Therefore, EPA is 

not considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 4183 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

This proposed rule addresses 

groundwater restoration, monitoring 

and protection of surrounding aquifers 

and thus decreases the potential 

groundwater contamination to which all 

affected populations are exposed. Thus, 

the proposed rule is projected to have 

positive, not adverse impacts on human 

health and the environment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 192 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

substances, Radiation protection, 

Radioactive materials, Reclamation, 

Uranium, Waste treatment and disposal, 

Water resources. 

Dated: December 31, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency proposes to amend title 40, 

Chapter I of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 192—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR 

part 192 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 275 of the Atomic Energy 

Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2022, as added by the 

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 

of 1978, Pub. L. 95–604, as amended. 

■ 2. Section 192.20 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(3)as follows: 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

§ 192.20 Guidance for implementation. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Compliance with § 192.12(b) may 

be demonstrated by methods that the 

Department of Energy has approved for 

use or methods that the implementing 

agencies determine are adequate. 

Residual radioactive materials should be 

removed from buildings exceeding 0.03 

WL so that future replacement buildings 

will not pose a hazard [unless removal 

is not practical—see § 192.21(c)]. 

However, ventilation devices and other 

radon mitigation methods 

recommended by EPA may provide 

reasonable assurance of reductions from 

0.03 WL to below 0.02 WL. In unusual 

cases, indoor radiation may exceed the 

levels specified in § 192.12(b) due to 

sources other than residual radioactive 

materials. Remedial actions are not 

required in order to comply with the 

standard when there is reasonable 

assurance that residual radioactive 

materials are not the cause of such an 

excess. 

* * * * * 

Subpart D—[Amended] 

■ 3. The heading for Subpart D is 

amended by revising the language to 

read as follows: 

Subpart D—Standards for the 

Management of Uranium Byproduct 

Materials 

■ 4. Section 192.31 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a). 

■ b. Revising paragraph (f). 

■ c. Revising the second sentence of 

paragraph (m). 

The revisions read as follows: 

Subpart D—Standards for the 

Management of Uranium Byproduct 

Materials 

* * * * * 

§ 192.31 Definitions and cross-references. 

(a) Unless otherwise indicated in this 

subpart, all terms shall have the same 

meaning as in Title II of the Uranium 

Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 

1978, subparts A and B of this part, or 

parts 190, 260, 261, and 264 of this 

chapter. For the purposes of this 

subpart, the terms ‘‘waste,’’ ‘‘hazardous 

waste,’’ and related terms, as used in 

parts 260, 261, and 264 of this chapter, 

shall apply to byproduct material. 

* * * * * 

(f) Disposal area means the region 

within the perimeter of an 

impoundment or pile containing 

uranium byproduct materials to which 

the post-closure requirements of 

§ 192.32(b)(1) of this subpart apply. 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * This term shall not be 

construed to include extraordinary 

measures or techniques that would 

impose costs that are grossly excessive 

as measured by practice within the 

industry or one that is reasonably 

analogous (such as, by way of 

illustration only, unreasonable 

overtime, staffing or transportation 

requirements, etc., considering normal 

practice in the industry; laser fusion of 

soils, etc.), provided there is reasonable 

progress toward emplacement of a 

permanent radon barrier. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 192.32 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2)(v) as follows: 

§ 192.32 Standards 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(v) The functions and responsibilities 

designated in part 264 of this chapter as 

those of the ‘‘Regional Administrator’’ 

with respect to ‘‘facility permits’’ shall 

be carried out by the regulatory agency. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Part 192 is amended by adding 

subpart F to read as follows: 

Subpart F—Public Health, Safety and 

Environmental Protection Standards for 

Byproduct Materials Produced by Uranium 

In-situ Recovery 

Sec. 

192.50 Applicability. 

192.51 Definitions and cross-references. 

192.52 Standards. 

192.53 Monitoring programs. 

192.54 Corrective action program. 

192.55 Effective date. 

Subpart F—Public Health, Safety and 

Environmental Protection Standards 

for Byproduct Materials Produced by 

Uranium In-Situ Recovery 

§ 192.50 Applicability. 

This subpart applies to the 

management of uranium byproduct 

materials prior to, during and following 

the processing of uranium ores utilizing 

uranium in-situ recovery methods, and 

to the restoration of groundwater at such 

sites. Unless otherwise specified, all 

wellfields shall comply with this 

subpart as of the effective date of this 

rule. 

§ 192.51 Definitions and cross-references. 

(a) Unless otherwise indicated in this 

subpart, all terms shall have the same 

meaning as in Title II of the Uranium 

Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 

1978, subparts A, B, and D of this part, 

or parts 190, 260, 261, and 264 of this 

chapter. 

(b) Adjacent Aquifer. An aquifer or 

portion of an aquifer that shares a 

border or end point with the exempted 

aquifer or the exempted portion of an 

aquifer. 

(c) Alternate Concentration Limit 

(ACL). Concentration limit approved by 

the regulatory agency for a groundwater 

constituent that has not been restored to 

its restoration goal after best practicable 

restoration activities have been 

completed following the process 

prescribed in 40 CFR 192.52(c)(2) thru 

192.52(c)(5) of this subpart. 

(d) Aquifer. A geological ‘‘formation,’’ 

group of formations, or part of a 

formation that is capable of yielding a 

significant amount of water to a well or 

spring. See 40 CFR 144.3. 

(e) Background. The condition of 

groundwater, including the radiological 

and non-radiological constituent 

concentrations, in the exempted aquifer, 

adjacent aquifers, and in both overlying 

and underlying aquifers, prior to the 

beginning of ISR operations. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4184 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(f) Constituent. A detectable 

component within the groundwater. 

(g) Exceedance. An exceedance has 

occurred when, during stability or longterm stability monitoring, a groundwater 

protection standard is exceeded at any 

point of compliance well. 

(h) Excursion. The movement of 

fluids containing uranium byproduct 

materials from an ISR production zone 

into surrounding groundwater. An 

excursion is considered to have 

occurred when, during operational or 

restoration phase monitoring, any two 

indicator parameters (e.g., chloride, 

conductivity, total alkalinity) exceed 

their respective upper control limits in 

any overlying, underlying, or perimeter 

monitoring well. Horizontal excursions 

refer to the lateral movement of the 

water, while vertical excursions indicate 

movement of water through aquitards 

above or below the production zone 

aquifer. 

(i) Excursion Monitoring Wells. Wells 

located around the perimeter of the 

production zone (horizontal excursion 

wells) and in overlying and underlying 

aquifers (vertical excursion wells), 

which are used to detect any excursions 

from the production zone. Excursion 

monitoring wells can serve as the 

‘‘point(s) of compliance’’ during all 

phases of ISR. 

(j) Exempted Aquifer. An ‘‘aquifer,’’ or 

its portion, that meets the criteria of 

‘‘underground source of drinking water’’ 

in 40 CFR 144.3, but which has been 

exempted according to the procedures 

in 40 CFR 144.7. See 40 CFR 144.3. 

(k) Extraction Well. Well used to 

extract uranium enriched solutions from 

the ore-bearing aquifer; also known as a 

‘‘Production Well.’’ Extraction and 

injection wells may be converted from 

one use to the other. 

(l) Indicator Parameter. A constituent, 

such as chloride, conductivity, or total 

alkalinity, whose ‘‘upper control limit’’ 

is used to identify an excursion. 

Indicator parameters are not 

contaminants, but relate to geochemical 

conditions in groundwater. 

(m) Injection Well. A well into which 

fluids are being injected. See 40 CFR 

144.3. 

(n) In-Situ Recovery (ISR). A method 

of extraction by which uranium is 

leached from underground ore bodies by 

the introduction of a solvent solution, 

called a lixiviant, through injection 

wells drilled into the ore body. The 

process does not require the extraction 

of ore from the ground. The lixiviant is 

injected, passes through the ore body, 

mobilizes the uranium, and the 

uranium-bearing solution is pumped to 

the surface from extraction wells. The 

pregnant leach solution is processed to 

extract the uranium. 

(o) Listed Constituent. One of the 

thirteen groundwater constituents 

specified in Table 1 to subpart F of part 

192. 

(p) Lixiviant. A liquid medium used 

to recover uranium from underground 

ore bodies through in-situ recovery. 

This liquid medium typically contains 

native groundwater and an added 

oxidant, such as oxygen and/or 

hydrogen peroxide, as well as sodium 

carbonate/bicarbonate or carbon 

dioxide. The lixiviant is introduced 

through injection wells into the ore 

body to mobilize the uranium. The 

resulting solution is then pumped via 

extraction wells to the surface, where 

the uranium is recovered from the 

solution for further processing, after 

which the lixiviant may be re-injected. 

(q) Long-Term Stability Phase. The 

period after the groundwater protection 

standards have been met and stability 

has been demonstrated according to 

192.53(d) of this subpart, as determined 

by the regulatory agency. 

(r) Maximum Constituent 

Concentration. The maximum 

permissible level of a constituent in 

groundwater, as specified in Table 1 to 

subpart A of part 192. 

(s) Maximum Contaminant Level 

(MCL). The maximum permissible level 

of a contaminant in water which is 

delivered to any user of a public water 

system. See 40 CFR 141.2. 

(t) Monitoring Wells. Wells used to 

obtain groundwater levels and water 

samples for the purpose of determining 

the hydrologic regime and the amounts, 

types, and distribution of constituents 

in the groundwater. Wells are located in 

the production zone, around the 

perimeter of the production zone 

(horizontal excursion monitoring wells), 

and in overlying and underlying 

aquifers (vertical excursion monitoring 

wells). 

(u) Operational Phase. The time 

period during which uranium extraction 

by in-situ recovery occurs. Operations 

begin when injection of lixiviant starts. 

Operations end when the operator 

permanently ceases injection of lixiviant 

and recovery of uranium-bearing 

solution for processing purposes. 

(v) Overlying Aquifer. An aquifer that 

is immediately vertically shallower (i.e., 

directly above) than the production 

zone aquifer. 

(w) Point(s) of Compliance. Sitespecific location(s) where groundwater 

protection standards must be met. 

During all phases of ISR, excursion 

monitoring wells can serve as the points 

of compliance; during the restoration, 

stability and long-term stability phases, 

points of compliance may also include 

monitoring, injection and extraction 

wells in the production zone, as 

determined by the regulatory agency. 

(x) Point(s) of Exposure. Intersection 

of a vertical plane with the boundary of 

the exempted aquifer. 

(y) Preoperational Monitoring. 

Measurement of groundwater conditions 

in the production zone, and in the 

groundwater up and down gradient 

from the production zone, as well as in 

overlying and underlying aquifers, prior 

to the operational phase. 

(z) Production Zone. The portion of 

the aquifer in which ISR activities 

occur. The production zone lies within 

the wellfield. 

(aa) Restoration (Act of). The process 

of returning groundwater quality to 

preoperational conditions for the 

purpose of achieving restoration goal 

values for identified constituents. 

(bb) Restoration Goal. A concentration 

limit for an identified constituent in 

groundwater after restoration has 

occurred. The limit is obtained from the 

most protective regulatory standards in 

40 CFR 141.62, 141.66, 141.80, 143.3, 

264.94, and Table 1 to subpart A of this 

part, and from preoperational 

background levels in the wellfield, 

whichever is higher. 

(cc) Restoration Phase. The period 

immediately after lixiviant injection 

permanently ceases, during which 

restoration activities occur. 

(dd) Site. The land or water area 

where any facility or activity is 

physically located or conducted, 

including adjacent land used in 

connection with the facility or activity. 

See 40 CFR 144.3. 

(ee) Stability Phase. The period after 

the restoration phase when groundwater 

protection standards are met and 

monitored to test for temporal stability. 

(ff) Underlying Aquifer. An aquifer 

that is immediately vertically deeper 

(i.e., directly below) than the production 

zone aquifer. 

(gg) Upper Control Limit (UCL). 

Preoperational concentrations of 

indicator parameters in horizontal and 

vertical excursion monitoring wells, as 

determined by the regulatory agency 

and contained in the license. 

(hh) Uranium Recovery Facility. A 

facility licensed to process uranium ores 

for the purpose of recovering uranium 

and to manage uranium byproduct 

materials that result from processing of 

ores. Common names for these facilities 

include, but are not limited to, the 

following: A conventional uranium mill, 

an in-situ recovery (or leach) facility, 

and a heap leach facility or pile. 

(ii) Wellfield. The area of an ISR 

operation that encompasses the array of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 4185 

injection, extraction, and monitoring 

wells, ancillary equipment and 

interconnected piping employed in the 

uranium in-situ recovery process. The 

area of the wellfield exceeds that of the 

production zone. 

§ 192.52 Standards. 

(a) Except for those wellfields 

currently in and remaining in 

restoration, stability monitoring or longterm monitoring at a licensed facility, 

all operating wellfields, new wellfields 

and expansions of wellfields shall 

comply with § 192.52(c) of this subpart 

as of the effective date of this rule. 

(b) Surface and subsurface standards. 

(1) Surface impoundments associated 

with ISR activities shall conform to the 

standards of § 192.32 of this part. 

(2) Disposal of solid uranium 

byproduct materials produced by ISR 

activities shall conform to the standards 

in § 192.32 of this part. 

(c) Groundwater protection standards. 

(1) Restoration goals shall be 

determined for each of the constituents 

listed in Table 1 to subpart F that is 

identified in the groundwater. 

Following restoration activities in the 

production zone, and prior to license 

termination, the concentration of a 

listed constituent in the groundwater 

within the production zone, as 

determined by the regulatory agency, 

must not exceed the higher of the 

following values: 

(i) The background level of that 

constituent in the groundwater, as 

determined by preoperational 

monitoring conducted under § 192.53(a) 

of this subpart; or 

(ii) The lowest concentration listed in 

40 CFR 141.61, 141.62, 141.66, 141.80, 

143.3, 264.94, or Table 1 to subpart A 

of this part for that constituent. 

(iii) When considering the potential 

for health risks caused by human 

exposure to known or suspected 

carcinogens not listed in Table 1 to 

subpart F that are designated for 

monitoring by the regulatory agency, the 

restoration goal above the background 

level should be established at 40 CFR 

part 141, 143 or 264 concentration 

levels, if such values exist. For 

constituents that are not found in 40 

CFR part 141, 143 or 264, the restoration 

goal above the background level should 

be established at concentration levels 

which represent a cumulative excess 

lifetime risk no greater than 10¥4 to an 

average individual. 

(2) The regulatory agency may 

establish provisional alternate 

concentration limits within the 

production zone provided that all of the 

following conditions are met: 

(i) After all best practicable active 

restoration activities have been 

completed in accordance with the 

permit, the regulatory agency 

determines that concentrations for one 

or more constituents cannot be restored 

to restoration goals; and 

(ii) The constituent(s) will not pose a 

substantial present or potential hazard 

to human health or the environment as 

long as the proposed alternate 

concentration limit(s) is not exceeded; 

and 

(iii) In all cases, the restoration goals, 

as determined under paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section, are satisfied at all points of 

exposure. 

(3) The regulatory agency may 

approve final alternate concentration 

limits provided that the following 

conditions are met: 

(i) The licensee has demonstrated 

groundwater stability at 95 percent 

confidence for three consecutive years 

(i.e., no increasing trend in 

concentration levels as identified by 

appropriate statistical techniques) of 

groundwater concentrations for the 

listed constituents before entering the 

long-term stability monitoring phase; 

and 

(ii) The constituent(s) will not pose a 

substantial present or potential hazard 

to human health or the environment as 

long as the proposed alternate 

concentration limit(s) is not exceeded. 

(4) In deciding whether to approve a 

provisional or a final alternate 

concentration limit, the regulatory 

agency shall consider, at a minimum, 

the following factors: 

(i) Potential adverse effects on 

groundwater quality, considering: 

(A) The physical and chemical 

characteristics of constituents in the 

groundwater at the site, including their 

potential for migration; 

(B) The hydrogeological 

characteristics (e.g., groundwater 

velocity) of the site and surrounding 

land; 

(C) The quantity of groundwater and 

the direction of groundwater flow; 

(D) The proximity and withdrawal 

rates of local groundwater users; 

(E) The current and anticipated future 

uses of groundwater in the region 

surrounding the site; 

(F) The existing quality of 

groundwater, including other sources of 

contamination and their cumulative 

impact on groundwater quality; 

(G) The potential for health risks 

caused by human exposure to 

constituents; 

(H) The potential damage to wildlife, 

crops, vegetation, and physical 

structures caused by exposure to 

constituents; and 

(I) The persistence and permanence of 

the potential adverse effects. 

(ii) Potential adverse effects on 

hydraulically-connected surface-water 

quality, considering: 

(A) The volume and physical and 

chemical characteristics of the 

groundwater at the site; 

(B) The hydrogeological 

characteristics of the site and 

surrounding land; 

(C) The quantity and quality of 

groundwater, and the direction of 

groundwater flow; 

(D) The patterns of rainfall in the 

region; 

(E) The proximity of the site to surface 

waters; 

(F) The current and future uses of 

surface waters in the region surrounding 

the site and any water quality standards 

established for those surface waters; 

(G) The existing quality of 

hydraulically-connected surface water, 

including other sources of 

contamination and their cumulative 

impact on surface water quality; 

(H) The potential for health risks 

caused by human exposure to 

constituents; 

(I) The potential damage to wildlife, 

crops, vegetation, and physical 

structures caused by exposure to 

constituents; and 

(J) The persistence and permanence of 

the potential adverse effects. 

(iii) The presence of any underground 

source of drinking water as defined 

under § 144.3 of this chapter and any 

exempted aquifer identified under 

§ 144.7 of this chapter. 

(5) When considering the potential for 

health risks caused by human exposure 

to known or suspected carcinogens, 

alternate concentration limits pursuant 

to paragraphs 192.52(c)(2) and 

192.52(c)(3) of this subpart should be 

established at concentration levels 

which represent a cumulative excess 

lifetime risk no greater than 10¥4, at a 

point of exposure, to an average 

individual. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4186 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART F—MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION OF CONSTITUENTS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AT ISR 

FACILITY SITES

Constituent Maximum concentration 

Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, 

nitrate (as N), molybdenum, radium–226 and radium–228 (combined), uranium (uranium–234, uranium–235 and uranium–238 combined), gross alpha particle activity (excluding radon and uranium).

The restoration goal is the primary or secondary MCL listed in 40 CFR 

141.61, 141.62, 141.66, 141.80, and 143.3, the maximum concentration of hazardous constituents for groundwater protection under 

264.94, or the maximum constituent concentration specified in Table 

1 to Subpart A of this Part, whichever value is most stringent. 

Where a background concentration is determined to be higher than the 

most stringent value in the applicable regulations, the background 

concentration will serve as the restoration goal. 

§ 192.53 Monitoring programs. 

Licensees subject to this subpart must 

conduct a groundwater monitoring 

program, subject to approval by the 

regulatory agency, at prospective and 

licensed ISR sites and environs. This 

program shall address all phases of the 

site’s activities and must be conducted 

as follows: 

(a) Preoperational phase monitoring. 

(1) A sufficient number of wells, at 

appropriate locations and depths, shall 

be installed in such a manner as to yield 

representative samples in order to 

define the groundwater flow regime and 

measure preoperational conditions and 

water quality for use in statistical tests 

during operations, restoration, stability 

and long-term stability. 

(2) All monitoring wells must be 

cased in a manner that maintains the 

integrity of the monitoring-well bore 

hole. This casing must be screened or 

perforated and packed with gravel or 

sand, where necessary, to enable 

collection of groundwater samples. The 

annular space (i.e., the space between 

the bore hole and well casing) above the 

sampling depth must be sealed to 

prevent contamination of samples and 

the groundwater. 

(3) The preoperational background 

monitoring effort shall include 

immediately overlying aquifers, 

immediately underlying aquifers, and 

background monitoring inside and 

outside of the exempted aquifer, 

including both the up and downgradient 

areas outside of the production zone. 

(4) During the monitoring effort, 

relevant data documenting geology, 

hydrology and geochemistry for 

radiological and non-radiological 

constituents shall be collected, both in 

the production zone and in surrounding 

areas that may be affected by the ISR 

operations. 

(i) The monitoring effort shall be of 

sufficient duration of no less than one 

year and of sufficient scope to 

adequately characterize temporal and 

spatial variations in groundwater, and to 

account for impacts of well installation 

and development on background 

concentrations of constituents and 

values of indicator parameters, where 

applicable. 

(ii) Preoperational monitoring shall be 

focused on determining background 

concentrations of constituents and 

indicator parameters in the following 

locations: 

(A) Point of compliance wells within 

the proposed production zone; 

(B) Point of compliance wells 

immediately overlying and immediately 

underlying aquifers; 

(C) Point of compliance wells outside 

the production zone; 

(D) Point of compliance wells within 

the exempted aquifer; and 

(E) Point of compliance wells in 

upgradient and downgradient nonexempt portions of the adjacent aquifer. 

(iii) The licensee shall employ 

appropriate statistical techniques to 

analyze background concentrations 

measured in individual wells within the 

proposed production zone for the 

purpose of determining restoration goals 

for groundwater restoration and longterm stability monitoring under 

§ 192.52(c)(1) of this subpart. As 

determined by the licensee and 

approved by the regulatory agency, 

background concentration limits may be 

representative of individual wells, 

multiple wells, or all wells within the 

proposed production zone. 

(iv) Radiological and non-radiological 

constituents to be monitored during the 

preoperational phase of an ISR facility 

shall include: 

(A) All constituents listed in Table 1 

to this subpart; 

(B) Constituents and parameters 

necessary for geochemical calculations 

of groundwater chemistry and to model 

site performance in order to 

demonstrate that a stable groundwater 

chemistry state, as approved by the 

regulatory agency, has been achieved 

through restoration and is likely to 

persist in the long term; and 

(C) Any additional constituents or 

parameters required by the regulatory 

agency, including metals potentially 

mobilized by the recovery process. 

(b) Operational phase monitoring. (1) 

Indicator parameters, as established by 

the regulatory agency, shall be 

monitored in horizontal and vertical 

excursion monitoring wells determined 

by the regulatory agency throughout the 

operational phase of ISR activities. 

(2) If an excursion is detected, as 

determined by the regulatory agency 

and as evidenced by indicator 

parameters exceeding established upper 

control limits, all constituents listed in 

Table 1 of this subpart shall be 

monitored as part of the corrective 

action program set forth in § 192.54 of 

this subpart until the excursion is 

controlled. 

(c) Restoration phase monitoring. (1) 

All constituents listed in Table 1 of this 

subpart and otherwise specified by the 

regulatory agency shall be monitored 

during active restoration; sampling 

should occur no less frequently than 

quarterly, or other time interval 

specified by the regulatory agency. 

(2) Indicator parameters, as 

established by the regulatory agency, 

shall be monitored in horizontal and 

vertical excursion monitoring wells 

determined by the regulatory agency 

throughout the restoration phase of ISR 

activities. 

(3) If an excursion is detected, as 

determined by the regulatory agency 

and as evidenced by indicator 

parameters exceeding established upper 

control limits, all constituents listed in 

Table 1 of this subpart shall be 

monitored as part of the corrective 

action program set forth in § 192.54 of 

this subpart until the excursion is 

controlled. 

(d) Stability phase monitoring. (1) The 

constituents to be monitored throughout 

the stability phase of an ISR facility in 

points of compliance wells in the 

production zone, as determined by the 

regulatory agency, shall include: 

(i) All constituents listed in Table 1 of 

this subpart; 

(ii) Any additional constituents 

required by the regulatory agency, such 

as: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 4187 

(A) Constituents and parameters 

necessary for geochemical calculations 

of the groundwater chemistry in order to 

demonstrate that a stable groundwater 

chemistry has been achieved and is 

likely to persist in the long-term; 

(B) Components of the lixiviant fluids 

injected during uranium recovery and 

any fluids injected during restoration; or 

(C) Metals potentially mobilized by 

the uranium recovery process. 

(2) Through field measurements using 

the monitoring network established to 

meet the requirements of § 192.53(a) of 

this section, observations and 

calculations, and applying appropriate 

statistical techniques, the licensee shall 

demonstrate that aquifer conditions 

within the production zone are stable. 

(i) Stability shall be demonstrated for 

three consecutive years at a 95 percent 

confidence interval, measured from the 

time at which sufficient data to 

determine statistical significance has 

been collected, and based on sampling 

no less frequently than quarterly. 

(ii) Individual wells within the 

production zone can be the point of 

compliance for the purpose of assessing 

stability, as approved by the regulatory 

agency. 

(iii) If the licensee finds that the 

stability of groundwater meeting the 

concentration limits determined in 

§ 192.52(c)(1) of this subpart cannot be 

demonstrated for three consecutive 

years for one or more constituents, the 

regulatory agency may: 

(A) Require the licensee to resume 

active restoration efforts; or 

(B) Depending on the significance of 

the departure from the groundwater 

protection standards determined in 

§ 192.52(c)(1) of this subpart, approve a 

provisional alternate concentration limit 

according to the requirements of 

§ 192.52(c)(2) of this subpart. Once 

stability has been documented for three 

consecutive years, the regulatory agency 

may approve a final alternate 

concentration limit according to the 

requirements of § 192.52(C)(3) of this 

subpart. 

(3) If an exceedance occurs, as 

determined by the regulatory agency 

and as evidenced by exceeding 

groundwater protection standards in 

192.52(c) of this subpart at point of 

compliance wells, all constituents listed 

in Table 1 of this subpart shall be 

monitored as part of the corrective 

action program set forth in § 192.54 of 

this subpart until the exceedance is 

controlled. 

(e) Long-term stability phase 

monitoring. (1) Through field 

measurements utilizing the monitoring 

network established to meet the 

requirements of § 192.53(a) of this 

section, observations and calculations, 

and applying appropriate statistical 

techniques, the licensee shall 

demonstrate that post-restoration 

aquifer conditions within the 

production zone remain stable and 

continue to show compliance with 

groundwater protection standards 

established under § 192.52(c) of this 

subpart. 

(i) Stability and groundwater 

protection compliance shall be 

demonstrated based on sampling no less 

frequently than quarterly, or other time 

interval approved by the regulatory 

agency. 

(ii) Specific, individual wells within 

the production zone and approved by 

the regulatory agency shall be the points 

of compliance for the purpose of 

assessing stability and groundwater 

protection compliance, as approved by 

the regulatory agency. 

(iii) Long-term stability monitoring 

shall be conducted for a period of 30 

years. The regulatory agency may 

shorten the long-term stability 

monitoring period if, after stability is 

documented for a period of three 

consecutive years as described under 

§ 192.53(d), the licensee demonstrates 

through geochemical modeling of the 

site that the subsurface conditions 

within the production zone will remain 

stable into the future. In evaluating such 

modeling, the regulatory agency must 

determine that there is a reasonable 

assurance that restoration goals will 

continue to be met and that subsurface 

conditions in the future will not cause 

the re-mobilization of uranium, radium 

or other constituents into the 

groundwater. 

(2) If one or more monitored 

groundwater constituents in a point of 

compliance well within the wellfield 

exceeds a groundwater protection 

standard as defined in 192.52(c), or one 

or more monitored constituents in a 

point of compliance well within the 

wellfield show statistically significant 

increasing trends that would threaten 

groundwater quality if left unabated, 

then the licensee must submit a report 

to the regulatory agency within 60 days 

describing the circumstances and the 

corrective actions to be taken. All 

constituents listed in Table 1 to this 

subpart shall be monitored as part of the 

corrective action program set forth in 

§ 192.54 of this part. 

§ 192.54 Corrective action program. 

(a) A corrective action program shall 

be developed by the licensee and 

approved by the regulatory agency for 

each ISR site at the time of licensing. 

The plan shall address a range of 

possible excursion and exceedance 

scenarios (e.g., minor to catastrophic) 

and list options for corrective action. If 

an excursion is detected at a licensed 

facility at any time during the ISR 

operational phase or restoration phase, 

or an exceedance is detected during the 

stability or long-term stability phase, 

applicable portions of the corrective 

action program shall be implemented as 

soon as is practicable, and in no event 

later than ninety (90) days after such an 

occurrence. With the objective of 

returning constituent concentration 

levels in groundwater to the restoration 

goals within the production zone and 

the maximum contaminant level in 

adjacent aquifers, the corrective action 

program shall: 

(1) Address removing constituents at 

the point of compliance or treating them 

in place; and 

(2) Address removing or treating in 

place any constituents that exceed 

groundwater protection standards 

between the point of compliance and 

the point of exposure. 

(b) The licensee shall continue 

corrective action measures to the extent 

necessary to achieve and maintain 

compliance with the groundwater 

protection standards in § 192.52(c) of 

this subpart. The regulatory agency will 

determine when the licensee may 

terminate corrective action measures 

based on data from the groundwater 

monitoring program and other 

information that provides reasonable 

assurance that the groundwater 

protection standards in § 192.52(c) will 

not be exceeded. 

(c) After the corrective action program 

has been terminated, the licensee must 

establish and implement a groundwater 

monitoring program to demonstrate the 

effectiveness of the corrective action 

program in stabilizing the 

concentrations of constituents in the 

groundwater. The monitoring program 

shall continue for a period of not less 

than 3 years and be based on the 

requirements specified in § 192.53(d) 

and 192.53(e). 

§ 192.55 Effective date. 

Subpart F shall be effective on [60 

DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL RULE IN FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00276 Filed 1–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2