Environmental Impact Statement for the Reno Creek In Situ Recovery Project in Campbell County, Wyoming Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities Draft Report for Comment

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

NUREG-1910 Supplement 6

Environmental Impact Statement for the Reno Creek In Situ Recovery Project in Campbell County, Wyoming Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities Draft Report for Comment Manuscript Completed: June 2016 Date Published: June 2016 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

NUREG-1910 Supplement 6

COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT

Any interested party may submit comments on this report for consideration by the NRC staff. 1 Comments may be accompanied by additional relevant information or supporting data. Please 2 specify the report number NUREG–1910 Supplement 6 in your comments, and send them by 3 the end of the comment period specified in the Federal Register notice announcing the 4 availability of this report. 5

Addresses: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include 6 Docket ID NRC-2013-0164 in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing 7 or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC website and on the Federal rulemaking website 8 http://www.regulations.gov. 9

Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents 10 filed under Docket ID NRC-2013-0164. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol 11 Gallagher at 301-415-3463 or by e-mail at Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 12

Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch 13 (RADB), Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, 14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. 15

For any questions about the material in this report, please contact: Jill Caverly, Project 16 Manager, 301-415-7674 or by e-mail at Jill.Caverly@nrc.gov. 17

Please be aware that any comments that you submit to the NRC will be considered a public 18 record and entered into the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 19 (ADAMS). Do not provide information you would not want to be publicly available. 20

iii

ABSTRACT 1

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issues licenses for the possession and use 2 of source material (hereafter referred to as an “NRC license”) provided that proposed facilities 3 meet NRC regulatory requirements and would be operated in a manner that is protective of 4 public health and safety and the environment. Under the NRC environmental protection 5 regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10 CFR Part 51, which 6 implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), issuance of a license to 7 possess and use source material for uranium milling, as defined in 10 CFR Part 40, requires an 8 environmental impact statement (EIS) or a supplement to an EIS. 9

In May 2009, the NRC issued NUREG–1910, the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 10 In Situ Leach Uranium Facilities (GEIS) (NRC, 2009). In the GEIS, the NRC assessed the 11 potential environmental impacts from the construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and 12 decommissioning of an in situ leach uranium recovery facility [also known as an in situ recovery 13 (ISR) facility] located in four specified geographic regions of the western United States. As part 14 of this assessment, the NRC determined which potential impacts would be essentially the same 15 for all ISR facilities and which would result in varying levels of impact for different facilities, thus 16 requiring further site-specific information to determine potential impacts. The GEIS provides a 17 starting point for the NRC NEPA analyses for site-specific license applications for new ISR 18 facilities, as well as for applications to amend or renew existing ISR licenses. 19

By letter dated October 3, 2012, AUC LLC (AUC, referred to herein as the applicant) submitted 20 a license application to NRC for a new NRC license for the Reno Creek ISR Project. The 21 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be located in Campbell County, Wyoming, which is in 22 the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region identified in the GEIS. The NRC staff prepared this 23 draft Supplemental EIS (SEIS) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts from the 24 applicant proposal to construct, operate, conduct aquifer restoration, and decommission an ISR 25 uranium facility at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. This draft SEIS describes the 26 environment potentially affected by the proposed project activities, and describes the applicant’s 27 environmental monitoring program and proposed mitigation measures. In conducting its 28 analysis in this draft SEIS, the NRC staff evaluated site-specific data and information to 29 determine whether the applicant’s proposed activities and site characteristics were consistent 30 with those evaluated in the GEIS. The NRC staff then determined relevant sections, findings, 31 and conclusions in the GEIS that could be incorporated by reference, and areas that required 32 additional analysis. Based on its environmental review, the preliminary NRC staff 33 recommendation is that, unless safety issues mandate otherwise, environmental impacts of the 34 proposed action (issuing an NRC license for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project) are not so 35 great as to make issuance of an NRC license an unreasonable licensing decision. 36

Reference 37

NRC. NUREG–1910, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium 38 Milling Facilities.” Washington, DC: NRC. May 2009.39

v

CONTENTS 1

Page 2

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iii 3 FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... xiii 4 TABLES ...................................................................................................................................... xv 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ xix 6 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................... xxxvii 7

1  INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1 8 1.1  Background ........................................................................................................ 1-1 9 1.2  Proposed Federal Action .................................................................................... 1-1 10 1.3  Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ....................................................... 1-1 11 1.4  Scope of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ........................... 1-3 12

  Relationship to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement ............. 1-3 1.4.113   Public Participation Activities ................................................................ 1-4 1.4.214   Issues Studied in Detail ........................................................................ 1-5 1.4.315   Issues Outside the Scope of the SEIS ................................................. 1-6 1.4.416   Related NEPA Reviews and Other Related Documents ...................... 1-6 1.4.517

1.5  Applicable Regulatory Requirements ................................................................. 1-8 18 1.6  Licensing and Permitting .................................................................................... 1-8 19

  NRC Licensing Process ....................................................................... 1-8 1.6.120   Status of Permitting With Other Federal and State Agencies .............. 1-9 1.6.221

1.7  Consultation ....................................................................................................... 1-9 22   Endangered Species Act of 1973 Consultation .................................... 1-9 1.7.123   National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Consultation .................... 1-11 1.7.224   Coordination With Other Federal, State, Local, and Tribal 1.7.325

Agencies ............................................................................................. 1-11 26   Coordination With Bureau of Land Management ................. 1-12 1.7.3.127   Coordination with the Wyoming Department of 1.7.3.228

Environmental Quality .......................................................... 1-12 29   Coordination with the Wyoming Game and 1.7.3.330

Fish Department ................................................................... 1-12 31   Coordination With the Powder River Basin Resource 1.7.3.432

Council (PRBRC) ................................................................. 1-12 33   Coordination With Localities ................................................. 1-12 1.7.3.534   Interactions With Tribal Governments .................................. 1-13 1.7.3.635

1.8  Structure of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ............ 1-15 36 1.9  References ....................................................................................................... 1-16 37

2  IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY AND ALTERNATIVE ................................................. 2-1 38 2.1  Alternatives Considered for Detailed Analysis.................................................... 2-1 39

  The Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .................................................... 2-1 2.1.140   Proposed In Situ Recovery Facility ........................................ 2-2 2.1.1.141   Additional Liquid Waste Disposal Options ........................... 2-46 2.1.1.242

  No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................................. 2-55 2.1.243 2.2  Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Analysis ............................................... 2-55 44

  Conventional Mining and Milling ......................................................... 2-56 2.2.145   Conventional Mining and Heap Leaching ........................................... 2-57 2.2.246   Alternative Lixiviants ........................................................................... 2-57 2.2.347

vi

  Alternative Location of the Central Processing Plant ......................... 2-58 2.2.41 2.3  Comparison of the Predicted Environmental Impacts ...................................... 2-59 2 2.4  Preliminary Recommendation .......................................................................... 2-59 3 2.5  References ....................................................................................................... 2-61 4

3  DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................. 3-1 5 3.1  Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3-1 6 3.2  Land Use ............................................................................................................ 3-1 7

  Land Use Classification ........................................................................ 3-3 3.2.18   Hunting and Recreation ........................................................................ 3-5 3.2.29   Minerals and Energy ............................................................................ 3-6 3.2.310   Utilities and Transportation ................................................................... 3-6 3.2.411

3.3  Transportation .................................................................................................... 3-8 12 3.4  Geology and Soils ............................................................................................ 3-13 13

  Geology .............................................................................................. 3-13 3.4.114   Powder River Basin .............................................................. 3-13 3.4.1.115   Reno Creek ISR Project Area Geology ................................ 3-17 3.4.1.216

  Soils .................................................................................................... 3-22 3.4.217   Seismology ......................................................................................... 3-22 3.4.318

3.5  Water Resources .............................................................................................. 3-24 19   Surface Water .................................................................................... 3-24 3.5.120

  Surface Water Features ....................................................... 3-24 3.5.1.121   Surface Water Flow .............................................................. 3-24 3.5.1.222   Surface Water Quality .......................................................... 3-26 3.5.1.323   Wetlands .............................................................................. 3-28 3.5.1.424

  Groundwater ....................................................................................... 3-31 3.5.225   Regional Groundwater Resources ....................................... 3-31 3.5.2.126   Surrounding Aquifers for Water Supply ................................ 3-33 3.5.2.227   Local Groundwater Resources ............................................. 3-36 3.5.2.328   Groundwater Use ................................................................. 3-46 3.5.2.429

  Groundwater Quality .......................................................................... 3-47 3.5.330   Regional Groundwater Quality ............................................. 3-47 3.5.3.131   Reno Creek ISR Project Area Groundwater Quality ............ 3-49 3.5.3.232

3.6  Ecology ............................................................................................................. 3-57 33   Terrestrial Species ............................................................................. 3-59 3.6.134

  Vegetation ............................................................................ 3-59 3.6.1.135   Wildlife .................................................................................. 3-61 3.6.1.236

  Aquatic Species .................................................................................. 3-75 3.6.237   Protected Species and Species of Concern ....................................... 3-75 3.6.338

3.7  Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality ....................................................... 3-79 39   Meteorology and Climatology ............................................................. 3-79 3.7.140

  Temperature ......................................................................... 3-80 3.7.1.141   Wind ..................................................................................... 3-80 3.7.1.242   Precipitation ......................................................................... 3-81 3.7.1.343   Storm Events ........................................................................ 3-81 3.7.1.444   Evaporation .......................................................................... 3-84 3.7.1.545

  Air Quality ........................................................................................... 3-84 3.7.246   Non-Greenhouse Gases ...................................................... 3-84 3.7.2.147   Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change ............................ 3-86 3.7.2.248

3.8  Noise .............................................................................................................. 3-88 49 3.9  Historical and Cultural Resources .................................................................... 3-90 50

vii

  Cultural History ................................................................................... 3-93 3.9.11   Paleo-Indian Period .............................................................. 3-93 3.9.1.12   Early Archaic Period ............................................................. 3-94 3.9.1.23   Middle Archaic Period .......................................................... 3-94 3.9.1.34   Late Archaic Period .............................................................. 3-94 3.9.1.45   Late Prehistoric Period ......................................................... 3-95 3.9.1.56   Protohistoric period .............................................................. 3-95 3.9.1.67   Historic Period ...................................................................... 3-95 3.9.1.78

  Area of Potential Effect ....................................................................... 3-96 3.9.29   Historic and Cultural Resources Investigations .................................. 3-96 3.9.310

  Class III Cultural Resource Investigations ........................... 3-97 3.9.3.111   Visual Impacts Assessment ............................................... 3-106 3.9.3.212

  Tribal Consultation ........................................................................... 3-106 3.9.413 3.10  Visual and Scenic ........................................................................................... 3-107 14 3.11  Socioeconomics ............................................................................................. 3-108 15

  Demographics .................................................................................. 3-110 3.11.116   Income .............................................................................................. 3-111 3.11.217   Housing ............................................................................................ 3-112 3.11.318   Employment Structure ...................................................................... 3-113 3.11.419   Local Finance ................................................................................... 3-113 3.11.520   Education ......................................................................................... 3-114 3.11.621   Health and Social Services .............................................................. 3-115 3.11.722

3.12  Public and Occupational Health ..................................................................... 3-117 23   Baseline Radiological Conditions ..................................................... 3-117 3.12.124

 Soils ................................................................................... 3-118 3.12.1.125  Sediment and Surface Water ............................................. 3-119 3.12.1.226  Air (Ambient Gamma, Radon, and Particulates) ................ 3-120 3.12.1.327  Groundwater ...................................................................... 3-121 3.12.1.428  Vegetation, Livestock, and Fish ......................................... 3-122 3.12.1.529

  Public Health and Safety .................................................................. 3-124 3.12.230   Occupational Health and Safety ....................................................... 3-124 3.12.331

3.13  Waste Management ....................................................................................... 3-126 32   Liquid Waste Disposal ...................................................................... 3-126 3.13.133   Solid Waste Disposal ....................................................................... 3-127 3.13.234

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

4  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, AQUIFER 36 RESTORATION, AND DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES AND 37 MITIGATIVE ACTIONS .................................................................................................. 4-1 38 4.1  Introduction ......................................................................................................... 4-1 39 4.2  Land Use Impacts .............................................................................................. 4-2 40

  Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-2 4.2.141   Construction Impacts ............................................................. 4-2 4.2.1.142   Operations Impacts ................................................................ 4-6 4.2.1.243   Aquifer Restoration Impacts ................................................... 4-6 4.2.1.344   Decommissioning Impacts ..................................................... 4-7 4.2.1.445

  No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................................... 4-8 4.2.246 4.3  Transportation Impacts ....................................................................................... 4-9 47

  Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-9 4.3.148   Construction Impacts ............................................................. 4-9 4.3.1.149   Operations Impacts .............................................................. 4-11 4.3.1.250

viii

  Aquifer Restoration Impacts ................................................. 4-15 4.3.1.31   Decommissioning Impacts ................................................... 4-17 4.3.1.42

  No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................................. 4-18 4.3.23 4.4  Geology and Soils Impacts ............................................................................... 4-19 4

  Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .......................................................... 4-19 4.4.15   Construction Impacts ........................................................... 4-19 4.4.1.16   Operations Impacts .............................................................. 4-22 4.4.1.27   Aquifer Restoration Impacts ................................................. 4-24 4.4.1.38   Decommissioning Impacts ................................................... 4-25 4.4.1.49

  No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................................. 4-26 4.4.210 4.5  Water Resources Impacts ................................................................................ 4-26 11

  Surface Water Impacts ....................................................................... 4-26 4.5.112   Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ........................................... 4-26 4.5.1.113   No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................... 4-30 4.5.1.214

  Groundwater Impacts ......................................................................... 4-30 4.5.215   Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ........................................... 4-31 4.5.2.116   No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................... 4-48 4.5.2.217

4.6  Ecological Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-48 18   Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .......................................................... 4-49 4.6.119

  Construction Impacts ........................................................... 4-49 4.6.1.120   Operations Impacts .............................................................. 4-68 4.6.1.221   Aquifer Restoration Impacts ................................................. 4-71 4.6.1.322   Decommissioning Impacts ................................................... 4-73 4.6.1.423

  No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................................. 4-74 4.6.224 4.7  Air Quality Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-74 25

  Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .......................................................... 4-75 4.7.126   Peak Year Analysis .............................................................. 4-77 4.7.1.127   Construction Impacts ........................................................... 4-83 4.7.1.228   Operations Impacts .............................................................. 4-88 4.7.1.329   Aquifer Restoration Impacts ................................................. 4-89 4.7.1.430   Decommissioning Impacts ................................................... 4-90 4.7.1.531

  No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................................. 4-92 4.7.232 4.8  Noise Impacts ................................................................................................... 4-92 33

  Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .......................................................... 4-92 4.8.134   Construction Impacts ........................................................... 4-93 4.8.1.135   Operations Impacts .............................................................. 4-95 4.8.1.236   Aquifer Restoration Impacts ................................................. 4-96 4.8.1.337   Decommissioning Impacts ................................................... 4-97 4.8.1.438

  No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................................. 4-98 4.8.239 4.9  Historical and Cultural Impacts ......................................................................... 4-98 40

  Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .......................................................... 4-98 4.9.141   Construction Impacts ........................................................... 4-99 4.9.1.142   Operations Impacts ............................................................ 4-104 4.9.1.243   Aquifer Restoration Impacts ............................................... 4-105 4.9.1.344   Decommissioning Impacts ................................................. 4-105 4.9.1.445

  No-Action (Alternative 2) .................................................................. 4-106 4.9.246 4.10  Visual and Scenic Impacts ............................................................................. 4-106 47

  Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ........................................................ 4-106 4.10.148  Construction Impacts ......................................................... 4-107 4.10.1.149  Operations Impact .............................................................. 4-108 4.10.1.250  Aquifer Restoration Impacts ............................................... 4-109 4.10.1.351

ix

 Decommissioning Impacts ................................................. 4-109 4.10.1.41   No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) ................................................ 4-110 4.10.22

4.11  Socioeconomic Impacts ................................................................................. 4-110 3   Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ........................................................ 4-110 4.11.14

 Construction Impacts ......................................................... 4-111 4.11.1.15  Operations Impacts ............................................................ 4-114 4.11.1.26  Aquifer Restoration Impacts ............................................... 4-117 4.11.1.37  Decommissioning Impacts ................................................. 4-118 4.11.1.48

  No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) ................................................ 4-118 4.11.29 4.12  Environmental Justice .................................................................................... 4-118 10

  Analysis of Impacts .......................................................................... 4-119 4.12.111   Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ........................................................ 4-121 4.12.212   No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) ................................................ 4-123 4.12.313

4.13  Public and Occupational Health ..................................................................... 4-123 14   Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ........................................................ 4-123 4.13.115

 Construction Impacts ......................................................... 4-123 4.13.1.116  Operations Impacts ............................................................ 4-125 4.13.1.217  Aquifer Restoration Impacts ............................................... 4-134 4.13.1.318  Decommissioning Impacts ................................................. 4-134 4.13.1.419

  No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) ................................................ 4-135 4.13.220 4.14  Waste Management ....................................................................................... 4-135 21

  Proposed Action (Alternative 1 ......................................................... 4-136 4.14.122  Disposal Via Class l Deep Disposal Wells ......................... 4-136 4.14.1.123  Alternative Wastewater Disposal Options .......................... 4-141 4.14.1.224

  No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) ................................................ 4-148 4.14.225 4.15  References ..................................................................................................... 4-148 26

5  CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................................................................................... 5-1 27 5.1  Introduction ......................................................................................................... 5-1 28

  Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future 5.1.129 Actions .................................................................................................. 5-3 30

  Uranium Recovery Sites ........................................................ 5-3 5.1.1.131   Coal Mining ............................................................................ 5-7 5.1.1.232   Oil and Gas Production .......................................................... 5-8 5.1.1.333   Coalbed Methane Development ............................................. 5-9 5.1.1.434   Wind Power .......................................................................... 5-10 5.1.1.535   Transportation Projects ........................................................ 5-11 5.1.1.636   Other Mining ......................................................................... 5-11 5.1.1.737   Environmental Impact Statements as Indicators of Past, 5.1.1.838

Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ........ 5-12 39   Methodology ....................................................................................... 5-13 5.1.240

5.2  Land Use .......................................................................................................... 5-16 41   Summary ............................................................................................ 5-18 5.2.142

5.3  Transportation .................................................................................................. 5-19 43   Summary ............................................................................................ 5-21 5.3.144

5.4  Geology and Soils ............................................................................................ 5-22 45   Summary ............................................................................................ 5-25 5.4.146

5.5  Water Resources .............................................................................................. 5-25 47   Surface Water and Wetlands ............................................................. 5-26 5.5.148

  Summary .............................................................................. 5-28 5.5.1.149   Groundwater ....................................................................................... 5-28 5.5.250

x

  Summary .............................................................................. 5-33 5.5.2.11 5.6  Ecological Resources ....................................................................................... 5-33 2

  Terrestrial Ecology ............................................................................. 5-34 5.6.13   Vegetation ............................................................................ 5-34 5.6.1.14   Wildlife .................................................................................. 5-35 5.6.1.25

  Aquatic Ecology .................................................................................. 5-37 5.6.26   Protected Species and Species of Concern ....................................... 5-38 5.6.37   Summary ............................................................................................ 5-39 5.6.48

5.7  Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 5-39 9   Non-Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................... 5-39 5.7.110

  Near-Field Analysis .............................................................. 5-40 5.7.1.111   Far-Field Analysis ................................................................ 5-42 5.7.1.212

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change ................. 5-44 5.7.213   Global Climate Change and Contribution to Atmospheric 5.7.2.114

Greenhouse Gas Levels ...................................................... 5-44 15   Potential Effect of Climate Change on the Proposed 5.7.2.216

Reno Creek ISR Project ....................................................... 5-47 17 5.8  Noise .............................................................................................................. 5-48 18

  Summary ............................................................................................ 5-49 5.8.119 5.9  Historic and Cultural Resources ....................................................................... 5-49 20

  Summary ............................................................................................ 5-52 5.9.121 5.10  Visual and Scenic Resources ........................................................................... 5-52 22

  Summary ............................................................................................ 5-53 5.10.123 5.11  Socioeconomics ............................................................................................... 5-53 24

  Population .......................................................................................... 5-53 5.11.125   Employment ....................................................................................... 5-54 5.11.226   Housing .............................................................................................. 5-55 5.11.327   Education ........................................................................................... 5-55 5.11.428   Public Services ................................................................................... 5-56 5.11.529   Local Finance ..................................................................................... 5-57 5.11.630   Summary ............................................................................................ 5-57 5.11.731

5.12  Environmental Justice ...................................................................................... 5-57 32   Summary ............................................................................................ 5-58 5.12.133

5.13  Public and Occupational Health and Safety ..................................................... 5-58 34   Summary ............................................................................................ 5-61 5.13.135

5.14  Waste Management ......................................................................................... 5-61 36   Summary ............................................................................................ 5-64 5.14.137

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

6  MITIGATION .................................................................................................................. 6-1 39 6.1  Introduction ......................................................................................................... 6-1 40 6.2  Mitigation Measures Proposed by AUC .............................................................. 6-2 41 6.3  Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by the NRC ......................................... 6-2 42 6.4  References ....................................................................................................... 6-16 43

7  ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAMS ............................ 7-1 44 7.1  Introduction ......................................................................................................... 7-1 45 7.2  Radiological Monitoring ...................................................................................... 7-1 46

  Airborne Radiation Monitoring .............................................................. 7-2 7.2.147   Soils and Sediment Monitoring ............................................................. 7-4 7.2.248   Vegetation, Food, and Fish Monitoring ................................................ 7-4 7.2.349

xi

  Surface Water Monitoring ..................................................................... 7-4 7.2.41   Groundwater Monitoring ....................................................................... 7-5 7.2.52

7.3  Physiochemical Monitoring ................................................................................. 7-5 3   Wellfield Groundwater Monitoring ........................................................ 7-5 7.3.14

  Background Groundwater Quality .......................................... 7-7 7.3.1.15   Excursion Monitoring .............................................................. 7-8 7.3.1.26

  Wellfield and Pipeline Flow and Pressure Monitoring ........................ 7-10 7.3.27   Meteorological Monitoring .................................................................. 7-11 7.3.38

7.4  Ecological Monitoring ....................................................................................... 7-11 9   Vegetation Monitoring ........................................................................ 7-11 7.4.110   Wildlife Monitoring .............................................................................. 7-11 7.4.211

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

8  COST-BENEFITS ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 8-1 13 8.1  Introduction ......................................................................................................... 8-1 14 8.2  Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .......................................................................... 8-1 15

  Benefits of the Proposed Action ........................................................... 8-1 8.2.116   Benefits from Uranium Production ....................................................... 8-3 8.2.217   Costs to the Local Communities ........................................................... 8-3 8.2.318

8.3  Evaluation of Findings of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ...................... 8-4 19 8.4  No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................................................. 8-5 20 8.5  References ......................................................................................................... 8-6 21

9  SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................... 9-1 22 9.1  Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ........................................................................ 9-14 23 9.2  No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) ................................................................ 9-15 24 9.3  References ....................................................................................................... 9-15 25

10  LIST OF PREPARES ................................................................................................... 10-1 26 10.1  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contributors ......................................... 10-1 27 10.2  Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA®) Contributors ........ 10-1 28 10.3  CNWRA Consultants and Subcontractors ........................................................ 10-2 29

11  DISTRIBUTION LIST ................................................................................................... 11-1 30 11.1  Federal Agency Officials .................................................................................. 11-1 31 11.2  Tribal Government Officials .............................................................................. 11-1 32 11.3  State Agency Officials ...................................................................................... 11-3 33 11.4  Local Agency Officials ...................................................................................... 11-4 34 11.5  Other Organizations and Individuals ................................................................ 11-4 35

APPENDIX A—CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE 36

APPENDIX B—ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LIMITS 37

APPENDIX C—NONRADIOLOGICAL AIR QUALITY SUPPORTING 38 DOCUMENTATION39

1

xiii

FIGURES

Figure Page 1

1-1 Location of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ........................................................ 1-2 2 2-1 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Schedule ................................................................ 2-3 3 2-2 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project General Location Map ............................................ 2-4 4 2-3 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Boundary ................................................................ 2-5 5 2-4 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project CPP Facility Layout ................................................ 2-8 6 2-5 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project – Conceptual Wellfield Layout .............................. 2-10 7 2-6 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project – Conceptual Monitoring Wells Layout ................. 2-14 8 2-7 Schematic of Typical Production, Injection, and Monitoring Wellhead Construction .... 2-17 9 2-8 Location of Proposed Class I Deep Disposal Wells ..................................................... 2-19 10 2-9 Schematic of the Design of Class I Deep Disposal Well .............................................. 2-21 11 2-10 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project – Conceptual Flow Diagram ................................. 2-25 12 3-1 Land Use and Residences Within 8 km [5 mi] of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR 13

Project Area ................................................................................................................... 3-2 14 3-2 Surface and Mineral Ownership for the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area ......... 3-4 15 3-3 Existing CBM Infrastructure Within 8 km [5 mi] of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR 16

Project Area ................................................................................................................... 3-7 17 3-4 Oil and Gas Wells Within 16 km [10 mi] of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR 18

Project Area ................................................................................................................... 3-9 19 3-5 Transportation Corridor Surrounding the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project .............. 3-11 20 3-6 Locations of Automated Traffic Counters ..................................................................... 3-12 21 3-7 Geologic Map of the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium District in the Powder River Basin 22

Showing the Locations of Active ISR Projects ............................................................. 3-14 23 3-8 Stratigraphic Section for the Powder River Basin ........................................................ 3-16 24 3-9 Typical Geophysical Log .............................................................................................. 3-19 25 3-10 Structural Cross Section Trending Northwest-to-Southeast Across the Eastern 26

Part of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area .................................................... 3-20 27 3-11 Map Showing the Upper Belle Fourche River and Antelope Creek Drainage Basins 28

in Relation to the Proposed Reno Creek Project and Subbasin Characteristics 29 Used for the Watershed Hydrological Simulation ......................................................... 3-25 30

3-12 Watersheds Within the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region ................................... 3-26 31 3-13 Map Showing the Modeled 100-Year Flood Inundation Boundary of the Upper 32

Belle Fourche River Within the Proposed Reno Creek Project Area ........................... 3-27 33 3-14 Map Showing Surface Water Sampling Locations Within the Proposed 34

Reno Creek Project Area ............................................................................................. 3-29 35 3-15 Regional Hydrostratigraphic Section for the Powder River Basin ................................ 3-32 36 3-16 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section Locations ....... 3-37 37 3-17 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section, F-F' ............... 3-38 38 3-18 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section, G-G’ .............. 3-39 39 3-19 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section, H-H’ .............. 3-40 40 3-20 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section, I-I’ ................. 3-41 41 3-21 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section, J-J’ ................ 3-42 42 3-22 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section, K-K’ .............. 3-43 43 3-23 Monitoring Wells and Existing Domestic and Stock Wells Used To Characterize 44

Groundwater Quality Conditions and Establish Preoperational Baseline 45 Groundwater Quality .................................................................................................... 3-45 46

xiv

3-24 Ecoregions of the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region ........................................... 3-58 1 3-25 Baseline Vegetation Within the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area and 2

0.8-km [0.5-mi] Buffer ................................................................................................... 3-62 3 3-26 Wildlife Habitat at the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area ................................... 3-66 4 3-27 Meteorological Stations in the Vicinity of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ........ 3-82 5 3-28 Baseline Year Wind Rose at the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project........................... 3-83 6 3-29 Antelope Mine Baseline and 25-Year Wind Roses ............................................................. 7 4-1 Map of Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Facilities and Vegetation Communities .... 4-51 8 4-2 Map of Raptor Nest and Sage-Grouse Lek Locations and Proposed Facilities in 9

the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area ................................................................ 4-57 10 4-3 Map of Wetland Locations in the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area and 11

Proposed Facilities ....................................................................................................... 4-65 12 5-1 Potential and Existing Uranium Milling and Mining Sites Within 80 km [50 mi] of the 13

Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ................................................................................ 5-6 14 7-1 Locations of Operational Air Monitoring Stations at the Proposed Reno Creek ISR 15

Project Area .................................................................................................................. 7-3 16 7-2 Locations of Groundwater Monitoring Wells for the Proposed Reno Creek 17

ISR Project ..................................................................................................................... 7-618

xv

TABLES

Table Page 1

1-1 In Situ Leach Generic Environmental Impact Statement Range of Expected 2 Impacts in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region................................................... 1-3 3

1-2 Environmental Approvals for the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project .......................... 1-10 4 2-1 Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Metric Tons* per Year) for Fugitive Dust Associated 5

with the Proposed Action ............................................................................................. 2-35 6 2-2 Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Metric Tons* per Year) for Various Pollutants from 7

Mobile Source Combustion Emissions Associated with the Proposed Action ............. 2-35 8 2-3 Estimated Peak Year Emission Mass Flow Rates (Metric Tons* Per Year) for 9

Various National Ambient Air Quality Standard Pollutants from All Sources for the 10 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 2-37 11

2-4 Estimated Mass Flow Rates* (Metric Tons† per Year) for Various Pollutants from 12 Stationary Source Combustion Emissions Associated with the Proposed Action ........ 2-37 13

2-5 Estimated Amount (Metric Tons*) of Carbon Dioxide† Emissions for the Peak 14 Year from All Sources .................................................................................................. 2-38 15

2-6 Estimated Daily Vehicle Round-Trips for the Proposed Reno Creek ISR* Project ...... 2-44 16 2-7 Comparison of Other Liquid Wastewater Disposal Options with the Proposed 17

Class I Deep Disposal Well .......................................................................................... 2-47 18 2-8 Summary of Impacts for the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ................................. 2-60 19 3-1 Residences Within the Proposed Reno Creek Project Area and an 8.0-km [5-mi] 20

Radius of the Proposed Project Boundary ..................................................................... 3-3 21 3-2 Distribution of Surface and Mineral Ownership Within the Proposed Reno Creek 22

ISR Project Area ............................................................................................................ 3-5 23 3-3 Land Use Inside and Surrounding the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area ........... 3-5 24 3-4 Licensed and Proposed ISR Projects Within 80 km [50 mi] of the Proposed 25

Reno Creek ISR Project Area ........................................................................................ 3-8 26 3-5 Producing Oil and Gas Fields Within 8 km [5 mi] of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR 27

Project Area ................................................................................................................. 3-10 28 3-6 2014 and Projected Annual Average Daily Traffic in the Vicinity of the Proposed 29

Reno Creek ISR Project ............................................................................................... 3-13 30 3-7 Soil Mapping Unit Area, Soil Salvage Depth, and Erosion Hazard .............................. 3-23 31 3-8 Surface Water Quality at the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ................................ 3-30 32 3-9 Wetland Types Found in the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area ........................ 3-31 33 3-10 TDS Concentrations in Upper Cretaceous and Lower Tertiary Aquifers in the 34

Powder River Basin* .................................................................................................... 3-48 35 3-11 Parameters Exceeding EPA MCLs, EPA SMCLs, and WDEQ Class of Use 36

Standards* in Wells Used to Establish Preoperational Groundwater Quality............... 3-50 37 3-12 Plant Communities at the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area and 0.8-km 38

[0.5 mi] Buffer During 2010 and 2011 Baseline Vegetation Surveys ........................... 3-60 39 3-13 Species Diversity by Vegetation Type Within the Proposed Reno Creek ISR 40

Project Area During Baseline Vegetation Surveys ....................................................... 3-60 41 3-14 Wildlife Species Observed During Baseline Wildlife Surveys for the Proposed 42

Reno Creek Project ISR Project Area and 1.6-km [1-mi] Buffer ................................... 3-64 43 3-15 Wildlife Species of Concern in Campbell County and Within the Proposed 44

Reno Creek ISR Project Area ...................................................................................... 3-69 45 3-16 Onsite and Regional Temperature Information* in Degrees Celsius† .......................... 3-81 46

xvi

3-17 Assumed Ambient Air Quality Conditions for the Proposed Project Area .................... 3-85 1 3-18 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) ....................................................... 3-87 2 3-19 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Classes I and II Standards .............................. 3-88 3 3-20 Noise Abatement Criteria: 1-Hour, A-Weighted Sound Levels in Decibels (dBA) ....... 3-91 4 3-21 List of Previously Identified Archaeological Sites and Isolates within the Proposed 5

Project Area Determined Not Eligible for Listing in the National Register of 6 Historic Places ............................................................................................................. 3-98 7

3-22 List of Newly Identified (and Updated) Archaeological Sites and Isolates within 8 the Proposed Project Area Determined Not Eligible for Listing in the National 9 Register of Historic Places ......................................................................................... 3-101 10

3-23 Summary of Tribal Cultural Survey New Site/Feature Discoveries ............................ 3-105 11 3-24 Scenic Quality Evaluation Rating ............................................................................... 3-109 12 3-25 Communities Surrounding the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area ................... 3-110 13 3-26 2000–2010 Population Change and 2020/2030 Populations Projections for 14

Counties and Communities Within the ROI ................................................................ 3-111 15 3-27 Demographic Profile of the 2010 Population in Counties Within the ROI .................. 3-111 16 3-28 2008–2012 Income Information for Counties Within the ROI ..................................... 3-112 17 3-29 2010 Housing Units of Counties and Communities Within the ROI ........................... 3-112 18 3-30 County Public School Districts Located Within the ROI ............................................. 3-114 19 3-31 Hospitals, Clinics, and Health Services in Campbell, Johnson, and 20

Natrona Counties ....................................................................................................... 3-115 21 3-32 Police, Fire Department, and Ambulance Services in Campbell, Johnson, and 22

Natrona Counties ....................................................................................................... 3-116 23 3-33 Surface Soil Baseline Radiological Sampling Results (pCi/g) .................................... 3-118 24 3-34 Subsurface Soil Baseline Radiological Sampling Results (pCi/g) .............................. 3-119 25 3-35 Total Recordable Incidence Rates and Total Lost-Time Incidents for the 26

Category “Other Metal Ore Mining”* .......................................................................... 3-125 27 4-1 Estimated Land Disturbance (Alternative 1) ................................................................... 4-3 28 4-2 Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional and Local State Highways for the 29

Construction Phase of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project .................................... 4-11 30 4-3 Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional and Local State Highways for the 31

Construction Phase of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project .................................... 4-13 32 4-4 Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional and Local State Highways for the Operations 33

Phase of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ......................................................... 4-16 34 4-5 Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional and Local State Highways for the Aquifer 35

Restoration Phase of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ...................................... 4-18 36 4-6 Disturbed Land by Vegetation and Other Land Cover Types for the Proposed 37

Reno Creek ISR Project During Construction .............................................................. 4-50 38 4-7 Disturbed Land by Vegetation and Other Land Cover Types for the Proposed 39

Reno Creek ISR Project During Construction .............................................................. 4-59 40 4-8 Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive 41

Sources for the Peak Year for the Proposed Project Compared to the National 42 Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) ..................................................................... 4-79 43

4-9 Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive 44 Sources for the Peak Year for the Proposed Project Compared to the Prevention 45 of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increments ............................................................. 4-80 46

4-10 Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Metric Tons* per Year) for the 100 Percent Activity 47 Levels for Individual Phases from All Emission Sources for the Proposed 48 Reno Creek ISR Project ............................................................................................... 4-84 49

xvii

4-11 Percentage of Emission Levels from the 100 Percent Activity Levels for the Various 1 Phases for the Proposed Project Compared to the Peak Year Emission Levels ......... 4-85 2

4-12 Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive 3 Sources for Various Phases for the Proposed Project Compared to the NAAQS ........ 4-85 4

4-13 Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive 5 Sources for Various Phases for the Proposed Project Compared to the 6 PSD Increments ........................................................................................................... 4-86 7

4-14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of National Register of 8 Historic Places (NRHP) Eligibility and Impact Analysis for Previously Recorded 9 Archaeological Sites and Isolates, and Newly Recorded Tribal Sites and Isolates 10 Identified During the Tribal Cultural Survey ............................................................... 4-101 11

4-15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of National Register 12 of Historic Places (NRHP) Eligibility and Impact Analysis for Historic Properties 13 Included in the Visual Impacts Analysis ..................................................................... 4-103 14

4-16 Percentage of Population Living in Poverty and Percentage Minority 15 Population 2010 to 2014 5-Year Estimate ................................................................. 4-120 16

4-17 Generic Accident Dose Analysis for ISR Operations ................................................. 4-128 17 5-1 Past, Existing, and Potential Uranium Recovery Sites Within 80 km [50 mi] of the 18

Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ................................................................................ 5-4 19 5-2 Coal Mines Within 80 km [50 mi] of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project .................. 5-8 20 5-3 Draft and Final National Environmental Policy Act Documents Related to the 21

Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region ........................................................................ 5-12 22 5-4 Potential Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources........................................ 5-14 23 5-5 2000–2010 Population Change and 2020/2030 Populations Projections 24

for Counties Within the Geographic Boundary for the Cumulative 25 Population Analysis ...................................................................................................... 5-54 26

6-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by AUC ..................................................... 6-3 27 6-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures Identified by the NRC.............................................. 6-13 28 7-1 Background Water Quality Parameters and Indicators for Operational 29

Groundwater Monitoring ................................................................................................. 7-7 30 8-1 Towns Near the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ...................................................... 8-4 31 8-2 Summary of Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ................... 8-5 32 9-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project ........................................ 9-2 33

xix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

BACKGROUND 2

By letter dated October 3, 2012, AUC submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 3 Commission (NRC) for a new source and byproduct materials license (hereafter referred 4 to as an “NRC license”) for the Reno Creek In Situ Uranium Recovery Project, located in 5 Campbell County, Wyoming. The applicant is proposing to recover uranium using the in situ 6 leach (ISL) [also known as in situ recovery (ISR)] process. The proposed Reno Creek ISR 7 Project would include processing facilities and sequentially developed wellfields. Proposed 8 facilities would include a central processing plant, wellfields, Class I deep disposal wells for 9 disposal of liquid wastes, and the attendant infrastructure (e.g., pipelines and access roads). 10

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 11 Control Act of 1978, authorizes the NRC to issue licenses for the possession and use of source 12 material and byproduct material. These statutes require the NRC to license facilities, including 13 ISR operations, in accordance with the NRC’s regulatory requirements, which protect public 14 health and safety and the environment. Under the NRC environmental protection regulations in 15 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10 CFR Part 51, which implement the 16 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), preparation of an environmental impact 17 statement (EIS) or supplement to an EIS is required for issuance of a license to possess and 18 use source material and byproduct material for uranium milling [10 CFR 51.20(b)(8)]. 19

In May 2009, the NRC staff issued NUREG–1910, the Generic Environmental Impact Statement 20 for In Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities (herein referred to as the GEIS) (NRC, 2009). In the 21 GEIS, the NRC assessed the potential environmental impacts from the construction, operations, 22 aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an ISR facility located in four specified geographic 23 regions of the western United States. The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be located 24 within the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region identified in the GEIS. The GEIS provides a 25 starting point for the NRC’s site-specific NEPA analysis for new ISR license applications, as well 26 as for applications that amend or renew existing ISR licenses. This draft Supplemental EIS 27 (SEIS) incorporates by reference information from the GEIS and also uses information from the 28 applicant’s license application and other independent sources to fulfill the requirements set forth 29 in 10 CFR 51.20(b)(8). 30

This draft SEIS includes the NRC staff analysis that considers and weighs the environmental 31 effects of the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) and No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2), and 32 mitigation measures to either reduce or avoid adverse effects. It also includes the NRC staff’s 33 recommendation regarding the proposed action. 34

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 35

The NRC regulates uranium milling, including the ISR process, under 10 CFR Part 40, 36 “Domestic Licensing of Source Material.” AUC is seeking an NRC license to authorize 37 commercial-scale in situ uranium recovery at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The 38 purpose and need for the proposed federal action is to provide an option that allows the 39 applicant to recover uranium and produce yellowcake within the proposed project area. 40 Yellowcake is the uranium oxide product of the ISR milling process that is used to produce 41 various products, including fuel for commercially operated nuclear power reactors. 42

xx

This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commission’s recognition that, unless there are 1 findings in the safety review required by the AEA, as amended, or findings in the NEPA 2 environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license application, the NRC has no 3 role in a company’s business decision to submit a license application to operate an ISR facility 4 at a particular location. 5

THE PROJECT AREA 6

The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be located in Campbell County, Wyoming, within 7 the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium District. The proposed project area would be located between the 8 communities of Wright, Edgerton, and Gillette. The total land area of the proposed Reno Creek 9 ISR Project is 2,451 hectares (ha) [6,057 acres (ac)] of mostly private land. Approximately 10 2,192 ha [5,417 ac] is privately owned land and 259 ha [640 ac] is State of Wyoming owned 11 land. The subsurface mineral rights are owned by the federal and state governments and 12 various private entities. 13

The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would consist of processing facilities and sequentially 14 developed wellfields. Planned facilities associated with the proposed project include buildings 15 associated with a central processing plant; wellfields and their associated infrastructure 16 (e.g., wells, header houses, and pipelines); Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 17 (WDEQ)-permitted Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class I deep disposal wells for disposal 18 of liquid wastes; and access roads. The applicant estimated that the land surface area that 19 would be affected by proposed ISR operations would be approximately 62 ha [154 ac] 20 (excluding wellfields). 21

IN SITU RECOVERY PROCESS 22

During the ISR process, an oxidant-charged solution, called a lixiviant, is injected into the 23 production zone aquifer (uranium orebody) through injection wells. Typically, a lixiviant 24 uses native groundwater (from the production zone aquifer), carbon dioxide, and sodium 25 carbonate/bicarbonate, with an oxygen or hydrogen peroxide oxidant. As the lixiviant circulates 26 through the production zone, it oxidizes and dissolves the mineralized uranium, which is present 27 in a reduced chemical state. The resulting uranium-rich solution is drawn to production wells 28 (i.e., recovery wells) by pumping and then transferred to a processing facility via a network of 29 pipelines, which may be buried just below the ground surface. At the processing facility, the 30 uranium is removed from solution (typically via ion exchange). The resulting barren solution is 31 then recharged with the oxidant and reinjected to recover more uranium. 32

During production, the uranium recovery solution continually moves through the aquifer from 33 injection wells to production wells. These wells can be arranged in a variety of geometric 34 patterns depending on the location and orientation of the orebody, aquifer permeability, and 35 operator preference. Wellfields are typically designed in a five-spot or seven-spot pattern, with 36 each production well located inside a ring of injection wells (AUC proposes to use a five-spot 37 pattern). Monitoring wells are installed in the production zone aquifer and surround the wellfield 38 pattern area. Monitoring wells are screened (i.e., open to allow water to enter) in the 39 appropriate stratigraphic horizon to detect the potential migration of lixiviant away from the 40 production zone. Monitoring wells are also installed in the overlying and underlying aquifers to 41 detect the potential vertical migration of lixiviant outside the production zone. The uranium that 42 is recovered from the solution is processed, dried into yellowcake, packaged into NRC- and 43 U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)-approved 208 L [55 gal] steel drums, and trucked 44 offsite to a licensed conversion facility. 45

xxi

A UIC program regulates the design, construction, testing, operations, and closure of disposal 1 wells at ISR facilities. Before ISR operations begin, the portion of the aquifer(s) designated for 2 uranium recovery must be exempted from the underground source of drinking water (USDW) 3 designation, in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Once production is 4 complete, the production zone groundwater is restored to NRC-approved groundwater 5 protection standards, which are protective of the surrounding groundwater. The site is 6 decommissioned according to an NRC-approved decommissioning plan and in accordance with 7 NRC-approved standards. Once decommissioning is approved, the site may be released for 8 public use. 9

ALTERNATIVES 10

The NRC environmental review regulations that implement NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51 require the 11 NRC to consider reasonable alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2), to a 12 Proposed Action (Alternative 1). The alternatives are evaluated with regard to the four phases 13 of a uranium-recovery operation: construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and 14 decommissioning. The alternatives have been established based on the purpose and need 15 statement described in draft SEIS Section 1.3. Under the No-Action Alternative, the applicant 16 would not construct and operate an ISR facility within the proposed project area. Other 17 alternatives considered at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project but eliminated from detailed 18 analysis include conventional mining and milling, conventional mining and heap leach 19 processing, alternative lixiviants, alternative site locations, and alternative well completion 20 methods. These alternatives were eliminated from detailed study because they either would not 21 meet the purpose and need of the proposed project or would cause greater environmental 22 impacts than the proposed action. This draft SEIS also discusses alternative wastewater 23 disposal options (e.g., evaporation ponds and Class V wells) that were not included in the 24 license application. 25

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 26

This draft SEIS includes the NRC staff analysis that considers and weighs the environmental 27 impacts from the construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of ISR 28 operations at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project and for the No-Action Alternative. This 29 draft SEIS also describes mitigation measures for the reduction or avoidance of potential 30 adverse impacts that (i) the applicant has committed to in its NRC license application, (ii) would 31 be required under other federal and state permits or processes, or (iii) are additional measures 32 the NRC staff identified as having the potential to reduce environmental impacts but that the 33 applicant did not commit to in its application. The draft SEIS uses the assessments and 34 conclusions reached in the GEIS in combination with site-specific information to assess and 35 categorize impacts. 36

As discussed in the GEIS and consistent with NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003), the significance of 37 potential environmental impacts is categorized as follows: 38

SMALL: The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 39 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 40

MODERATE: The environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not 41 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 42

xxii

LARGE: The environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 1 destabilize important attributes of the resource. 2

Chapter 4 of this draft SEIS provides the NRC evaluation of the potential environmental impacts 3 from the construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed 4 Reno Creek ISR Project. The significance of impacts from the ISR facility lifecycle is listed next, 5 followed by a summary of impacts by environmental resource area and ISR phase. 6

Impacts by Resource Area and ISR Facility Phase 7

Land Use 8

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. If Class I deep disposal wells were used to dispose of 9 liquid wastes, approximately 62.4 ha [154.3 ac] of the proposed project area would be disturbed 10 by the construction phase. Topsoil would be stripped and stockpiled to build surface facilities, 11 develop the initial wellfields and the attendant infrastructure, and construct access roads. 12 Livestock grazing and recreational activities would be excluded from fenced areas surrounding 13 the central processing plant and wellfields. Existing wells, including 46 producing coalbed 14 methane (CBM) wells and 2 producing oil wells, are not anticipated to be affected by 15 construction activities. Construction activities are anticipated to take 1 to 2 years. 16

Operations: Impacts would be SMALL. Land use impacts during the operations phase would 17 be limited to the wellfields and would be similar to or less than those during the construction 18 phase. Wellfields would be sequentially developed resulting in the disturbance of approximately 19 187 ha [461 ac]. Land disturbance and access restrictions would result from drilling new wells 20 and constructing additional header houses and pipelines. Livestock grazing and recreational 21 activities would continue to be restricted from the central processing plant, surface 22 impoundments, and wellfields. After approximately 1 to 2 years of site development and facility 23 construction, there would be 11 years of wellfield and uranium recovery operations. 24

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Land use impacts would be similar to or less 25 than those described for the operations phase. Land use impacts would decrease as fewer 26 wells and pump houses are used and overall equipment traffic and use diminish. Access to 27 wellfields and surface facilities would continue to be restricted. No additional land would be 28 disturbed to construct facilities. Aquifer restoration activities would continue for 11 years. 29

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Land use impacts during the decommissioning 30 phase would be similar to those experienced during the construction phase. Decommissioning 31 the buildings, wellfields, storage ponds, and access roads and removing potentially 32 contaminated soil would result in a temporary, short-term (1 year) increase in land-disturbing 33 activities. Upon completion of the plugging and abandonment of wells, the soil would be 34 returned to areas in the wellfield where it had been removed and reseeded. Vegetation would 35 become reestablished in reclaimed areas and the land would be returned to a condition that can 36 support a variety of land uses. Decommissioning activities would continue for 8 years due to 37 the phased approach of wellfield reclamation. 38

Transportation 39

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. The proposed traffic from construction activities, if 40 allocated completely to the individual road segments, would noticeably increase the existing 41 traffic on State Highway 387, but would not substantially increase traffic on more heavily 42

xxiii

traveled road segments, such as State Highway 59 traveling from Gillette to Wright. Traffic on 1 State Highway 387 is projected to increase by 8 percent, and truck traffic was projected to 2 increase 1.1 percent. Combined auto and truck traffic on State Highway 59 was projected to 3 increase by 2.1 percent north of Wright and by 1.7 percent south of Gillette. Considering (i) the 4 limited duration of construction activities (1 to 2 years), (ii) the mitigation measures to reduce 5 traffic impacts, and (iii) the relatively short segments of roads that would be impacted by traffic 6 accessing the proposed project area, the NRC staff conclude that the increase in traffic volumes 7 to the local county road system during construction would result in SMALL impacts. 8 Additionally, based on the available capacity on the state highway road system in Campbell 9 County, the NRC staff conclude that the potential traffic impacts to the state highway road 10 system providing access to the proposed project area from nearby communities would 11 be SMALL. 12

Operations: Impacts would be SMALL. The increase in traffic volumes would result in SMALL 13 impacts to the local county road system and state highway road system servicing the proposed 14 Reno Creek ISR Project. Commuting worker vehicles constitute the majority of road traffic for 15 the operations phase. Additional truck shipments of byproduct material, processing chemicals, 16 etc., would also slightly add to the traffic volume assessed during the construction phase. 17 However, the two phases are comparable with less than 1 percent increase in auto traffic and 18 less than 2 percent in truck traffic when compared to the construction phase. The potential 19 radiological accident risk associated with yellowcake product shipments during the operations 20 phase would be SMALL. Transport companies would have standing contracts with 21 environmental emergency response contractors for spill cleanup. In addition, the applicant 22 would develop a communication and emergency response plan with state and local authorities 23 for all transport and emergency conditions (AUC, 2012). The NRC staff conclude that the 24 consequences of such accidents would also be limited because the applicant has committed to 25 develop emergency response and standard operating procedures (AUC, 2012, 2014) for 26 yellowcake and other transportation accidents that could occur during shipment to or from the 27 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The applicant also proposes to ensure its personnel and the 28 carrier receive training on these emergency response procedures and that information about the 29 procedures is provided to state and local agencies (AUC, 2012, 2014). Based on the low 30 radiological risks from transportation accidents and the implementation of the applicant’s 31 additional safety practices, the overall impacts from the proposed transportation activities during 32 the operations phase would be SMALL. 33

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Transportation impacts would be less than 34 those estimated for the construction and operations phases because the need to transport 35 yellowcake product, hazardous materials, and uranium-loaded resins between units would 36 decrease as aquifer restoration progressed. The decrease in the supply shipments, waste 37 shipments, and employee commuting (because fewer workers will be involved) would reduce 38 the potential for spills or leakage from accidents. 39

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Transportation impacts would be less than those 40 during the construction and operations phases because the transport of yellowcake product and 41 processing chemicals would end during decommissioning. The applicant estimated the number 42 of worker trips per day to the site would be six. In addition, the applicant estimated that two 43 vehicles would travel to and from the proposed project area daily for commercial delivery and 44 pickup (AUC, 2014). Access roads would either be reclaimed or left in place for future use. 45 Waste shipments would increase temporarily, but would still represent a small contribution to 46 daily traffic. Fewer workers would be employed, further reducing the potential transportation 47 impact during this phase. 48

xxiv

Geology and Soils 1

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Earthmoving activities associated with construction of 2 the central processing plant, access roads, wellfields, and pipelines will include topsoil clearing 3 and land grading. The applicant estimates that approximately 24.9 ha/m [202 ac/ft] of 4 salvageable topsoil is present and would be removed within the 62.4 ha [154.3 ac] of potential 5 land disturbance. Topsoil removed during these activities would be stored and reused later to 6 restore disturbed areas. The limited areal extent of the construction area, the soil stockpiling 7 procedures, the implementation of best management practices (BMPs), the short duration of the 8 construction phase, and mitigative measures such as reestablishment of native vegetation 9 would further minimize the potential impact on soils. 10

Operations: Impacts would be SMALL. The operations phase would not remove rock matrix or 11 structure and would not dewater production zone aquifers. Therefore, no significant matrix 12 compression or ground subsidence is expected. The occurrence of potential spills during 13 transfer of uranium-bearing lixiviant would be mitigated by implementing onsite standard 14 procedures and by complying with the NRC requirements for spill response and reporting of 15 surface releases and cleanup of any contaminated soils. The WDEQ would determine the 16 suitability of deep geologic formations for Class I deep disposal wells for liquid waste before 17 issuing an UIC permit. 18

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. During aquifer restoration, the processes of 19 groundwater sweep and groundwater transfer would not remove rock matrix or structure. The 20 formation groundwater pressure within the extraction zone would be decreased during 21 restoration as groundwater is removed to ensure the direction of groundwater flow is into the 22 wellfields to reduce the potential for lateral migration of constituents. However, the change in 23 groundwater pressure would not result in collapse of overlying rock strata as it is supported by 24 the rock matrix of the formation. The potential impact to soils from spills, leaks, and land 25 application of treated wastewater will be comparable to that described for the operations phase. 26 The NRC requirements for spill response and recovery and routine monitoring programs would 27 also apply. 28

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Disruption or displacement of soils would occur 29 during dismantling of the facilities and reclamation of the land; however, the disturbed lands 30 would be restored to their preextraction land use. Topsoil would be reclaimed and the surface 31 regraded to the original topography. 32

Surface Waters and Wetlands 33

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. The occurrence of surface water at the proposed 34 Reno Creek site is limited, and surface water flow in channels is ephemeral. In addition, the 35 applicant performed a wetland delineation survey and identified a total of 17.12 ha [42.23 ac] of 36 wetlands consisting of eight wetland classes within the proposed project area. Because the 37 applicant has committed to adopting measures to control erosion and sediment loading to 38 surface water bodies, including implementation of stormwater BMPs (e.g., retention ponds) and 39 compliance with state-issued permits, the NRC staff determine that impacts to surface water 40 resources during the construction phase would be SMALL. Wyoming Pollutant Discharge 41 Elimination System (WYPDES) permit issued by WDEQ would set limits to control the amount 42 of pollutants that can enter surface water bodies. 43

xxv

Operations: Impacts would be SMALL. Because of the limited surface disturbances; low 1 regional precipitation and minimal average seasonal runoff; installation of surface drainage 2 features and spill containment structures; and implementation of BMPs (e.g. silt fencing), spill 3 prevention, and control procedures, the NRC staff determine that the potential impact to surface 4 water resources during operations at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be SMALL 5 and would be further reduced by the applicant’s proposed mitigation measures. Additionally, 6 processing facilities and chemical and fuel storage tanks would have secondary containment to 7 contain potential spills. 8

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts would be similar to those during the 9 operations phase because the same infrastructure would be used and the same activities would 10 be conducted. The applicant’s WDEQ-approved WYPDES permit would be in place to mitigate 11 impacts to surface water from erosion, runoff, and sedimentation. Aquifer restoration at the 12 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would involve treatment by reverse osmosis methods, with 13 the resulting effluent disposed of through Class I deep disposal wells. Additionally, land surface 14 disturbances may occur, but these would be minimal in comparison to disturbances during the 15 construction phase. Therefore, potential sediment loading to surface water bodies would be 16 significantly less than that expected during construction. 17

Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. The impacts would be similar to those during the 18 construction phase. Activities to clean-up, recontour, and reclaim the land surface during 19 decommissioning would mitigate long-term impacts to surface water. The applicant’s 20 WDEQ-approved WYPDES permit would be in place to mitigate impacts to surface water 21 from erosion, runoff, and sedimentation. 22

Groundwater 23

Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. The primary impact to groundwater during the 24 construction phase would be from the consumptive use of groundwater, introduction of drilling 25 fluids into the environment during well installation, and from surface spills of fuels and 26 lubricants. The applicant would be required to obtain water appropriation use permits from 27 WDEQ and the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office prior to withdrawing water from aquifers. 28 During well installation, drilling fluids (mud) would have the potential to impact surficial aquifers; 29 however, all wells would undergo mechanical integrity tests of the casing and therefore ensure 30 against well leakage prior to entering service. Impacts to groundwater from surface spills of 31 fuels and lubricants would be mitigated by the applicant’s implementation of BMPs and by 32 following a spill prevention program that would require an immediate cleanup response to 33 prevent soil contamination or infiltration to groundwater. 34

Operations: Impacts would be SMALL. The operations phase may impact near-surface 35 (alluvial) aquifers, production zone aquifers containing the orebodies and surrounding aquifers, 36 and deep aquifers below the ore production zone used for the disposal of liquid wastes. 37

Alluvial aquifers are separated from production zone and surrounding aquifers by aquitards 38 (confining units) and, therefore, are not hydraulically connected to production zone and 39 surrounding aquifers. In addition, the alluvial aquifers in the vicinity of the proposed project do 40 not serve as a water supply for domestic use or livestock. The impacts from spills and leaks 41 would be SMALL. The applicant’s leak detection and cleanup program would include rapid 42 response and remediation to minimize impacts to soils and groundwater. 43

xxvi

The applicant would