Department of Environmental QualityTo protect, conserve and enhance the quality of Wyoming's
environment for the benefit of current and future generations.
Dave Freudenthal, Governor John Corra, Director
February 26, 2010
Michael LesarRulemaking & Directives Branch ChiefDivision of Administrative Services, Office of AdministrationUS Nuclear Regulatory CommissionMail Stop: TWB-05-BolMWashington, D.C. 20555-0001
RE! State of Wyoming Comments on Draft SEISs for Lost Crcek, Docket NumberNRC-2008-0391, Moore Ranch, Docket Number NRC-2008-0364 & Nichols Ranch,Docket Number NRC 2008-0339
Dear Mr. Lesar:
I have enclosed comments from four Wyoming departments for the Lost Creek, Moore Ranch andNichols Ranch Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (SEISs) published by the NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC). The state departments consist of the Department of EnvironmentalQuality (WDEQ), the Game and Fish Department (WG&F), the Dcpartmcnt of Agriculture (WDA) andthe State Geological Survey (WSGS). The WDEQ had four divisions comment. Those divisions were theAir Quality Division (AQD), Industrial Siting Division (ISD), Land Quality Division (LQD), and theSolid and Hazardous Waste Division (SHWD).
The respective department and division comments are labeled as Attachments 1-7. The commentsrange from general to specific and address one or more of the three SEISs. The WDEQ/LQD comment isgeneral to all three SETSs and contained in this cover letter.
The proposed insitu uranium projects are relatively dynamic in that additional hydrologicinformation has been collected and submitted to the WDEQ/LQD since the printing of the draft SEISs. Asa result, the draft SEISs do not include the most recent information available.
In the event the NRC desires assistance from the State of Wyoming in responding to our commentsI am willing to be the point of contact. I can be reached at the letterhead address or by telephone at 307-777-7046 or via email at dmcken@cwyo,.go_.v.,
Yours truly,
Donald R.. McKenzieAdministratorLand Quality Division
SUBJECT: AQD Comments on NRC SE]Ss for 3 In-Situ Uranium Projects
General
These project specific supplements to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for In-SituLeach Uranium Milling Facilities tier to the GEIS with respect to air quality standards. Please be advisedthat standards are periodically revised. EPA made revisions to the NAAQS for Lead, which set therolling 3-month average standard for lead to 0.15 Ipg/m3. The final rule took effect on January 12, 2009(Federal Register Vol. 73, No. 219).
EPA established a new I-hour standard for Nitrogen Dioxide, for which the final rule becomes effectiveon April 12,2010 (Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 26). The new level is 100 parts-per-billion (ppb) and isbased on the 3-year average of the 98"' percentile of the daily maximum I-hour average at each monitor.
On December 8, 2010 the EPA announced a revision to the primary SO2 NAAQS (Federal Register Vol.74, No. 234). The proposal includes revocation of the existing 24-hour and annual primary SO2 standardsand establishment of a new 1-hour S02 standard in the range of 50-100 ppb, based on the 3-year averageof the annual 99"' percentile (or 4h highest) of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. While theseproposed changes are not yet final, please be advised that these changes may impact future project-specific analyses that tier to the GEIS.
The EPA proposed lowering the 8-hour standard for Ozone to a level within the range of 0.060 to 0.070ppm. In addition, the EPA proposed a new secondary standard for ozone, which would be a cumulative,seasonal standard (Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 11). Again, these revisions are not yet final, though theymay impact future project specific analyses.
As of this date, not all NAAQS have been adopted by the State of Wyoming as is stated in the text of theproject-specific supplements. The State of Wyoming has developed stricter standards (WyomingAmbient Air Quality Standards, WAAQS) for annual and 24-hour sulfur dioxide (60 Ag/m 3 and 260jig/mh, respectively). The State of Wyoming has not yet entered into rulemaking to revise the WAAQSfor annual PM10 (50 P&g/m 3) or 24-hour PM2 5 (65 Ig/rm3) so these standards should still be noted.
Lost Creek
Section 1.6.2, Page 1-9, Table 1-2± Air Quality Permit #CT-7896 was issued on January 4, 2010.
Section 3.7.2, Page 3-53, Lines 3-4: See General comment regarding Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS and WAAQS).
Section 1.6.2, Page 1-7, Table 1-2: This table suggests that an air quality permit is not needed. Whilethe facilities described by this document may not be classified as Title V sources, they are still subject toWyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 6, Section 2 permittingrequirements.
Section 3.7.2, Page 3-39, Lines 7-8: See General comment regarding Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS and WAAQS).
Nichols Ranch
Section 1.62, Page 1-8, Table 1-2: This table does not reflect the requirement to obtain an air qualitypermit. Note, however, that an air quality permit has been obtained (Permit #CT-8644, issued 10/2/2009)by Uranerz.
Section 3.7.2, Page 3-42, Lines 18-19: See General comment regarding Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS and WAAQS).
Here's my comments on the socio-economic features:
In general:
I. This version is greatly improved from prior versions avoiding the previous typographical and dataerrors.
2. I still do not like the study area splits for the two mining districts in Wyoming and believe that socio-economic data is questionable; because the that data is traditionally collected by political subdivisionswhich are not congruent or co-incidental with the districts in this analysis.
3. I also fault the analysis for using ten year old socio-economic data. It could very well have includedupdated data available from State agencies. Are the procedural instructions for the EIS more importantthan the obligation to provide information to evaluators? Is it fair to use current data for one statisticand couple it with ten year old data for another statistic?
Specific:1. The actual transportation routes to be used will be determined by the Wyoming Department of
Transportation District Engineer. 3,2.2 and 3.3.22. The Wyoming Constitution gives control of the "waters of the State" both surface and ground to the
State Engineer. Water used by the project must obtain necessary permits. 3.2.4 and 3.3.43. I am obligated to say that, "The Industrial Siting Council may require permits for the mines."
To: Don McKenzie, Land Quality Division Administrator
Ce: John Wagner, Water Quality Division Administrator
From: Mark Conrad, Water Quality Division NEPA Coordinator
RE: Moore Ranch ISR Draft SEIS Comments
General Comments
Surface disturbance, reclamation and spill response arc three of the major factors affectingsurface water quality in projects such as this. Overall, the Draft EIS appears to address theseissues fairly well. However, the Water Quality Division (WQD) recommends consideration ofusing portable tanks and closed loop mud systems to contain drilling mud and other fluids, ratherthan digging and reclaiming hundreds of mud pits which will significantly reduce the amount ofoverall surface disturbance in the project area. Information in the Draft SEIS regarding Class Idisposal wells may not be current and are inconsistent with the proponent's Class I injection wellapplication which was submitted to the WQD. The SEIS will need to ensure the disposal wellinformation is accurate. The WQD did not analyze the potential for lixiviant excursions oraquifer restoration, as this is part of the Land Quality Division's responsibility in permitting thefacility.
Groundwater CommentsPortions of the Draft EIS are inconsistent with Uranium One Americas' Class I injection wellapplication. Information in the SEIS should be updated to reflect the most recent plans.According to the application submitted to the WQD, the proponent is proposing to construct 4Class I injection wells to dispose of well field bleed, yellowcake wash water, laboratory waste,reverse osmosis brine, groundwater sweep (restoration) solutions, and plant washdown water. Itis anticipated that each well will be allowed to inject at a rate up to 125 gal/min, for a maximumcumulative injection rate of 500 gal/min. Over the proposed injection period of 10 years, themaximum volume of injected waste would be about 3,287 million gallons (assuming continuousinjection at the maximum rate for 10 years). Maximum concentrations in the injected waste areexpected to be 15 mg/L for U308, 3,000 pCi/L for 226Ra, 2,000 mg/L sulfate, and 15,000 mg/Ltotal dissolved solids.
The wells will be spread throughout the mine permit area in SWI/4 section 25 and SW1/4section 27 in T42N, R75W and in NW1/4 section 2, and NE1/4 section 4 in T41N, R75W. Ifallowed to inject into the Lance and Fox Hills Formations, the wells will be completed frombelow a depth of about 5,300 ft to a depth of about 7,500 ft. Net thickness of perforations wouldbe about 1,400 ft. The injection interval in the Lance - Fox Hills is overlain by at least 200 ft of
mudstone in the upper Lance aquitard. The Lance Formation is overlain by the Fort UnionFormation. Both supply drinking water elsewhere in the Powder River Basin. No deep wellshave yet been drilled at Moore Ranch but geophysical logs are available for several oil wells inthe area. The few water analyses available for the Lance Formation suggest that theconcentration of total dissolved solids in the injection interval would be in the range of 1,000-3,000 mg/L.
If the operator is not allowed to dispose of waste into the Lance and Fox Hills Formations, thedisposal wells will inject into the Teckla Member of the Lewis Shale and the Teapot andParkman Members of the Mesaverde Formation, depending on porosity. The Lewis Shale is aregionally extensive aquitard approximately 400 fl thick above the Teckla Member. Injectioncapacity of these members is less than that of the Lance so more than 4 wells would probably berequired. The injection intervals would have net thicknesses of perforations of about 270 ftwithin the 7,900-9,200 ft depth range. Total dissolved solids concentrations in the Teckla,Teapot, and Parkman members are highly variable and expected to be in the range 7,000-15,000mg/L at Moore Ranch.
Lines in the EIS listed below, and probably others, are inconsistent with Uranium One Americas'Class I well application, and should be changed:
Page xix:42 of Environmental Quality (WDEQ). The groundwater in the formations being considered for43 deep well disposal must not be a potential underground source of drinking water -ma '^"14 the to,,disel.d selids o t. .,•...... , 000rt per- million and the ore production zone isin
Page 2-3:10 In addition, under the proposed action twe Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class Iinjection
19 35 of T 42 N, R 75 W to support operations in Wellfield 2. Two different geologic formationsare20 being considered for deep well disposal, the shallower formation occurs at a depth rangingfrom21 1,128 2)29 .m (3,700 7,50 ft) below the surface; the second formation occurs at a depth22 ranging from 2,431 2,,929in?(7,916 9,610 .t) below the surface. The proposed wells would23 be permitted for a capacity of 473.5 L/min (125 gal/min) per well, thus providing a totaldisposal24 capacity of 947 Lh.in (250 ga!/m' ). Disposal during the operations phase has been estimated25 at approximately 151.5 L/rain (40 gal/min). However, during the restoration phase disposal26 could be as high as 530 L/min (140 gal/min) (EMC, 2007a). One well would be used tohandle27 flow during operations and the second well would be used as backuPage A third Class Iinjection28 well could be added for backup during the restoration phase of the project which wouldprovide
29 a total disposal capacity of 1-,42,-, min (375 gal/rn in).
30 The proposed operations phase at the Moore Ranch Project would last approximately 44 10years;
Page 2-21:32 The operation of the ion exchange process during operations would generate productionbleed,33 the reim-- - c of liquid waste. [Groundwater sweep could generate more waste.]
Page 2-22:10 2 0 09a). Aquifers with IDS concentrations greater than 4OO0 ppm are not a potentiallyuseable1 I underground source of drinking water. [By definition, any water with TDS <10,000 mg/L isconsidered a USDW.]
13 Ranch Project is the Lance Formation which occurs from depths ranging from 1,186 to 2,286m14 @, O4 &t.•,7,5",, (Uranium One, 2009a). The WDEQ will evaluate the suitability of these[This interval mistakenly includes the Tullock Member of the overlying Fort Union Formation.]
Page 3-9:20 ranging from 2,413 to 2,930 m (7,916 to 9,610 ft) below ground surface and the Lance21 Formation and Fox Hills Sandstone, at a depth ranging from 44,4 to 2,287 m (3,--00 t 7,500ft) [This interval mistakenly includes the Tullock Member of the overlying Fort UnionFormation.]
Page 4-32:12 of liquid effluent depending on the production rates and the capacity of each disposal well.Fwe [one application, 2 volumes]13 permit applications for Class I disposal wells at the proposed Moore Ranch Project are under14 review by the State of Wyoming. The first application is for injection into the Teapot-Teckla-15 Parkman formation with an injection depth of 2,431 m - 2,929 m (7,916 - 9,610 ft) Injection16 rates for this interval are expected to be about 30 gal/min. Since the water quality in this17 formation is anticipated to exceed 3000 mg/L TDS, -woild not be l.-,ifi:.as .--Mu.defg...nd,8........ eee ef ei. .w..e.. [false] The second application is for injection into the Lanceformation at19 depths of 1428-fn - 2286 m (3-700 - 7500 fIt); since the Lance formation has a much greater20 injection capacity, only twe-Class I disposal wells would be required to support the proposed[Uranium One Americas is asking for 4 wells in the Lance.]21 Moore Ranch operations. However, the water quality in the Lance formation .ea4d [is] beless than22 3000 mg/L TDS; therefore, it could potentially be an underground source of drinking waterwhich
p. 4-81:28 disposal of by-product waste would be protective of human health and the environment.Based29 on an e•-age c-:- f 6 L (10 , -flo.w- ............ 9 y• , approximately 1,015 kg (2,238 lb) of30 natural uranium and 4.6 Ci of radium-226 would be disposed of in the wells. Radiation dosesto [try 500 gal/min for 10 years.]
Oil wells in the Moore Ranch area target formations below the Mesaverde Formation mad somemay not have been adequately plugged. If inadequately plugged wells are within the radius ofinfluence of a proposed injection well, the proponent will be required to take preventivemeasures before being allowed to inject.
There are numerous coalbed methane wells within and adjacent to the mine permit area. Thesewells target the Big George coal at a maximum depth of about 1,350 ft at Moore Ranch andwould not be impacted by deep disposal.
Land ownership in the Moore Ranch ISR area is mostly private and there is extensive ranchingactivity. Stock, domestic, and other wells occur throughout the area. Except for a few watersupply wells for oil field activities, none of the water wells are deeper than the coalbed methanewells. The oil field water supply wells are more than 6 miles from the mine permit boundary andare not likely to be impacted by deep disposal.
Surface Water Comments
Roads and other surface disturbances can be a major cause of erosion and other hydrologicproblems in Wyoming. Construction design should take into account the topography anddrainage patterns so that natural drainage patterns are not disrupted, even in small ephemeralchannels, because they do convey water during runoff from intense rainstorm events, which arefairly common in the area. Roads, pipelines and other infrastructure should be designed so thatsurface water is not concentrated in a way that causes erosion. Runoff and erosion from roads,culverts and ephemeral channel crossings can compound and cause significant acceleratedchannel alteration, both upstream and downstream of the crossings. It is important that all theselocations are monitored so that any erosion can be mitigated before growing into larger erosionproblems.
The SEIS needs to analyze alternatives which minimize the amount of sumface disturbance andtopsoil removal. Pipelines should be co-located with roads to minimize surface disturbance.Soils which remain in place, even when compacted, can often be reclaimed more quickly andsuccessfully than soils which have been removed and replaced. If possible, operators shouldinstall pipelines with techniques such as plowing, and vegetation should be mowed rather thanbladed to minimize soil disturbance. Instead of digging mud pits, the operator should useportable tanks to contain drilling mud and other fluids, which will significantly reduce theamount of surface disturbance and reclamation costs, as well as reducing risks of contamination.
The Draft SEIS does not appear address hydrostatic testing of pipelines or testing/purging ofwells. Discharge of water from the wells or pipelines onto the land surface or into channels willrequire permitting from the WQD.
Also, based on review of other ISR plans, the WQD is concerned that some wells may beplanned to be placed within ephemeral channels. Placing any wells in an ephemeral channel willlikely result in increased erosion and will greatly increase the risk of breached infrastructure andsubsequent releases of lixiviant or other fluids. Although riprap or diversion swales could beused to protect the well heads, any stream flows forced to go around these structures will causeenergy to be redirected elsewhere in the channel, possibly resulting in excessive erosion. Placingany wells in an ephemeral channel would likely be unacceptable.
Page 3-12 Lines 20-23. Although soil texture is an important factor, the largest factorscontrolling erosion are the above and below ground vegetation which shelter and stabilize thesoil from wind and water erosion. Therefore it is essential that the amount of surface disturbancebe limited whenever possible.
Page 3-16 Lines 39-40. Antelope Creek is protected for these designated uses through therulemaking process. The term "suitable" gives the reader the impression that there have beenonsite water quality assessments which have determined the suitability for all these uses, whichmay or may not be the case. Please replace "suitable" with "protected".
Page 3-20 Lines 19-22. Although these wetlands may or may not be jurisdictional under section404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), all naturally occurring wetlands are considered waters of thestate, and are protected as such under Wyoming law. Whether any portion of these wetlandsexisted prior to CBM development would need further investigation; however, they do serve animportant ecological function. It would be best to treat these wetland areas as naturally occurringwetlands and implement measures to protect thcm during the project.
Page 4-14 Lines 15-18, Instead of digging and reclaiming mud pits for approximately 850 wells,we recommend the operator use portable tanks and closed loop mud systems to contain drillingmud and other fluids, which will significantly reduce the amount of surface disturbance,reclamation and risks of contamination from accidental releases, as well as reducing reclamationcosts. Additionally, the addition of bentonite or other materials from the drilling mud residue intothe subsoil may affect soil structure and movement of water and long-term reclamation success.
Page 4-18 Lines 21-23. Please add the following sentence: "Authorization from the WyomingDEQ could be required when filling or crossing wetlands.
Page 4-18 Lines 27-28. The magnitude of the impact would be based on the effect the projectwould have on wetlands and hydrologic function, not whether or not a USACE permit isrequired.
Page 4-19 Lines 35-39. Pipelines should be rerouted around wetlands and ponds. If a pipelinemust cross a linear wetland feature, it should be perpendicular to the wetland feature to minimizethe amount of impact.
To: Don McKenzie, Land Quality Division Administrator
Cc: John Wagner, Water Quality Division Administrator
From: Mark Conrad, Water Quality Division NEPA Coordinator
RE: Lost Creek ISR Draft SEIS Comments
General Comments
When the WQD commented on the lack of specificity in the GEIS, the NRC assured us that thesite specific details would be addressed and analyzed in any NEPA documents that tiered off theGELS. Therefore, we expected this Draft SEIS to be based on numerous site specific analyses,however the majority of statements and general analyses in this document appear to have beencopied and pasted from the GEIS without regard to site specific conditions. For example, theDraft SEIS appears to grossly underestimate the difficulty of reclamation in the Great DivideBasin because the dry climate, short growing season and poorly developed soils. There willlikely be several years, not months, of reclamation before sufficient vegetation is established tobuffer overland flows and erosion potential from the disturbed areas to approximate naturalhydrologic conditions. The statement "Furthermore, while the NRC Staff has identifiedadditional new information during its independent review; it nevertheless, does not change theexpected environmental impact beyond what was described in the GELS" was inserted dozens oftimes into the document; however, it does not appear that any "additional new information" wasever used in Draft SEIS to come up with different conclusions than the GEIS, leading the readerto wonder if that information was truly analyzed.
Additionally, supporting documents, such as the Environmental Report, were not readilyavailable to the public, as described in section 1.4.3, so it is difficult to provide meaningfulcomments on many aspects of the project, such as reclamation and erosion control. The NRCshould have made every effort to provide this documentation to cooperators and the public sothat it could receive meaningful comments.
Many of the details in the Draft SEIS regarding Class I injection wells differed significantlyfrom information the operator has submitted to the WQD in their application for a Class Iunderground injection control permit. The NRC has not made any apparent attempt to verifywhether information in the Draft SEIS corresponds with site specific information the WQD has.Discrepancies such as this give the impression the NRC is more interested in processing thepermit application than doing a thorough analysis of the impacts and disclosing them to thepublic.
The NRC does not appear to have a good understanding of the environmental and reclamationissues in this area, or what the BLM requirements are for reclamation and monitoring of surfacedisturbance; the Draft SEIS addresses these issues as if the project were on fertile farmland in inan area with abundant precipitation. The reclamation plan will need to comply with the BLM'sWyoming Reclamation Policy and should be clearly described in an appendix to the SEIS,including measures to monitor success and revegetate where needed. In addition to assessing thelong-term impacts from surface disturbance as "SMALL", "MODERATE", or "LARGE", theNRC should investigate reclamation from other mining and/or energy development in the area torealistically estimate the length of time impacts would occur as well as estimate the totalreclamation costs, which often exceed $ 1 0,000 per acre. Surface disturbance should beminimized whenever possible. Viable topsoil in this area is extremely shallow and fragile. Ifsoil is removed, the thin top layer of viable topsoil should be removed and segregated from therest of the soil and reapplied separately rather than mixing it with less viable soil.
Roads and other surface disturbances are a major cause of erosion and other hydrologic problemsin this area. Construction design should take into account the topography and drainage patternsso that natural drainage patterns are not disrupted, even in small ephemeral channels, becausethey do convey water during runoff from intense rainstorm events, which are fairly common inthe area. Roads, pipelines and other infrastructure should be designed so that surface water is notconcentrated in a way that causes erosion. Runoff and erosion from roads, culverts andephemeral channel crossings can compound and cause significant accelerated channel alteration,both upstream and downstream of the crossings. It is important that all these locations aremonitored so that any erosion can be mitigated before growing into larger erosion problems.
The SEIS needs to analyze alternatives which minimize the amount of surface disturbance andtopsoil removal. Pipelines should be co-located with roads to minimize surface disturbance.Soils which remain in place, even when compacted, can often be reclaimed more quickly andsuccessfully than soils which have been removed and replaced. If possible, operators shouldinstall pipelines with techniques such as plowing, and vegetation should be mowed rather thanbladed to minimize soil disturbance. Instead of digging hundreds of mud pits and reclaimingthem, the operator should use portable tanks to contain drilling mud and other fluids, which willsignificantly reduce the amount of surface disturbance and reclamation costs, as well as reducingrisks of contamination and erosion.
Chapter 4 of the WDEQ Water Quality Rules and Regulations requires that the WQD be notifiedof spills or releases of chemicals and petroleum products. The SEIS should reiterate this andexplain how soils, groundwater and surface water impacted by spills, leaks and releases ofchemicals, petroleum products and produced water will be restored.
According to the application submitted to the WQD (Petrotek Engineering Corporation,Application for an underground injection control permit, Class I, Lost Creek ISR, LLC -- LostCreek Project: Application 09-586 submitted on June 26, 2009.), the operator is proposing toconstruct 5 Class I injection wells to dispose of well field bleed, yellowcake wash water, bleedfrom eluant and precipitation circuits, sumps, membrane cleaning solutions, laboratory waste,reverse osmosis brine, groundwater sweep (restoration) solutions, and plant washdown water. Itis anticipated that each well will be allowed to inject at a rate up to 50 gal/min, for a maximum
cumulative injection rate of 250 gal/min. Over the proposed injection period of 10 years, themaximum volume of waste injected would be about 1,315 million gallons (assuming continuousinjection at the maximum rate). Maximum concentrations in the injected waste are expected tobe 15 mg/L for U3Og, 3,000 pCi/L for 226Ra, 500 mg/L ammonia (as N), and 15,000 mg/L totaldissolved solids.
The wells will be spread throughout the mine permit area in SWI/4 section 13 and SW 1/4section 25 in T25N, R93 W and in NE 1/4 section 17, SE 1/4 section 18 and SE 1/4 section 19 inT25N, R92W. All will inject into a 2,000 ft interval of the upper and middle Fort UnionFormation below a depth of about 6,100 ft. Net thickness of perforations would be about 625 ft.The injection interval is overlain by the Battle Spring Formation. A test well was drilled to adepth of 9,997 ft (KB) to investigate site hydrogeology and will be converted to an injection wellif the permit is issued. Geophysical logs were run and water samples were collected. Totaldissolved solids concentrations in water samples from the injection interval are generally in therange of 10,000 to 14,000 mg/L.
There are no oil or gas wells inside the mine permit area or within one mile of the permitboundary. There are no water wells within the mine permit area and there are 3 stock wateringwells within one mile of the permit boundary. The stock wells have reported yields less than 20gal/min and total depths of 220, 370, and 900 ft.
The lengths of the main ephemeral drainages in the project area, and channcl gradients andwatershed areas and should be quantified. Additionally the drainage features should be betterdescribed, such as whether they are vegetated swales or dry washes, etc.
Specific Comments
Page 3-1 Lines 30-32. The statement that there are "...only a few ephemeral drainages thatcould convey surface runoff during spring snowmelt and following intense rainstorms" isincorrect and contradicts the more accurate information in section 3.5.1.2. The area has manyephemeral channels which were formed primarily from conveyance of surface runoff followingintense rainstorms.
Page 3-13 Lines 30-38. Because of subtle differences in the wording regarding waterclassifications, there are a number of significant incorrect statements in this paragraph. Allsurface waters in Wyoming lacking a Use Attainability Analysis, or other credible dataindicating otherwise, are protected as Class 3 waters by default; all waters in the project area areClass 3 (Class 3B is a subset of Class 3). Please cite WDEQ-WQD Rules and Regulations,Chapter I and change the paragraph to read:
The only channel within the Lost Creek project area specifically classified by the WDEQis Battle Spring Draw, Class 3B. Lacking a Use Attainability Analysis or other credibledata, the unnamed channels, tributaries and ponds are protected as Class 3 waters bydefault Class 3 waters are waters, other than those designated as Class 1, that areintermittent, ephemeral or isolated waters and because of natural habitat conditions, donot support nor have the potential to support fish populations or spawning, or certainperennial waters which lack the natural water quality to support fish.
Page 3-17 Lines 21-26. Although these waters may not be tributary to a "navigable" water body,all surface waters are waters of the state, and are protected as such.
Page 4-24 Lines 15-18. Although these surface waters may not be considered waters of the U.S.,all surface waters are waters of the state, and are protected as such under Wyoming law. TheSEIS needs to analyze the impacts to surface waters, regardless of their classification.
Page 4-25 Lines 6-11. The numerous incised ephemeral channels in this environment are verysusceptible to erosion; placing any wells in an ephemeral channel will likely result in increasederosion and will greatly increase the risk of breached infrastructure and subsequent releases oflixiviant or other fluids. Although riprap or diversion swales could be used to protect the wellheads, any stream flows forced to go around these structures will cause energy to be redirectedelsewhere in the channel, resulting in excessive erosion. Placing any wells in an ephemeralchannel is completely unacceptable.
Page 4-25 Lines 12-17. Digging mud pits will result in needless acres of surface disturbance andreclamation, and will greatly increase costs and risks of erosion and environmentalcontamination. The operator should use portable tanks to contain mud and other fluidsassociated with well drilling.
Page 4-25 Lines 19-21. Discharge of water from the wells onto the land surface or into channelswill require permitting from the WQD. This should be noted here and also added to Table 1.2.
Page 4-25 Lines 26-29. If any wells are placed within ephemeral channels, the scope, nature andextent of surface water impacts associated with well installation would be LARGE, not small.Placing any wells within an incised ephemeral channel is completely unacceptable.
Page 4-25 Lines 30-37. Discharge of hydrostatic test water from the pipelines onto the landsurface or into ephemeral channels will require permitting from the WQD. This should be notedhere and also added to Table 1.2.
Page 4-40 Table 4.1. Even during years with above normal precipitation, successful revegetationin this area takes years, not "two weeks to six months"; therefore, no surface disturbance willonly have short term impacts- This table and the entire document need to be changed to reflectthis.
Page 6-2 Lines 29-30. Runoff and erosion from roads, culverts and ephemeral channel crossingscan compound and cause significant sediment loading as well as channel alteration bothupstream and downstream of the crossings. It is important that all these locations are monitoredso that any erosion can be mitigated before growing into larger erosion problems.
Page 6-7 Lines 1-7. This appears to conflict with the information in section 6.3.3. The surfacewater monitoring plan must be thoroughly described in the SEIS, including specificmethodology, the parameters which will be monitored in the event of a spill, and frequency ofmonitoring.
Page 6-11 Lines 11-21. The surface water monitoring plan must be thoroughly described in theSEIS. Monitoring should also occur during any runoff events from snowmelt. Are the parameterswhich will be monitored in the event of a precipitation event the same as those parameters inTable 6.1? How frequently during runoff events will monitoring occur?
In conclusion, placing wells within the highly erosive ephemeral channels creates unacceptablerisk to groundwater and surface water quality. Additionally, the numerous inconsistencies, thelack of specificity, lack of detailed site specific analyses, and the amount of surface disturbancegiven the reclamation and erosion issues in the Great Divide Basin appear to be inadequate toaddress possible environmental consequences.
To: Don McKenzie, Land Quality Division Administrator
Cc: John Wagner, Water Quality Division Administrator
From: Mark Conrad, Water Quality Division NEPA Coordinator
RE: Nichols Ranch ISR Draft SEIS Comments
General Comments
When the Water Quality Division (WQD) commented on the lack of specificity in the GETS, theNRC assured us that the detailed site specific information would be disclosed and analyzed inany project level NEPA documents that tiered off the GEIS. Therefore, we expected this DraftSETS to be based on considerable site specific data and numerous site specific analyses.However, the majority of statements and general analyses in this document appear to have beencopied and pasted from the GElS with little regard to site specific conditions or project plans. Itappears this project is much too early in planning stage to adequately address potential possibleenvironmental impacts. Statements such as "Furthermore, the staff has not identified any newand significant information during its independent review that would change the expectedenvironmental impact beyond those discussed in the GEIS" were inserted dozens of times intothe document; however, it does not appear that much site specific was used in Draft SEIS tocome up with different conclusions than the GEIS, leading the reader to wonder how muchinformation was actually used to write the Draft SEIS and if that information was truly analyzed.Without full disclosure of site specific information, the WQD cannot conduct an adequate reviewof possible impacts to water quality.
It appears the NRC is rushing to conduct NEPA review before there is adequate site specificinformation available to analyze. The WQD recommends that the Nichols Ranch ISR DraftSEIS be rewritten with detailed site specific information and analyses, and republished for publiccomment to allow cooperators and the public an opportunity to thoroughly review and providecomments. The WQD can provide examples of the types of detail expected to be provided in aDraft SEIS.
The WQD offers the following comments for consideration and incorporation into a new DraftSEIS, Because of the lack of details in this Draft SEIS, the WQD is unable to provide manyspecific line by line comments,
The WQD did not analyze the potential for lixiviant excursions or aquifer restoration, as this ispart of the Land Quality Division's responsibility in permitting the facility.
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has not yet received an application forClass injection wells at the Nichols Ranch ISR. Employees of the project proponent havediscussed a Class I application with WQD personnel but details of the plans are not known.Nichols Ranch is close to the Moore Ranch ISR and the alternatives for deep disposal would besimilar, i.e., disposal into the Lance and Fox Hills Formations with TDS <3,000 mg/L or into theTeckla, Teapot, and/or Parkman with TDS in the range of 7,000-15,000 mg/L. Formation depthsmay differ by less than 1,000 ft.
Lines in the EIS listed below, and probably others, may need to be changed:Page 3-14:12 The Upper Cretaceous aquifer consists of sandstone beds interbedded with siltstone and13 claystone in the Lance and He1 e Formations and the Fox Hill Sandstone. The Fox Hills
[The Lance and Hell Creek are stratigraphically equivalent - "Lance" is the term used inWyoming.]
20 The water becomes saline in the deep parts of the Powder River Basin. The Paleozoic aquifers21 cover a larger area, but they are deeply buried in most places and contain little freshwater.[Some samples of deep Madison water have TDS <10,000 mg/L.]
Page 3-23:21 of the Wasatch Formation. The Fort Union Formation is not extensively used becausesufficient22 yields of groundwater are available from the overlying Wasatch Formation. [The Fort Unionis heavily pumped for coalbed methane production.]
Page 5-11:[Section 5.5.2 does not mention impacts to the aquifers used for deep disposal.]
Surface Water Comments
The WQD is extremely concerned that any wells are proposed to be placed within ephemeralstream channels. Placing any wells in an ephemeral channel will likely result in increasederosion and will greatly increase the risk of breached infrastructure and subsequent releases oflixiviant or other fluids. Although riprap or diversion swales could be used to protect the wellheads, any stream flows forced to go around these structures will cause energy to be redirectedelsewhere in the channel, possibly resulting in excessive erosion. Placing any wells in anephemeral channel is likely unacceptable. Again, there were not enough site specific detailsprovided in the Draft SEIS to provide rationale why any wells should be allowed to be placed
within ephemeral stream channels; the WQD can only surmise that it would be most convenientfor the proponent.
Roads and other surface disturbances are a major cause of erosion and other hydrologic problemsin Wyoming. Construction design should take into account the topography and drainage patternsso that natural drainage patterns are not disrupted, even in small ephemeral channels, becausethey do convey water during runoff from intense rainstorm events, which are fairly common inthe area. Roads, pipelines and other infrastructure should be designed so that surface water is notconcentrated in a way that causes erosion. Runoff and erosion from roads, culverts andephemeral channel crossings can compound and cause significant accelerated channel alteration,both upstream and downstream of the crossings. It is important that all these locations aremonitored so that any erosion can be mitigated before growing into larger erosion problems.
Viable topsoil in this area is only a few centimeter thick. When soil is removed, the thin toplayer of viable topsoil should be removed and segregated from the rest of the soil and reappliedseparately rather than mixing it with less viable soil. The reclamation plan should be clearlydescribed in an appendix to the new Draft SEIS, including descriptions of the soil properties, soilremoval, stockpiling and reclamation techniques, and measures to monitor success andrevegetate where needed.
Chapter 4 of the WDEQ Water Quality Rules and Regulations requires that the WQD be notifiedof spills or releases of chemicals and petroleum products. The new Draft SEIS should reiteratethis and explain how soils, groundwater and surface water impacted by spills, leaks and releasesof chemicals, petroleum products and produced water will be restored.
To significantly reduce the acreage of overall surface disturbance in the project area, the WQDrecommends the use of portable tanks and closed loop mud systems to contain drilling mud andother fluids, rather than digging and reclaiming hundreds of mud pits.
In conclusion, the WQD recommends that the Nichols Ranch ISR Draft SEIS be rewrittenincorporating and analyzing detailed site specific information, then republished the Draft SEISfor public comment to allow cooperators and the public opportunity to adequately review andprovide meaningful comments.
SUBJECT: Review Comments on Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supplemental EnvironmentalImpact Statements:
A) USNRC Environmental Impact Statement for Moore Ranch ISR Project inCampbell County, Wyoming - Supplement to the Generic Environmental ImpactStatement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities (Draft Report);
B) USNRC Environmental Impact Statement for Nichols Ranch ISR Project inCampbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming - Supplement to the GenericEnvironmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities(Draft Report); and
C) USNRC Environmental Impact Statement for Lost Creek ISR Project inSweetwater County, Wyoming - Supplement to the Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities (Draft Report)
Contained herein are SHWD comments on the above-referenced documents (SEISs), as requested.These documents were published in December of 2009 and are supplemental to the Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement for Uranium In-Situ Leaching Milling Facilities (GE[S). The SHWD providedcomments on the draft GEIS on May 12, 2008. A copy of the memorandum providing these comments isattached for reference. As was done on the GELS, the SHWD is providing comments regarding both themanagement of solid and hazardous wastes generated at the proposed facilities and also remediation ofenvironmental contamination that occurs during the construction, operations, restoration anddecommissioning of the facilities. Both general and specific comments are provided with the issues ofgreatest concern being addressed in the general comments.
The Solid Waste Permitting and Corrective Action Program has the responsibility to ensure thatnon-hazardous solid waste storage, treatment, transfer and disposal are being conducted in accordance withWyoming Solid Waste Rules and Regulations except for mining related wastes (non-hazardous) that aregenerated and managed entirely within the boundaries of the area permitted under the mining permit issuedby LQD which are addressed under the mining permit. In general terms, the wastes that may be generatedfor which management requirements are administered by this program include the following: municipalsolid waste (MSW) associated with the influx of additional population during construction, operation,restoration and decommissioning phases, construction wastes generated during construction, used oilgenerated during all phases, contaminated soil generated during all phases, office wastes generated duringall phases, and industrial wastes, including I I e(2) solid by-product wastes, generated during all phases.This includes solid waste materials which are recycled or reused.
The Hazardous Waste Permitting and Corrective Action Program issues permits for the operationand post-closure care of regulated hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities. The Programalso imposes Corrective Action requirements necessary to clean up releases of hazardous chemicals fromthese facilities, either as a component of the facility permit, or as a corrective action order. The program
Memorandum to Don McKenzieFebruary 19, 2010Page 2 of 9
has the authority to regulate the management of hazardous waste in Wyoming. This includes the authorityto require permits for the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste. In addition, waste generatorsare required to determine whether generated wastes are hazardous waste, and insure those wastes aremanaged appropriately through a DEQ-issued hazardous waste treatment, storage and/or disposal facilitypermit or to manage those wastes at an approved off-site facility permitted for the management ofhazardous waste.
Although releases occurring within the LQD permit boundary will be addressed under theauthority of the LQD unless contaminated media are managed off-site, in order to ensure thatenvironmental impacts to air, soil, surface water and groundwater are indeed SMALL, operators need toprepare and implement release response plans describing how releases will be identified and responded toin a timely and responsible manner. SHWD regulatory concerns in this area are principally with themanagement of contaminated media, such as soils, that will occur as a result of spills and other releasesespecially if contaminated media are transported to solid waste disposal or treatment facilities in Wyoming.Transportation-related releases that occur outside of the permit boundary will be addressed by otherprograms within DEQ depending on the extent of the release, the type of material released and theenvironmental media that is impacted by the release. Similarly, the ability to minimize environmentalimpacts to air, soil, surface water and groundwater is contingent upon the ability to implement a timely andeffective response to such releases. With regards to spills from any pipelines that may exist outside of theLQD permit boundary, in order to minimize impacts of releases from such pipelines, plans for pipelineinspection, testing, maintenance and replacement are necessary. Lastly, leakage from impoundments thatis not identified and addressed in a timely manner has the potential to impact large volumes of subsurfacesoils. In order to reduce the amount of material that will need to be managed as a solid waste, including1 1 e(2) waste, it is critical that rigorous leak detection and mitigation systems are in place for allimpoundments at ISL facilities.
General Crmments
Solid Waste (non-] le(2))ManaggmentI. The only actual quantitative estimates provided in the SEISs are for the operations phase. Because
many landfills in Wyoming are close to capacity and/or planning to close, it is important todevelop estimates of the quantities for each phase of the projects in order to determine whetheradequate capacity exists at existing solid waste permitted facilities in the area. Additionally, it isimportant that landfill operators of facilities being considered to handle wastes generated at each ofthese facilities are contacted to ensure landfills are able to accommodate the projected wastevolumes and types associated with the various phases of the projects and to ensure that the ISRproject location is within the landfill service area. It is apparent that this was not done for thedevelopment of the supplemental documents in that some landfills being referenced for wastemanagement will be out of capacity and closing prior to or in the early phases of the proposed ISRproject commencement.
2. Some conservatism needs to be incorporated into the waste volume estimates to accommodateunknowns such as potential volumes of contaminated soils and other potential contaminatedmedia.
3. Transportation impacts seem to be trivialized and do not account for the potential hauling of wastethat may be generated through all phases of construction, operations, restoration anddecommissioning, and in addition to the potentially significant volume of solid waste generated ascontaminated soils.
;3077775864 # 1/ 5913014923446
03-01-10;10:34 ;DEQ/LQD
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUTYLAND QUAUTY DNWISON122 WESI 25TH STREET
ATrACHMENT 4 WDEQ/SHWD PAGE 3 OF 9Memorandum to Don McKenzieFebruary 19, 2010Page 3 of 9
4. The three SEISs trivialize the amount of municipal solid waste generated during the projects.Disposal of solid wastes generated throughout the life of the projects (construction,operation, restoration and decommissioning phases) could potentially impart MODERATEto LARGE impacts on the capacities of smaller MSW disposal facilities and cause suchfacilities to prematurely close. The siting and permitting of landfills entails an onerous,expensive and difficult process. Forcing a small community to undertake such an endeavor underan expedited schedule would impose an undue burden on the community.
5. Spent resins, empty chemical containers, tank sediments/sludges, contaminated soils from leaksand spills, and other chemical related wastes may be hazardous under Wyoming regulations. Theoperator is responsible for determining if such wastes are hazardous and managing themappropriately. Although conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) wastes may bedisposed in municipal landfills, wastes must not be liquid and must pass the paint filter liquids testin order to be comply with regulations for disposal at municipal landfills.
6. The Solid Waste Program encourages applicants to consider development of on-site recyclingplans for use during the construction, operation, restoration and decommissioning phases offacility operations. This plan could identify recycling goals, recycling methods such as creatingclearly labeled on-site containers/dumpsters for material segregation (cardboard, metals, wood,concrete, paper, etc.), education of the work force on recycling techniques, and monitoring toverify that proper recycling occurs. Depending on the volume of material accumulated prior totransporting and where this activity occurs, a solid waste permit from DEQ may be required.
Hazardous Waste Manazement1. The operator is responsible for complying with regulations and site-specific license agreements for
managing any wastes generated.2. For the life cycle of the project, the operator is required to identify all potential waste streams, to
determine whether those waste streams are listed or characteristic hazardous wastes, to determineappropriate hazardous waste management options, and to obtain the necessary hazardous wastepermits if hazardous waste is proposed to be treated, stored or disposed on-site. The permitteeshould work with the WDEQ, as necessary, to determine the regulatory status of the waste streams.It should be noted that these requirements apply both to as-generated process wastes, and to anywastes that result from the release (leaking, spilling, etc.) of any substance containing hazardousconstituents.
II e(2) (radioactive) By-Product Solid Wasge ManagementI. Although a reference is made to the limits on volumes of this type of material that can be managed
at the Pathfinder Mines facility in Carbon County, Wyoming, no mention of the role the state playsin authorizing additional facilities of this nature in Wyoming is contained in the GEIS or theSEISs. As this material is defined as solid waste by Wyoming statute, it is subject to regulatoryrequirements in addition to requirements imposed by NRC.
2. The volume of this waste type provided in the GElS during decommissioning is apparentlyestimated based on the Smith Ranch ISR project estimates for decommissioning at 6008 cubicyards (page 2-32, Table 2.6-1). No project specific estimates for decommissioning wastes areprovided in the SEISs. References are made to the preparation of decommissioning plans to beprepared at a later date subject to the approval of NRC. However, it is stated in the SEISs thatcommencement of operations is subject to the securing of adequate capacity for disposal of 1i e(2)waste at a licensed facility as documented by written agreement. It is not apparent how this will bepossible without estimates of the volumes of wastes generated during decommissioning.
Memorandum to Don McKenzieFebruary 19, 2010Page 4 of 9
3. Decommissioning waste estimates need to include liner from ponds. Discussions in the SEISs ofthe decommissioning I Ie(2) wastes that will be generated make no mention of ponds liners, whichcan comprise a fairly significant portion of the total volume of decommissioning wastes.
4. The possibility of using the Pathfinder Mines disposal site for disposal of I le(2) waste is raised ineach of the SEISs. The remaining capacity allocated for third party disposal as of the end of 2009,based on the annual report submitted by Pathfinder Mine Corporation for this facility was 3012cubic yards. Total available capacity, as of the end of 2009, was reported to be approximately14,000 cubic yards. it is assumed that a significant portion of this capacity has been committed tothe facilities currently engaged in disposal agreements with Pathfinder. Existing agreements fordisposal capacity at this site must be explored to determine whether adequate capacity to handlewastes as discussed under these SEISs truly exists or whether II e(2) wastes will need to beshipped to an out-of-state disposal facility. The Pathfinder Mines facility has residual capacity inits Group I and Group 11 categories but the transfer of this capacity into the Group Ill (third party)category would most likely need to be authorized by the Wyoming Environmental QualityCouncil, as would the allocation of additional storage capacity. Using the information containedin the SEISs for operating and restoration wastes and assuming the 6008 cubic yard estimateprovided in the GEIS for volume of decommissioning wastes, the SHWD estimates the volume of11 e(2) waste that could be generated from the three facilities proposed in the SEISs to beapproximately 21,000 cubic yards. Based on these assumptions, the disposal of I le(2) wastes,if conducted in Wyoming, would impart a LARGE impact to waste management for thistype of material.
5. Predicted volumes of this type of waste are likely biased low for the operating and restorationphases in that it is not apparent that considerations were made for the likely volumes ofcontaminated soils and other release-related contaminated media in making these estimations.
6. Any I le(2) sludges and soils proposed for disposal at the Pathfinder Mines disposal facility mustbe characterized for hazardous characteristics and determined not to be hazardous in order to bedisposed at Pathfinder facility. In the event that mixed wastes are identified (i.e., both radioactiveand hazardous), such waste must be appropriately managed and disposed.
Specific Comments
A) Specific Comments on Moore Ranch 1SR ProjectinCampbell Couno_, WY:
I. Page xvii, Transportation. Impacts could potentially be more significant as a result of significantvolumes of contaminated soils generated and no estimates for decommissioning wastes.
2. Page xxiv under waste management trivializes the potential impact to local MSW landfillsespecially, the Midwest-Edgerton landfill. Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of MSW andconstruction/demolition (C&D) wastes are estimated to be produced each year with a facility lifeexpectancy of 16 years. It is estimated by the Midwest-Edgerton municipal landfill operator thatthe landfill capacity, at the existing disposal rate, will be exhausted and the landfill will close in2010. Without having identified specific landfills in the area that may have adequatecapacity to manage the solid waste generated, it Is impossible to determine that the potentialimpacts to waste management will be SMALL. With regards to potential impacts from themanagement of II e(2) waste, please refer to the comments made in comment #4 of the GeneralComments section regarding 1 le(2) (radioactive) By-Product Solid Waste Management above.
3- Page 1-3, Table I-1 should be corrected to address specific comment #2 above.4. Page 1-7, Table 1-2. Please refer to General Comment #1 in the section regarding lle(2)
(radioactive) By-Product Solid Waste Management above with regards to the state's role in
Memorandum to Don McKenzieFebruary 19, 2010Page 5 of 9
managing this type of waste.5. Page 2-22, Section 2.1.1,6,3, lines 25-37 refers to a list of solid wastes. Depending on the
chemical characterization of the spent resin, empty chemical containers, tank sediments,contaminated soils from leaks and spills, etc., these wastes could be considered hazardous.Identification and characterization of wastes are the responsibility of the operator.
6. Page 2-23, Section 2.1.1.6.3.1. It is assumed that the reference to "uncontaminated" solid wastemeans solid wastes without radiologic contamination. If this is the case, it needs to be statedclearly that that is what is being discussed in this section. If this is not the case, please clarify whatis meant by "uncontaminated solid waste".
7. Page 2-23, Section 2.1.1.6.3.2. Please refer to General Comments 2 and 3 in the section regardingIl)e(2) (radioactive) By-Product Solid Waste Management above for comments on estimatedquantities of this type of waste.
8. Page 2-23, Section 2.1.1.6.3.4 line 30 refers to generation of used waste oil and batteries. Used oilis not a hazardous waste. However, it is regulated under both Wyoming Hazardous Waste andSolid Waste regulations (in the event of used oil storage). Depending on the volume of used wasteoil stored on site and the number of batteries generated, a Chapter 6 permit under the Solid WasteRules and Regulations may be required.
9. Page 2-33,Table 2-3 should be corrected to address specific comment #2 above. AdditionallyWaste Management impacts are all described as small. Adequate information has not beenobtained to make this determination. Operators of landfills being considered for solid wastedisposal must be contacted to ensure that adequate capacity exists, as was discussed in Comment#4 of the General Comments on Solid Waste Management above. For 1 e(2) (radioactive) by-product solid wastes, similarly it does not appear that contact has been made with disposalfacilities for this type of material to ensure that adequate capacity is available. It is not clear howan assessment of potential impacts can be made without this information.
10. Page 3-50, Section 3.11.7. line 36 refers to Midwest Industrial Landfill. The sentence incorrectlystates that an industrial landfill is present near the Town of Midwest. No permitted industriallandfill is present in the described area. It is assumed that the document is referring to theMidwest-Edgerton Landfill which is a municipal landfill.
11. Page 3-55, Section 3.13.1.. line 20 should be corrected to address specific comment #2 above.12. Page 3-55, Section 3.13.3 describes the Pathfinder Mines Shirley Basin disposal site as the
preferred site for the disposal of I I e(2) solid waste by-product material. This section alsodiscusses the limits to the available capacity at this site. In order to determine potential impactsfrom the management of this material, more accurate estimates of the volume that will be producedduring all phases of the project relative to available capacities at disposal sites being consideredmust be made.
13. Page 4-10, Section 4.3.1.2 line 9 states that non-radioactive waste will be hauled to Midwest-Edgerton twice a week. This discussion needs to be revised as is described in specific comment #2above.
14. Page 4-52, Section 4.8.1.4 line 5 refers to a county landfill. It is unknown which landfill is beingreferred to but Midwest-Edgerton is not a county landfill.
15. Pages 4-80 through 4-84, Section 4.14 (in entirety). In order to accurately determine potentialimpacts from the management of 11 e(2) solid waste by-product material, more accurate estimatesof the volume that will be produced during all phases of the project relative to available capacitiesat disposal sites being considered must be made. UJntil such evaluations are made and estimatesparticularly of material generated during decommissioning are included in estimates volumes,assuming impacts will be SMALL is inappropriate.
16. Pages 4-80 through 4-83, Section 4.14.1 refers to a SMALL potential environmental impact. This
Memorandum to Don McKenzieFebruary 19, 2010Page 6 of 9
should be revised as indicated in specific comment #2 above.17. Page 5-8, Section 5.3 states that impacts due to transportation of solid wastes will be SMALL;
however, solid wastes will need to be transported a greater distance than f'ist anticipated (seespecific comment #2 above). As a result, the potential impacts attributable to transportation ofsolid wastes need to be reevaluated.
18. Page 5-18 and 5-19, Section 5.14. The environmental impact assessment needs to be corrected toaddress comments contained in this section (Specific Conmenls on Moore Ranch IJSR Project inCampbell County WY) and the general comments section of this memorandum.
19. Table 8-I needs to be corrected to address comments contained in this section (Specific Commentson Moore Ranch ISR Project in Campbell County WY) and the general comments section of thismemorandum.
B) SPecific Comments on Nichols Ranch ISR Project in Campbell and Johnson Coune.e, WY
I. Page xvii, Transportation. Impacts could potentially be more significant as a result of significantvolumes of contaminated soils generated and no estimates for decommissioning wastes.
2. Page xxiii, Waste Management. Please refer to General Comments numbers 1 and 4 under theSolid Waste (non- I le(2)) Management section and numbers I through 5 under the 1 le(2)(radioactive) By-Product Solid Waste Management section with regards to the conclusionssummarized in this section.
3. Page 1-4, Table 1-1. Please refer to General Comments numbers I and 4 under the Solid Waste(non-) le(2)) Management section and numbers I through 5 under the I le(2) (radioactive) By-Product Solid Waste Management section with regards to the conclusions summarized in thissection.
4. Page 1-8, Section 1.6.2 and Table 1-2. Please refer to General Comment #1 in the sectionregarding I le(2) (radioactive) By-Product Solid Waste Management above with regards to thestate's role in managing this type of waste.
5. Page 2-24, Section 2.1.1.6.3. Solid wastes are referred to as either non-radioactive or radioactive.The potential exists that both waste categories could be defined as hazardous wastes.Identification and characterization of wastes is the responsibility of the operator.
6. Page 2-25, Section 2.1.1.6.3. Please refer to General Comments 2 and 3 in the section regardingI1e(2) (radioactive) By-Product Solid Waste Management above for comments on estimatedquantities of this type of waste.
7. Page 2-25, Section 2.1,1.6.3, line 14 refers to generation of used oil. Used oil is not a hazardouswaste. However it is regulated under both Wyoming Hazardous Waste and Solid Wasteregulations (in the event of used oil storage). Depending on the volume of used waste oil storedon site and number of batteries generated, a Chapter 6 permit under the Solid Waste Rules andRegulations may be required.
8. Page 2-36, Section 2.3, Table 2-1. Please refer to General Comments numbers I and 4 under theSolid Waste (non-] le(2)) Management section and numbers I through 5 under the I e(2)(radioactive) By-Product Solid Waste Management section with regards to the conclusionssummarized in this table.
9. Page 2-36, Section 2.4. Please refer to General Comments numbers 1 and 4 under the Solid Walte(non-I le(2)) Management section and numbers I through 5 under the I )e(2) (radioactive) By-Product Solid Waste Management section with regards to the discussion contained in this section.
10. Page 3-57, Section 3.13. 1, line 17 refers to C&D wastes that would be disposed in the CampbellCounty landfill or in an adjacent C&D pit specifically Used for such wastes. It is not clear if theadjacent C&D pit is a disposal area at the Campbell County Landfill. Please clarity this reference.
9I3014923446 ;3077775864 # 1/ 5
03-01-10;10:29 ;DEQ/LQD
DEPARTMENTOF ENVIRONMENTAL QUAULYLAND QUALMTY DISION122 WEST 25Th SI"REET
ATTACHMENT 4 WDEQ/SHWD PAGE 7 OF 9Memorandum to Don McKenzie
February 19, 2010Page 7 of 9
i 1. Page 3-57, Section 3.13.1 line 20-22 refers to "WDEQ-approved hazardous waste treatment,storage, or disposal facility for their hazardous waste disposal and transportation." The WDEQdoes not "approve" disposal facilities or transportation arrangements. Additionally, as used oil isnot by definition a hazardous waste, used oil is managed at a number of municipal landfills inaccordance with the Solid Waste permit issued to those facilities. Landfills are also sometimesauthorized to manage a limited number of batteries for recycling. The landfill operator at theCampbell County landfill should be contacted to determine if batteries and/or used oil from theproject can be managed at the landfill.
12. Page 3-57, Section 3.13.3. Please refer to General Comments numbers 1 through 6 under theI le(2) (radioactive) By-Product Solid Waste Management section with regards to the discussioncontained in this section.
13. Pages 4-81 through 4-84, Section 4.14 (in entirety). In order to accurately determine potentialimpacts from the management of I I e(2) solid waste by-product material, more accurate estimatesof the volume that will be produced during all phases of the project relative to available capacitiesat disposal sites being considered must be made. Until such evaluations are made and estimatesparticularly of material generated during decommissioning are included in estimates volumes,assuming impacts will be SMALL is inappropriate. Additionally, please see comments in GeneralComments sections for Solid Waste (non-] le(2)) Management and 11 e(2) (radioactive) By-Product Solid Waste Management regarding information necessary to accurately characterizeimpacts.
14. Page 5-18, Section 5.14. In order to accurately determine potential impacts from themanagement of I I e(2) (radioactive) solid waste by-product material, more accurate estimates ofthe volume that will be produced during all phases of the project relative to available capacities atdisposal sites being considered must be made. Until such evaluations are made and estimatesparticularly of material generated during decommissioning are included in estimates volumes,assuming impacts will be SMALL is inappropriate. Additionally, please see comments in GeneralComments sections for Solid Waste (non-lie(2)) Management and I Je(2) (radioactive) By-Product Solid Waste Management regarding information .necessary to accurately characterizecumulative impacts.
15. Page 8-6, Table 8- I. In order to accurately determine potential impacts from the management of1 e(2) (radioactive) solid waste by-product material, more accurate estimates of the volume thatwill be produced during all phases of the project relative to available capacities at disposal sitesbeing considered must be made. Until such evaluations are made and estimates particularly ofmaterial generated during decommissioning are included in estimates volumes, assuming impactswill be SMALL is inappropriate. Additionally, please see comments in General Commentssections for Solid Waste (non-)] e(2)) Management and I Ie(2) (radioactive) By-Product SolidWaste Management regarding information necessary to accurately characterize impacts.
C) Speciitc Comments on Lost Creek ISR Project in Sweetwater Coun, WY
I. Page xvii, Transportation impacts could potentially be more significant as a result significantvolumes of contaminated soils generated.
2. Page 2-24 Section 2.1.1.6. This section states that liquid wastes are classified as 11 e(2)(radioactive) wastes. This section does not acknowledge that a portion of the solid wastesproposed to be generated are also classified as 11 e(2) wastes.
3. Page 2-28 Section 2.1.1.6.3 does not state at what frequency solids wastes will be transported fromthe facility to a permitted solid waste disposal facility. The transportation impact may have beentrivialized.
Memorandum to Don McKenzieFebruary 19,2010Page 8 of 9
4. Page 2-28, Section 2.1.1.6.3. 1. Estimates for non-I I e(2) by-product solid wastes are 500-700pounds per year which equates to less than I cubic yard of waste per year. This predicted volumeseems unrealistic. The predicted volume needs to be reevaluated for accuracy.
5. Page 2-28, Section 2.1 -1.6.3.2: This section states that 11 e(2) (radioactive) by-product solid wastematerial will be decontaminated and disposed or reused. An estimate needs to be made of howmuch will be decontaminated and disposed to be included in the estimate for solid waste made inthe previous paragraph.
6. Table 2-2: Summary of impacts re: Waste Management. All impacts are described as SMALL.In order to make this assessment, the operators of landfills being considered for solid wastedisposal must be contacted to determine what available capacities exist. For I Ie(2) solid wastes, itis likely that in-state capacity is inadequate. The development of additional in-state capacity isconsidered to be a MODERATE to LARGE impact to the management of this type of waste inWyoming.
7. Page 3-70, Section 3.13.1 contains a discussion regarding the Rock Springs landfill as a solidwaste disposal site. Based on the information contained in the Solid Waste permit files for thisfacility, the information provided in the SEIS does not appear to be accurate. Solid Waste recordsdescribe the Rock Spring landfill as accepting about 150 tons of waste per day versus the 250 tonsof waste described in the supplemental report. Also the total site capacity provided to thedepartment in their last renewal permit was described as 18,247,500 cubic yards.
9. Page 3-71, Section 3.13.3. This section provides no information on the available capacity of anyof the I Ie(2) (radioactive solid waste by-product disposal sites being considered. This informationis essential to determining what impacts to solid waste management will be incurred as a result ofthe project being implemented.
9. Pages 4-98 through 4-102, Section 4.14 (in entirety). In order to accurately determine potentialimpacts from the management of 11 e(2) solid waste by-product material, more accurate estimatesof the volume that will be produced during all phases of the project relative to available capacitiesat disposal sites being considered must be made. Until such evaluations are made and estimratesparticularly of material generated during decommissioning are included in estimates volumes,assuming impacts will be SMALL is inappropriate. Additionally, please see comments in GeneralComments sections for Solid Waste (non-)] e(2)) Management and I Je(2) (radioactive) By-Product Solid Waste Management regarding information necessary to accurately characterizeimpacts.
.10. Page 4-98, Section 4.14. 1.1. The amount of construction generated solid wastes is described ash4small". An estimated amount of wastes generated relative to available capacity at disposalfacilities being considered is needed in order to evaluate potential impacts from/to solid wastemanagement. Also landfill operators need to be contacted to ensure that available capacity existsand if the in-situ facility is within the intended landfill service area,
11. Page 4-99 through 4-100, Section 4.14.1.2. Conditionally exempt small quantity generators ofhazardous waste may dispose of the hazardous waste in a solid waste permitted landfill if; thegenerator is conditionally exempt, and the landfill accepts the waste. The WDEQ prefers thatCESQGs manage their waste at permitted hazardous waste disposal facilities.
12. Page 4-100, Section 4.14.1-2. Used oil is not a hazardous waste. However it is regulatedunder both Wyoming Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste regulations (in the event of used oilstorage). Depending on the volume of used waste oil stored on site and number of batteriesgenerated, a Chapter 6 permit under the Solid Waste Rules and Regulations may be required.
13. Page 4-10 1, Section 4.14.1.4. This section does not mention pond liners as a component of I I e(2)waste. Because this waste comprises a significant volume of this type of waste, it needs to beaccounted for in estimating the volume of I I e(2) by-product solid waste that will be generated
Memorandum to Don McKenzieFebruary 19, 2010Page 9 of 9
during decommissioning and in identifying an authorized/licensed disposal facility with adequatecapacity. This needs to be done during licensing, not after the fact, as seems to be stated in thefirst paragraph of this section.
14. Page 5-20 through 5-2 1, Section 5.14. In order to accurately determine potential impacts fromthe management of I I e(2) solid waste by-product material, more accurate estimates of the volumethat will be produced during all phases of the project relative to available capacities at disposalsites being considered must be made. Until such evaluations are made and estimates particularlyof material generated during decommissioning are included in estimates volumes, assumingimpacts will be SMALL is inappropriate. Additionally, please see comments in GeneralComments sections for Solid Waste (non-I le(2)) Management and 1 le(2) (radioactive) By-Product Solid Waste Management regarding information necessary to accurately characterizecumulative impacts-
16. Page 8-7, Table 8-I. In order to accurately determine potential impacts from the management ofII e(2) (radioactive) solid waste by-product material, more accurate estimates of the volume thatwill be produced during all phases of the project relative to available capacities at disposal sitesbeing considered must be made. Until such evaluations are made and estimates particularly ofmaterial generated during decommissioning are included in estimates volumes, assuming impactswill be SMALL is inappropriate. Additionally, please see comments in General Commentssections for Solid Waste (non-) Ie(2)) Management and I e(2) (radioactive) By-Product SolidWaste Management regarding information necessary to accurately characterize impacts.
Ptm• (307) M774W0 FwZ. (307) 77.41610 AARON CLA/WW e b a t e: h t 0 W s t9gv.VIe • .u e m o " M
CEHEALYFRED LUDY
February 25, 2010
ATTACHMENT 5 WG&F PAGE 1 OF 6
WER 11739U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionEnvironmental Impact Statement for theISR Projects Supplement to the GenericEnvironmental Impact Statement for In--Situ LeachUranium Milling FacilitiesDraft Report for Comment (NUREG-1 910, Supplement 2)Campbell, Johnson and Sweetwater Counties
Don McKenzieDepartment of Environmental QualityLand Quality Division122 West 25 h Street- 4 WestCheyenne, WY 82002
Dear Mr. McKenzie:
The staff of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) has reviewed the EnvironmentalImpact Statement (EIS) for the Nichols Ranch, Moore ranch, and Lost Creek ISR ProjectSupplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium MillingFacilities Draft Report for Comment for inclusion with Wyoming DEQ-LQD review. We offerthe following comments for your consideration.
Nichols znd Moore Ranches:
Terrestrial - The maps provided in the EIS document are inadequate to allow us to appropriatelyevaluate potential surface resource impacts at a site/project specific scale for the Nichols andMoore ranches. Thus, our comments are based upon our best approximation of where theproposed project site lies.
The Nichols and Moore Ranches project area lies within the Pumpkin Buttes and North ConversePronghorn Herd Units, as well as the and Pumpkin Buttes and North Converse Mule Deer HerdUnits. Pronghorn use the areas in question for yearlong and winter/year-long habitat. No crucialwinter range for pronghorn is contained within the project area. Mule deer in the region alsoutilize local habitats as yearlong habitat. Any removal of sagebrush habitats will reduce overallforage for both pronghorn and deer. If sage brush habitats are disturbed during the uraniumextraction process, restoration projects that strive to restore sagebrush and associated native plantspecies are recommended.
WGFD encourages the Nichols project, Moore Ranches and Uranium One, Inc. to allow accessto properties for the purpose of hunting big game species. Allowing such access would,contribute greatly to the successful management of both deer and pronghorn.
The area also provides winter, breeding, nesting, and brood-rearing habitat for sage grouse,sharp-tailed grouse, and a variety of other sage-dependent non-game birds and small mammals.WGFD staff considers issues regarding the disturbance of sage grouse breeding and nestinghabitat to be of highest priority. While the project area does not lie within any of the Governor'sdesignated sage grouse core areas. Currently there are no known leks within the proposed projectarea. WGFD encourages Uranium One, Inc. to conduct annual sage grouse lek surveys usingtheir own biologists or by contracting with private wildlife consultants. Should sage grouse leksbe discovered within the project area, WOFD recommends proper steps be taken to avoiddisturbance within a 2-mile buffer of any active breeding areas (leks) used by sage grouse fromMarch 15 to June 30, We recommend that no permanent disturbance occur within 0.25 miles ofknown leks. Construction and other field activities should be avoided within sage grouse lekbuffers during this time period.
The WGFD recommends that additional wildlife surveys be performed to detect the presence ofsensitive or threatened species prior to mining activities that disturb new areas. A winter baldeagle survey should be conducted to document any local roost locations. Surveys should also beconducted to document active nests of other raptor species present on the mine. Listed below arerecommended dates that raptor nest sites should be free of disturbance. A 1/2 mile buffer aroundeach nest should be maintained. Exceptions may be granted based on topography or other site-specific factors.
Osprey: April 15-August IBald Eagle: February 15-August 15Northern Harrier: April 1-July 31Sharp shinned hawk: May I -August 31Cooper's hawk: April 15 -August 15Northern goshawk: April 1-August 15Swainson's hawk: May 1-August 31Red tailed hawk: March 15-July 31Ferruginous hawk: April 1- July 31Golden eagle: February 1-July 31American kestrel: April 1 -August 15Merlin: April I-August 15Peregrine falcon: March I 5-August 15Prairie falcon: March I-August 15
We recommend contacting the Bureau of Land Management and/or the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService regarding active raptor nest sites within the project area.
The WGFD recommends that all topsoil be saved and spread over disturbed areas as soon aspossible after disturbance to accelerate natural and artificial revegetation. Plants suitable forwildlife most dependent upon the disturbed site should be planted.
Aquatfi - The described operational practices to mitigate impacts and prevent erosion and waterquality degradation, and compliance with applicable federal and state regulations, permitconditions, the use of best management practices, and required mitigation measures described inthe EIS should be adequate to reduce construction and operation impacts to surface waters.Therefore, we have no additional aquatic concerns.
Lost Creek:
Terrestrial - The proposed Lost Creek Mine site lies within a State of Wyoming Sage GrouseCore Area (SGCA). The following comments are based upon pre-listing decision knowledge.This knowledge as well as WGFD's recommendations may change after the USFWS listingdecision.
The EIS consistently explains that 'the applicant has agreed to adhere to the guidelines providedby the Wyoming Game & Fish Department for species of concern, such as the sage grouseduring construction and operations of the ISR facility.' Based upon conversations betweenWGFD with the proponent, the 5% and I site per 640 acres cannot be met.
Pg xix Line I - Raptors are not the only group of species negatively affected by powerlines.Powerlines affect distribution and habitat use by prairie grouse, and would be expected to impactsage grouse as well, in addition to increasing fragmentation of sage grouse habitats.
Pg 1-13 Line 2 - The "core area" concept towards sage grouse management encompasses allessential habitats for that species, not just "breeding" areas.
Pg 3-37 Line 1 - The status of the Crooked Well lek in 2007 is considered to be "unknown",based upon the presence of four males on the lek site at strutting time during the breeding season.Had those 4 males been observed to actively strut on the site, the status would be considered"Active", regardless of how many other surveys failed to find birds that season.
Page 3-37 - The EIS states, 'present in two additional lek surveys; therefore, it is consideredinactive (LCI, 2008b). No other birds were observed on the lek during 2007. According to LCI,no birds displaying lek behavior have been observed on the Crooked Well Lek since 1994. LCIintends to request the WGFD to reclassify the lek as Unoccupied/Abandoned based on thisinformation. Six active leks were located within 3.2-km (2.0 mi) of the project boundary. Thelocations of these leks with a 3.2-kmi (2.0 mi) buffer are presented in Figure 3-12.' All of theseleks are within the sage grouse core area and need to have the stipulations sage grouse core areastipulation applied.
Pg 3-40 Line 42 - Other reptile species that might be expected to occur on the project site wouldinclude the Northern Sagebrush Lizard. Amphibian species that could occur include tigersalamander, Great Basin spadefoot, Northern leopard frog, and boreal chorus frog.
Pg 3-44 Line 4 - The official name we use for Calamospiza melanocorys is "Lark Bunting", not"wouldow lark bunting". Was this a typo, since it is repeated later in the document?
Pg 3-44 Table 3-6 - It might be clearer if the page break inside this table occurred betweenindividual species, rather than within a species, avoiding the confusing first line on the followingpage.
Pg 4-2 Line 22 -- WGFD recommends that wildlife surveys be conducted for raptor nests. Tocomply with WGFD and BLM guidelines for sage grouse, that access road needs to be realignedto avoid leks by at least 0.6 mile, which the existing two-track road currently does not do.
Pg 4-24 Line 27 - We were unable to find any Section 2.2.2.2 in this document to learn moreabout the projected use of the Lost Creek Road, and would be curious why such informationwould be included under Section 2.2. Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis. Weassume there is a typographic error here?
Pg 4-43 - Many of the mitigation measures listed on this page, and the next, benefit other speciesmore than big game and logically should not be listed under the "Big Game" section. Were thesemeasures supposed to be set aside in a separate table?
Pg 4-43 Line 12 - An additional measure to mitigate impacts to big game would be arequirement that access roads NOT be fenced, to facilitate big game migrations, particularly forpronghorn. The existing two-track road accessing the site from the west parallels the SevenLakes boundary fence. If access from the west is desired, the road or fence should be moved toavoid the added barrier of both fence and traffic side by side, and reduce the likelihood ofwildlife collisions from panicked animals becoming trapped between the fence line and traffic.If not feasible, a wildlife friendly fence should be used.
Pg 4-44 Lines 1-4 - While raptor inhibitors may successfully prevent avian predators fromroosting on power poles, experience with the major powerline immediately west of this projecthas shown that sage grouse may still avoid the tall power poles.
Pg 4-44 Lines 5-6 - See comment supporting this mitigation measure listed above.
Pg 4-45 Line II -- The Rawlins BLM Resource Management Plan uses protective dates for sagegrouse that are based upon data specific to sage grouse population in this area. The protectivedates for the two-mile nesting habitat is March I through July IS, not March 15.
Pg 4-47 Line 27 - The analysis should consider habitat loss and avoidance due to sage grouseavoiding powerlines and other tall structures. This innate avoidance cannot be simply mitigatedby inhibiting raptor perching, and greatly increases the habitat fragmentation due to this project.
Pg 4-47 Line 36 - Per the Governor's Executive Order, WGFD reminds the proponent thatindustry needs to demonstrate their activities can occur without impacts to sage grousepopulations.
Pg 4-47 Line 41 - There are impacts to sage grouse and their use of habitat related to avoidanceof tall structures that raptor inhibitors do not solve.
Pg 4-48 Line 9 - We notice WGFD did not concur with these conclusions that impacts to sagegrouse could be mitigated to be SMALL.
Page 4-48 - The EIS states, 'Seasonal guidelines for greater sage grouse with respect to noise,vehicular traffic, and human disturbance have been established by the WGFD (WGFD 2009) andBLM (BLM 2008b). If BMPs are implemented that minimize noise, vehicular traffic, and humanproximity in the vicinity of leks (within the 2-mile radius of an active lek), direct and indirectimpacts to sage-grouse would be reduced from MODERATE to SMALL.' There can be noseasonal disturbance within the core area between 3/15 & 6/30 regardless of distance from leks.
Pg 4-61 Line 30 - Loud continuous noises may force sage grouse to abandon lek sites entirely,which essentially eliminates breeding success within a large area of habitat, rather than just"reducing" breeding success.
Pg 4-62 Line 62 - We are pleased to see that compressors would be contained in structures thatwould muffle noise. We recommend these structures remained closed and sealed whencompressors are running, and mufflers be designed to reduce noise to ambient levels withinI 00m of the source.
Aquatic - The proposed action for this project would occur within ephemeral drainages of theBattle Spring Draw and Lost Creek portions of the Great Divide Basin. We anticipate veryminimal impact to aquatic resources from the project. The described operational practices tomitigate impacts and prevent erosion and water quality degradation, and compliance withapplicable federal and state regulations, permit conditions, the use of best management practices,and required mitigation measures described in the EIS should be adequate to reduce constructionand operation impacts to surface waters.
Amphibians and Reptiles - We recommended that the project proponent collect incidentalreptile and amphibian observations, as well as conduct Great Basin spadefoot toad surveys.
All reptile and amphibians encountered incidentally during wildlife surveys be documented.Species, geographic coordinates (preferably decimal degrees or UTM), date, age class (adult,juvenile, larval, or egg) and general comments are requested for each observation.
Great Basin spadefoot toads will breed following heavy rains in ephemeral pools. Werecommended that auditory surveys be conducted from May to July. Auditory surveys shouldonly be conducted 1-3 days after a significant rain event. Surveys should be spaced roughly ahalf mile apart along possible breeding habitat. If spadefoot calls are documented, a callingindex should be reported for each population (1-calls can be distinguished individually and nonoverlapping, 2=calls overlapping but individuals can be distinguished, 3ýindividuals are notdistinguishable and overlapping). Upon hearing spadefoot breeding calls, surveyors shouldattempt to locate breeding localities and collect specific location data&
Additional surveys may be requested to address specific herpetofaunal management concerns.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions or concerns, please contactMr. Kevin Johnson, Lander Region Fisheries Supervisor, at 307-332-7723 Ext. 227, Mr. ZackWalker, Herpetologist, at 307-473-3406, Scott Gamo, Terrestrial Biologist, 307-777-4509.
Sincerely,
J!hn Emmne 'ch
Deputy Dii ctor
JE: MF: sg
cc: USFWSTom Ryder, Lander RegionKevin Johnson, Lander Region
From: Alan J Verploeg [[email protected]]Sent- Friday, February 19, 2010 1:45 PMTo: McKenzie, DonCc: Ronald C. Surdam; Furtney, SteveSubject; Comments on the Lost Creek ISR Proposed Project in Sweetwater CountyAttachments: Location.jpg; Lost Creek writeup.doc
Don McKenzie
Administrator, Land Quality Division
Don:
We have examined the applications for the Moore Ranch, Nichols Ranch, and Lost Creek in-situ uranium recoveryprojects and have identified concerns relative to the Lost Creek ISR Proposed Project In Sweetwater County. Wereviewed these applications as they pertain to geology, minerals, energy, water, hazards, paleontology, etc., looking forany potential conflicts between resources or potential geologic hazard that need mitigation. We have noted potentiallyactive faults occurring within the application area. I have attached a map and information supplied by our geologichazards specialist, Seth Wittke. The existence of these features should be taken into consideration during the planning ofthis project and any potential hazards can be mitigated. If you have any questions or need more detailed informationcontact Seth Wittke at WittkeSJfuwio.edu or 307-766-226 ex. 244. We have submitted this information to the FERCthrough their eComment system but we probably need to submit it along with the State comments to be sure they areaware of this Issue.
Sincerely,
Alan
Alan J. Ver PloegAssistant Director/Senior GeologistWyoming Professional Geologist PG- 1587Wyoming State Geological SurveyP. O. Box 1347Laramie, WY 82073-1347Phone: 307-766-2286 ex 230E-mail: veplo e-'uwwo.cdu
The "scissorlsubparallel faults" with opposite displacement in the noted in the vicinity ofthe proposed Lost Creek Facility Project for "Environmental Impact Statement for theLost Creek ISR Project in Sweetwater County, Wyoming: Supplement to the GenericEnvironmental Impact Statement for In--Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities - DraftReport for Comment (NUREG-1 910, Supplement 3)" have previously been mapped byWSGS personnel.
The faults have been determined to be of Holocene age, and although surfaceexpression is sporadic it can be assumed that this fault system exists in the subsurfacein areas near the mapped extent of the faults. The following excerpt is taken from anunpublished report created by WSGS personnel in 2002 entitled "Basic SeismologicalCharacterization for Sweetwater County, Wyoming" which is available at:
"Sweetwater County has an active fault system called the Chicken Springs fault systemthat should be included in a deterministic analysis. The Chicken Springs fault system iscomposed of a series of east-west trending segments in the northeastern corner ofSweetwater County. In 1996, the Wyoming State Geological Survey investigated theChicken Springs fault system for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and theKennecott Uranium Company. The most recent activation on the systemr appears to beHolocene in age. Reconnaissance-level studies indicated that the fault system iscapable of generating a magnitude 6.5 earthquake (Shepherd Miller, 1996). A magnitude6.5 earthquake on the Chicken Springs fault system would generate peak horizontalaccelerations of approximately 4%g at Wamsutter and approximately 4.8%g at Rawlins(Campbell, 1987). These accelerations would be roughly equivalent to an intensity Vearthquake, which may cause some light damage. Bairoil, however, would be subjectedto a peak horizontal acceleration of approximately 23%g, or an intensity VII earthquake(Campbell, 1987). Intensity VII events have the potential to cause moderate damage.The rest of the towns in Sweetwater County would be subjected to ground accelerationsof less than 1.5%g, which should not cause any damage."
Jason Feameyhough, Dirdor2219 Carey Ave. - Cheyenne, WY 82002
0 DEPARTMENT OPF Phone. (307) 777-7321 a Fa: (307) 777-6593"Web: agticulturewy.gov 4 Emai wdalmate.wy.us
Mh W'pa~ng Deparawas of~iculai is ndkomtda so dpovmaho and ehhawscrw of ~W'ywmimcing ,%mab amahnw rmawr and qualsq fhfa
Febmuary 25, 2010
U.S. Nuclear Rtqzuwmy CommissionOffice of FedoWal and State Materials andEnviromnenaud Managanent Program
To whom it may concern:
Following am dio comments of the Wyoming Dsmaut of Agriculume (WDA) on the DraftEuwimanIW tl Impct SfamrAe (BIS) for d. Limit CDeck ISR Projet located in Swe~vuaCounty, Wyomin•.
Our comments a spMcific to our mission: dedication to dhe picmiotc and enhancement ofWyoming's a4iculume, naund rasoruc, and quality of liN& As this roposed project affects ouraviculure industry, our Dowl resources and dte welfrem of our citizw, it's importaft You
oemnme to infm u us of proposed ctions and decisions mnd provide as the oppomauly to express- unen m mandcnm
M •UEKW by am o sit spcii analysis of a pmjWt am.m whna individual projec ispimposed. The WDA doss vmt suppot the use of .eamul shoments and compairms used w•bmanalyzing impacts to a specific, reoes, such as, ¶...the amount of disumbed lmad is mull coupmedto the tan ranlchal that is available (Page 4-2)." This i not Armlyng dte affected rmorce
adequaly for a spccific site. Impacts wil always seem small whe conpami on a lanicapa s cale,to entire ra ikads located in Swetwatee County r the mnchlands within the Statf of WyomingFor example, mcmpaing impacts to manckhlama m was deon in the Land Use Inpads Section (Pa• s4-1 Olwao 4-3) to to e•tire "tich lands... availaber is crcmely oebulou. and does not look adte sitc specifmi impacts to due individuAl livesock nuing alotminnts, livestock opmtiom, andindividual pamimttes on tese alkimats. A gawind compaison at ft scale provided is potentially=0liwt and does ma adequately mprest or anmlym ft wnpts to site sp •c immurxc TWDA would eumwap the NRC remove ail pumi stnrmeants and cnmparisem used thmugnhutthe EIS.
Thee falkwing ame specific cocen and isses ident•fd within the EISz
Seamm" of Emvf *,notupwis (Pages xv - xxiv) Does not anmde livestock grigas mnfaWltd reouwce during ft C=onuo Pnha loweveran, o qpe 4-3 Lin= 3241 s,"Livestock would be preventedl frm entaring the feeced areas surrounding the CPP, stmup
pons and m producdo units. This would crmet an adwve impact (albit SMALL) on livestockar'ing allotm ts, in the area that kiestock rnchingl patters would he altend and livmstock
miaJt be moved to odwr gazing linds away from the project aram."
A potential adverse impact should mrse the affected resource to a signuificamns level worthy ofbeing fUlly anabymd even if considered to be a SMALL impact. The WDA aciwurapgs theNRC fuly analyze impacts to livestock grazing at a site specific level (i0e allotment impacts,Pauitfre apes impacts to livestock grazing opeauiocM, loss of forage, impacts created by
BOARD MEMBER.S
low RgVDuiW L Ib 0 mHoddm, M040~ 2 0 Spnm Sims. DXijttU I Ja mnRar Lh~ a*p D~d Joe ThiagA. Did,,? JOquz 9coft Dim&~ . Jun PrinJ4 ItDia 7
YouFII ADVISORY BOARD MENWAENSPm" tk 7jmM~r Swe .ala DAnl Wkaw Nnwdmu' 0 John FIuu-t.5'*iu&,0= * 009ap (ukaaiai Noid"'
Lost Crek [SR ProjectEnvironmental Impact Statement02/25/2010Page 2
dust, weeds, increase of vehicle traffic, damage to fences, catle guards, livestock facilities
" Summary of Environmental. mpacts (Pages xvi) Does not clearly identify how many acreswill be fonced off during construction and operation phases of the project The document showshow many acm will be stripped of vegetation but does not show the acres lost due to restrictingaccess, affecting livestock, wild horse and wildlife usage.
The WDA would encourage clearly showing the acres that will be fenced off during the entireoperation time of the project.
" SummM7 of Eniroamental ImPat (Pages xvii) The Transportat discussion does notidentif the secondary impacts that could occur due to an incrense in Vehicle traffic. an increasein dust levels, a decrease in palatability of forage, an increase in the spread of noxious andinvasive weeds, impacts with wildlife and livestock, etc
The WDA would encourap the analysis include these potenfial secondary impacts.
* Summary of Envlmastmal Imapab (Pae xv - xxiv) Ecological Resouwaes discussion doesa fair job in reegnizng the potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife, however, these sameimpacts to vesgtton and wildife could almost be considered the same impacts that will occurto livestock.
The WDA awourayes the NRC to include the full analysis of how impacts to vegewion,temporary displaoement, and direct and Indmat mortalities would impact livestock griaingnmaagement-
' Pop 1-5 (Section 1.4.3 - Imum Studied Is Detail) - This section should include detailedanalysis of the following resoumc issues: livestock grazing, invasive species and vegctation.
* Pagp 3-2 (Secacm 3.21 - Rmagelads) -- This section mentions dth cattle, horses and sheepuse these lands, but it neglects to mention the Iap number of wild hones preet in the projectarea.
By fencing off and nstricting m to livestock and wild hores, (in addition to the proposedsurface disambing acivitis) the poject is creating a bos of AUMs, and cenating more potentialconflicta between livestock, wild horses and wildlife due to a loss of fonra and changes inmoveneft.
Pa&V 4-2 (Secion 4.3 - Laud Use Impacts) -- 71e WIDA appreciates the dentification ofimpacts that would occur to "the existing grazing leases..due to the ncessay relocation of aftgooing livestock... dht would normally use dte area of CPP," However, the discussion stopshem and does not dentify any mitigation measuwres or methods on how livestock will berclocated and to where. Relocating livestock can be a significant expense to the permittee. Theproject proponet should coordinate with permittees and mitigate these impacts by providingalternative pastures, finding or assistance in relocating affected livestock.
Lost Creek ISR ProjectEnvironmental Impact Statement02/25/2010Page 3
Page 4-2 (Section 4.2- Land Use Impact) - The EIS mentions dust could affect lands outsidethe restricted areas. Dust can reduce forage palatability, therefore creating a reduction inAUMs, increased tooth wear and lung disease in ungulates.
" Pge 4P 3 (Section 4.2 - Land Use Impacts) - This section discusses fencing of facilitiesrestricting livestock access into these areas. The WDA encourages the NRC clearly state theamount of acres that. will be fenced off. Areas fenced off should be analyzed as an affect tolivestock, wild horse and potentially wildlife, by removing the ability to access available fbrage.Surface disturbance (stripping of vegetation during construction) and fencing is a cumulativeimpact to livestock grazing.
SPaoe 4-3 (Seetlo. 4.2 - LUnd Use Impacts) -- Staem that fencing would create an adversebapact to livestck grazing allotments however, them am no mitigation measures to addressthe adverse impacts. The WDA would encourage the project proponent coordinate with affectedpeamittces and develop a full range of potential mitigation measures to address these adverseimpacts.
" Pag4-4 (SeeO 4.2.1.2 - Op draioam Impacts) -- Lines 7-8 stat, "By contributing to achange in dfe natural environment, the operational phase would impact the long history ofranching and livestock puing that has occurred in the area"
Although this impact to the culture and history of ranching/livestock Waxing is oceruing. themis no mitigaon or a-uspt at alleviating the impact to ranching and livestock grazing, It is as ifthe NRC is simply stating an inevitable fact of life that is universally accepted. The WDAbelieves any identified impact should be addressed and attempted to be mitigated.
Paw 4-24 (Roads) - This section does not mention dirt roads will create impacts due to dust.Dust can reduce forar prduction, therefore creating a reduction in AUMs, incmasd toothwear and lung disease in ungulate.
Pfts 446 (Sectid 4A.l.l1.1 - Comlendon Impacts to Veutadm) Reclumatmn in dieproject ame is difficult and can take a long ti&e to retun Finction to affccted areas. In additioa,halogemto (Halbogem glonearmaw) should be listed as an undesimble weed. The project area isknown to have large infestations of halogeton oturring on distuned sites. Halogeton is anoxiosk weed and highly invasive, and is known to kill livestock, particularly sheep.
* Page 4-46 (Sectiom 441.1..3 - Wildlife Enhameits) - This section mentions thlpotential for wildlife enhancement projects. The WDA would encourage the same considenationoccur for livestock gazing. The EIS has already remopized dhe proposed projet will craeaadverse impacts to livestock grazing, so rangeland improvement projects could be an acceptablemiatigtion for identitied impacts.
Page 6.2 (Section &2.3 Vegetation. Food, and Fish Moeatorng) - This sections starts withthe following statement "wecause the only vegetation in the study aa is sagebrush, which isnot considered forgeable for cattle and is not expected to rapidly absorb surface contamination,!.1 does not plan to monitor vegetation or food supply."
Lost Creek ISR ProjectEnvironmental Impact Statement02/25/2010Page 4
First of all, sagebrush is not the only vegetation in the project area, as detailed in Chapter 3 -Affected Environment. Pages 3-30 through 3-31, which states " In all, 36 plant species wereobserved in the Upland Big Sagebrush Shrubland type." (Page 3-31 - Lines 6-7) and "In all, 43plant species were observed in the Lowland Big Sagebrush Shrubland type." (Page 3-31 - Lines29-30). Secondly, although sagebrush may not be prefirred by some livestock it is browsed onin cetain'conditions and by different livestock species. so do not make generalized assumptionsabout forage utilization.
The WDA supports monitoring livestock as a food product.
In summary, the WDA does not believe the EIS does an adequate job in analyzing site specificimpacts to livestock grazing management, livestock forage and other associated resources. The EIStends to oversimplify impacts by comparing it to the greater surrounding area (which is neverdefined). We believe livestock grazing should be analyzed as a standalone resource and not brushedover in the Land Use sections of the EIS.
In conclusion, we appreciam the opportunity to comment an the Draft EIS for the proposed ISRProject and look forward to participating in the Bureau of Land Management's NEPA process forthe same prOjct We encourage continued atteution to our concerns and we look forward tohearing about and being involved in future proposed actions and decisions.
Jason Feameyhough
Director
CC0 Governor's Planning OfficeWyoming Game and Fish DepartmentWyoming Board of AgricultureWyoming Stock Grower AssociMionWyoming Wool Growem AssociationWyoming Farm Bureau FederationWyoming Association of Conservation DistrictsWyoming State Grazing BoardRocky Mountain Fanrers Union
