Home/Federal/Federal Register/2026-18504

Proposed Rule2026-18504

In Situ Recovery Monitoring and Decommissioning Timeliness

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

September 10, 2026

Issuing agencies

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Abstract

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to amend its regulations that govern the licensing of uranium mills and the disposition of tailings and waste that arise from the extraction and milling of uranium by issuing risk-informed requirements for groundwater protection at uranium in situ recovery (ISR) facilities. The NRC's current regulations are focused on conventional uranium milling and do not expressly address uranium extraction by the ISR process. Additionally, NRC proposes to amend its regulations that govern decommissioning timeliness for all licensees to provide additional flexibility for licensees to delay the initiation of decommissioning activities in situations where safety would not be impacted.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 174 (Thursday, September 10, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 174 (Thursday, September 10, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57728-57757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-18504]

[[Page 57727]]

Vol. 91

Thursday,

No. 174

September 10, 2026

Part III

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, et al.

In Situ Recovery Monitoring and Decommissioning Timeliness; Proposed
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2026 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 57728]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 52, 53, 70, and 72

[NRC-2025-1204]
RIN 3150-AL48

In Situ Recovery Monitoring and Decommissioning Timeliness

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule and draft guidance; request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to amend
its regulations that govern the licensing of uranium mills and the
disposition of tailings and waste that arise from the extraction and
milling of uranium by issuing risk-informed requirements for
groundwater protection at uranium in situ recovery (ISR) facilities.
The NRC's current regulations are focused on conventional uranium
milling and do not expressly address uranium extraction by the ISR
process. Additionally, NRC proposes to amend its regulations that
govern decommissioning timeliness for all licensees to provide
additional flexibility for licensees to delay the initiation of
decommissioning activities in situations where safety would not be
impacted.

DATES: Comments must be submitted electronically using <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> no later than 11:59 p.m. eastern time on October
13, 2026.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID NRC-2025-1204,
at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. If your material cannot be submitted
using <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, call or email the individual listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as
name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business
information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments are
public records; they are publicly displayed exactly as received, and
will not be deleted, modified, or redacted. Comments may be submitted
anonymously.
Follow the search instructions on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> to
view public comments.
You can read a plain language description of this proposed rule at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NRC-2025-1204">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NRC-2025-1204</a>. For additional
direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Mossman, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-9100, email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#faae9397958e9283d4b7958989979b94ba948899d49d958c">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

A. Need for the Regulatory Action

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its
regulations in appendix A to part 40 that govern the licensing of
uranium mills and the disposition of tailings and waste that arise from
the extraction and milling of uranium by issuing risk-informed
requirements for groundwater protection at uranium in situ recovery
(ISR) facilities.
The NRC is also proposing to amend its regulations in parts 30, 40,
52, 53, 70, 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
to extend the timeframe for notifications and provide additional
flexibilities to delay the initiation of decommissioning activities
where it is in the public interest or when a licensee has a business
need for continued possession of the license. The NRC is also proposing
to amend its regulations in 10 CFR part 50 to allow licensees to use
the established exemption process in 10 CFR 50.12 ``Specific
exemptions'' to request to delay completion of decommissioning beyond
the required 60-year timeframe for power reactors.

B. Major Provisions

Major provisions of the proposed rule include changes that would:
1. Establish regulations specific to ISR facilities to protect
groundwater from the radiological and nonradiological hazards
associated with the generation of byproduct material;
2. Add several new ISR-specific definitions and revise other
definitions in Appendix A;
3. Clarify that alternate concentration limits (ACLs) are an
allowable cleanup standard for groundwater at ISR facilities;
4. Increase flexibility, clarity, and efficiency related to
decommissioning requirements for power reactors and nonpower reactors;
5. Streamline and extend regulations related to the initiation of
decommissioning of nuclear materials facilities; and
6. Streamline extension request reviews by risk-informing the
information that must be included in the request.

C. Costs and Benefits

The NRC prepared a draft regulatory analysis to determine the
expected quantitative costs and benefits of this proposed rule and
associated draft guidance as well as qualitative factors to be
considered in the NRC's rulemaking decision. The proposed rule would
result in net cost savings for industry and NRC, which will increase in
proportion to the number of affected licensing actions as detailed in
this report. For each ISR Application industry would save $288,600 and
the NRC would save $316,200 due to the more efficient process of the
proposed rule. For each power reactor decommissioning exemption request
avoided due to the provisions of the proposed rule industry would save
$5,920 and the NRC would save $39,500. The future extent of the ISR
sector and decommissioning materials and reactor facilities could not
be reliably projected, so total values were not calculated. Agreement
States and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would incur minor
costs in implementing the proposed rule. Agreement States would incur a
cost of $106,300 to implement the changes in their regulations. The EPA
would incur a cost of $12,600 to provide a required review of the final
rule.
The draft regulatory analysis also considers qualitative factors,
such as regulatory efficiency. These benefits would result from
clarifications, administrative changes, and streamlining of processes
(such as notifications).
For more information, please see the draft regulatory analysis
(available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML25337A100).

Table of Contents

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
B. Submitting Comments
II. Executive Order 14300: Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission
III. Background: In Situ Recovery
A. Conventional Mills and In Situ Recovery Facilities
B. Statutory Background
C. Current Rulemaking Context and Development
D. July 2020 EPA-NRC Memorandum of Understanding on ISR
Rulemaking
E. NRC's Current Regulatory Practice for Groundwater Protection
at ISR Facilities
IV. Discussion: In Situ Recovery

[[Page 57729]]

A. Proposed Changes to 10 CFR Part 40 and Appendix A to Part 40
B. Proposed New Criterion 14
C. Proposed Revisions to Paragraph 5B(5) and Table 5C
D. Proposed Definition for Point of Compliance Well
E. Proposed Definition of Excursion
F. Details Regarding Proposed Alternate Concentration Limits
Applicable to Groundwater Restoration at ISR Wellfields
G. Proposed Post-Restoration Groundwater Monitoring Requirements
for ISR Wellfields
H. Proposed Monitoring and Corrective Action Requirements for
Protecting the Uppermost Aquifer
I. Interface of EPA's Underground Injection Control Program
Requirements With the Proposed New Criterion 14
J. Agencies That Participated in the Development of This
Proposed Rule
V. Specific Request for Comment: ISR
VI. Background: Decommissioning Timeliness
A. Timeliness in Decommissioning of Nuclear Materials Facilities
B. Timely Completion of Decommissioning of Power Reactors and
Nonpower Utilization Facilities
VII. Discussion: Decommissioning Timeliness
A. Timeliness in Decommissioning of Nuclear Materials Facilities
B. Timely Completion of Decommissioning of Power Reactor and
Nonpower or Utilization Facilities
VIII. Specific Request for Comment: Decommissioning Timeliness
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
X. Regulatory Analysis
XI. Backfitting and Issue Finality
XII. Cumulative Effects of Regulation
XIII. Plain Writing
XIV. National Environmental Policy Act
XV. Paperwork Reduction Act
XVI. Executive Orders
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review (as
Amended by Executive Order 14215, Ensuring Accountability for All
Agencies)
B. Executive Order 14154: Unleashing American Energy
C. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation
XVII. Coordination With NRC Agreement States
XVIII. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations
XIX. Availability of Guidance
XX. Availability of Documents

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-1204 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
<bullet> Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and search for Docket ID NRC-2025-1204.
<bullet> NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html">https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html</a>. To begin the search, select ``Begin ADAMS Public Search.''
For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#316175631f6354425e44435254715f43521f565e47">[email&#160;protected]</a>. For the convenience of the reader,
instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are
provided in the ``Availability of Documents'' section.
<bullet> NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies
of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an
appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ce9e8a9ce09cabbda1bbbcadab8ea0bcade0a9a1b8">[email&#160;protected]</a> or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
<bullet> Public Meeting: The NRC may conduct a public meeting to
describe the proposed amendments and answer questions from the public
on the proposed rule. If the NRC determines it will hold a public
meeting, NRC will publish a notice of the location, time, and agenda of
the meeting on the NRC's public meeting website within 10 calendar days
of the meeting. Stakeholders should monitor the NRC's public meeting
website for information about the public meeting at <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm">https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm</a>.

B. Submitting Comments

Comments must be submitted electronically using <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on October
13, 2026. Please include Docket ID NRC-2025-1204 in your comment
submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> as well as enter the comment submissions
into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Executive Order 14300: Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission

On May 23, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order
(E.O.) 14300, ``Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.'' Section 5, ``Reforming and Modernizing the NRC's
Regulations,'' which requires the NRC to undertake a review and
wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance documents as guided
by the policies set forth in section 2 of the E.O. In accordance with
E.O.14300 the NRC identified changes across title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Parts 30, 40, 50, 52, 53, 70, and 72.
These changes would yield significant efficiencies and reduce
regulatory burden for licensees, NRC, and Agreement States while
upholding our shared commitment to public safety.

III. Background: In Situ Recovery

A. Conventional Mills and In Situ Recovery Facilities

The NRC licenses and regulates uranium mills under its regulations
in part 40 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
``Domestic Licensing of Source Material,'' because these facilities
possess and process uranium source material, as defined in Sec. 40.4,
``Definitions.'' The possession and processing of source material are
activities that require a license from the NRC under the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). Prior to the 1990s, uranium ore was
processed primarily at conventional mills. Mills using the conventional
milling process receive ore in the form of rock containing uranium and
grind the ore to remove and concentrate the uranium. The leftover rock
from this process is a sand-like material, known as tailings, that is
consolidated into tailings piles. Tailings are contaminated with
chemicals used in the uranium extraction process and contain heavy
metals and radionuclides. Additionally, conventional milling generates
a variety of liquid wastes, such as leaching fluids. These tailings and
wastes, which contain radiological and nonradiological constituents,
are classified as a form of byproduct material and are regulated by the
NRC under the AEA.
The ISR process is another uranium milling process that was first
used commercially in the United States in the late 1970s. As discussed
in more detail

[[Page 57730]]

in Section B, the first regulations for uranium milling facilities were
promulgated in 1983. These regulations were focused on conventional
uranium mills, not the ISR process. Since the 1990s, the ISR process
has become the predominant means of extracting uranium in the United
States. The ISR process eliminates the steps of digging ore from the
ground, transporting it to a mill, grinding it, and leaching it to
dissolve the uranium. At ISR facilities, the chemical leaching occurs
underground in a portion of an aquifer containing the ore body known as
a production unit. A leaching solution, known as a lixiviant,
containing either an alkaline solution including oxygen and/or
bicarbonate or an acid solution such as sulfuric acid, is pumped to the
ore body in the production unit through injection wells, thereby
inducing a chemical change in the ore body that releases the uranium
from the host rock. The lixiviant that carries the recovered uranium is
pumped to the surface using production wells. All of the injection and
production wells that are used to recover the uranium from the ore body
in a production unit are located in an area known as a wellfield.
After being pumped to the surface, the lixiviant is transferred to
a processing facility where an ion exchange process is used to separate
the recovered uranium from the lixiviant. The recovered uranium is
processed into a solid form called ``yellowcake.'' The lixiviant is
then pumped back from the processing facility to the ore body in the
production unit to continue uranium recovery. The yellowcake is
ultimately used in the manufacture of fuel for nuclear reactors.
The processing facilities supporting ISR operations (e.g., ion
exchange columns, precipitation and drying circuits), and wastes
produced by ISR operations (e.g., hazardous constituents released in
the groundwater by lixiviant injection, soil contaminated from spills,
process wastes in surface impoundments), come under the NRC's
regulatory authority. To ensure that byproduct material stays within
the production unit and does not migrate from the production unit to
surrounding groundwater during or after ISR operations, the NRC
enforces requirements regarding the construction of wells, the design
of ISR wellfields, and groundwater monitoring. The NRC also requires
restoration of groundwater in the production unit to ensure hazardous
constituent concentrations that exist during the ISR operations are
below NRC-approved limits prior to license termination and release of
the site. The restoration process begins when lixiviant injection into
the production unit permanently ceases.
The ISR process does not generate tailings but does produce wastes
that constitute byproduct material, which requires proper management.
The NRC's current regulations for byproduct material generated by
uranium milling are focused on operations at conventional mill sites
and are set forth in appendix A to 10 CFR part 40, ``Criteria Relating
to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or
Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material
from Ores Processed Primarily for their Source Material Content.''
Therefore, the NRC currently regulates groundwater protection at ISR
facilities using site-specific license conditions that incorporate
risk-informed and best management practices that have been shown to be
successful for more than 40 years. Best management practices for
groundwater protection, in the context of ISR facilities, are those
practices that have been demonstrated to be the most effective and
practical means to prevent, detect, and correct any leakage or
migration of radiological and nonradiological contaminants to
surrounding groundwater.
These risk-informed and best management practices are provided in
the NRC regulatory guidance in NUREG-1569, ``Standard Review Plan for
In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications.'' Many of the
risk-informed practices presented in NUREG-1569 are further described
in NUREG/CR-6733, ``A Baseline Risk-Informed, Performance-Based
Approach for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Licensees.'' The
principal purpose of NUREG-1569 is to ensure the quality and uniformity
of the NRC staff's review and evaluation of ISR license applications
(for the initial application and any amendments thereto). The NRC also
uses this guidance to inform the development of site-specific license
conditions.

B. Statutory Background

In 1978, Congress enacted the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act (UMTRCA) to address the radiological and nonradiological
hazards associated with the tailings or wastes generated in the uranium
milling process, particularly with the tailings piles accumulating at
conventional mill sites. The UMTRCA amended several provisions of the
AEA, including the classification of these tailings or wastes as a form
of byproduct material, provided that the tailings or wastes resulted
from the extraction of uranium or thorium from ores processed primarily
for their source material content. Such byproduct material is generally
referred to as ``AEA section 11e.(2) byproduct material.''
Through its amendments to the AEA, title II of UMTRCA established a
complementary regulatory scheme for active and decommissioning uranium
milling facilities between the EPA and the NRC (title II of UMTRCA
applies to sites where a viable, legally responsible entity could be
identified when the legislation was developed, whereas title I applies
to named inactive uranium milling sites). No ISR facilities are covered
by title I; all title I sites are inactive conventional milling sites.
The UMTRCA added AEA section 275, which authorizes the EPA to issue
standards of general application for the protection of public health
and safety, and the environment from radiological and nonradiological
hazards associated with the processing, possession, transfer, and
disposal of AEA section 11e.(2) byproduct material. For nonradiological
hazards, it directs the EPA to establish standards of general
application consistent with the standards required under subtitle C of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (SWDA). The SWDA is now
commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).
The UMTRCA also added AEA section 84, which requires that the NRC
or the appropriate Agreement State ensure the proper management of AEA
section 11e.(2) byproduct material in such a manner as the NRC deems
appropriate to protect public health and safety and the environment
from radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with its
processing and possession. In doing so, the NRC must conform with the
standards of general application issued by the EPA under AEA section
275b. Any general requirements established by the NRC regarding its
management of AEA section 11e.(2) byproduct material must, to the
maximum extent practicable, be at least comparable to requirements that
are applicable to the possession, transfer, and disposal of similar
hazardous material regulated by the EPA under RCRA. Under AEA section
84a.(3), the EPA would concur on whether such general requirements were
in fact comparable to the RCRA requirements for similar hazardous
material.
The NRC or the applicable Agreement State agency is the regulatory
or licensing agency for all uranium recovery facilities, including ISR
facilities, and is responsible for evaluating any license application
for an ISR facility or amendment to an existing

[[Page 57731]]

license, regulating and inspecting the operation and decommissioning of
the ISR facility, and enforcing the terms and conditions of the
operating license. In 1983, the NRC Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1982-1983, Public Law 96-415 Sec. 202, Stat. 2067, 2079 (1983) added a
new paragraph 84c. to AEA section 84 while UMTRCA had amended the AEA
to add section 274o. These amendments gave authority to the NRC and
Agreement States, respectively, to establish site-specific alternatives
to the specific requirements adopted and enforced by the NRC including
the standards of general application promulgated by EPA under AEA
section 275.
The EPA issued its initial standards of general application under
UMTRCA for conventional mills in the Federal Register in the form of
regulations in ``Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill
Tailings at Licensed Commercial Processing Sites'' (48 FR 45926;
October 7, 1983), and then amended these standards in ``Health and
Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings'' (58 FR
60340; November 15, 1993). Subpart D of 40 CFR part 192 establishes the
EPA's standards of general application for uranium byproduct materials
at UMTRCA Title II sites, including those standards concerning
groundwater protection. The EPA addressed its statutory requirement
under AEA section 275b.(2), to establish standards for nonradiological
hazards consistent with those in RCRA, by issuing regulations 40 CFR
192.31 through 192.33 that cross-reference specific EPA RCRA
requirements for groundwater protection in 40 CFR part 264.
The regulations in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2) directly reference the RCRA
standards, with certain exceptions as set forth in 40 CFR
192.32(a)(2)(i)-(v). The requirements in 40 CFR 264.92 specify that
hazardous constituents detected in groundwater at a regulated unit must
not exceed the concentration limits provided in Sec. 264.94 in the
uppermost aquifer beyond the point of compliance. As defined in Sec.
264.95, the point of compliance is a set location, as determined by the
regulator, where the Sec. 264.92 groundwater protection standards must
be met and where monitoring must be conducted.
As made applicable to uranium byproduct materials by 40 CFR
192.32(a)(2), the RCRA groundwater protection standard in 40 CFR 264.92
requires compliance with Sec. 264.94, ``Concentration limits,'' which
allows for a licensee to meet one of three different hazardous
constituent concentration limits that must not be exceeded in
groundwater at the point of compliance. The first is the establishment
of a background level for each hazardous constituent based upon
sampling to determine the concentration or quantity of that hazardous
constituent present in the groundwater prior to the commencement of ISR
operations. The second establishes a maximum concentration as the
standard for certain listed hazardous constituents (e.g., arsenic,
barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver) if the
background level of the constituent is below the value given in Table 1
of Sec. 264.94. The third allows for the establishment of an ACL by
the regulatory agency if the agency finds that the licensee cannot meet
either the background level or the maximum concentration for a given
hazardous constituent. The RCRA regulations state that the regulatory
agency may approve an ACL for a hazardous constituent based on a
finding that the constituent will not pose a threat to human health or
the environment as long as the ACL is met. Section 264.94(b)(1)
includes a list of groundwater protection factors that the regulatory
agency must consider in determining whether to approve or disapprove an
ACL.
Other aspects of the RCRA groundwater protection standard that are
made applicable to the management of uranium byproduct materials
include the establishment of a detection monitoring program, as
provided in Sec. 264.98. In addition, the regulations in 40 CFR 192.33
require that if the hazardous constituent concentration limit for any
hazardous constituent is exceeded, a corrective action program as
specified in 40 CFR 264.100 must be put into operation.
The NRC initially issued two regulations to implement UMTRCA:
``Uranium Mill Tailings Licensing'' (44 FR 50012; August 24, 1979) and
``Uranium Mill Licensing Requirements'' (45 FR 65521; October 3, 1980).
The 1979 rule added definitions for the terms ``byproduct material''
and ``uranium milling'' to 10 CFR 40.4, ``Definitions.'' The 1979 rule
defined ``uranium milling'' to mean any activity that results in the
production of byproduct material. The NRC's definition of ``byproduct
material'' sets forth the UMTRCA definition of byproduct material but
adds that the term includes discrete surface wastes resulting from
uranium solution extraction processes. The definition also stipulates
that underground ore bodies that remain after ISR operations do not
constitute byproduct material. In its 1980 final rule, the NRC further
amended 10 CFR part 40 and added its primary UMTRCA implementing
regulations as appendix A to 10 CFR part 40. When EPA first issued its
UMTRCA implementing standards in 1983, its definition of ``uranium
byproduct material'' was essentially the same as the NRC's definition
of ``byproduct material'' except that EPA did not reference thorium and
did not include the clause concerning the discrete surface wastes
resulting from uranium solution extraction processes.
Following the EPA's issuance of its 40 CFR part 192, subpart D
standards, the NRC made two conforming amendments to appendix A to 10
CFR part 40: ``Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations; Conforming NRC
Requirement to EPA Standards'' (50 FR 41852; October 16, 1985) and
``Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations; Ground-Water Protection and Other
Issues'' (52 FR 43553; November 13, 1987). Currently, appendix A
applies the EPA RCRA groundwater protection regulations in 40 CFR part
264 that are listed in 40 CFR part 192, subpart D, but it does not
explicitly cross-reference them. Although the current criterion 5B
requirements in Appendix A are focused on conventional uranium mills,
the NRC has applied these requirements to ISR facilities through the
use of site-specific license conditions.

C. Current Rulemaking Context and Development

A detailed history of this topic can be found in SECY-21-0067,
Enclosure 1--Proposed Rule. In short, beginning in the 1990s, the
uranium recovery industry expressed concerns to the NRC over perceived
dual regulation between the NRC and the EPA with respect to the
protection of groundwater impacted by ISR operations. Since that time,
there have been a number of efforts at the NRC to address the concerns
and increase transparency and clarity regarding NRC's ISR requirements.
As relevant here, in SRM-SECY-19-0123, ``Staff Requirements--Regulatory
Options for In Situ Recovery Facilities,'' the Commission approved the
NRC staff's recommendation to resume a rulemaking ``to provide risk-
informed ISR-specific requirements that would provide increased
consistency and transparency in licensing reviews between the NRC and
Agreement States and to clarify the applicability of existing
requirements to ISR activities in 10 CFR part 40, in particular the
applicability of alternate concentration limits for ISR facilities.''
In addition, the Commission directed a limited scope rulemaking,
stating that given ``diminished domestic ISR activity, the

[[Page 57732]]

rulemaking should be narrowly targeted and its costs should be included
in fee relief.'' In 2025, the effort to develop ISR-specific rules was
placed under the NRC's broader E.O. 14300 rulemaking response. E.O.
14300 tasked the NRC with a wholesale revision to its regulations and
guidance. Moving this rulemaking under the E.O. 14300 effort was done
to facilitate a timely and efficient rulemaking in recognition of the
significant efficiencies and reduction in regulatory burden that could
be achieved by changes in this rule, while upholding public safety.
Additionally, the NRC received several letters related to groundwater
protection at ISR facilities. The letters are publicly available and
are listed in the ``Availability of Documents'' section.

D. July 2020 EPA-NRC Memorandum of Understanding on ISR Rulemaking

In July 2020, the NRC and EPA entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) entitled, ``Memorandum of Understanding Between the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Concerning the Regulation of Uranium in situ Recovery
Activities,'' which delineates the roles and responsibilities of each
agency under Title II of UMTRCA for regulating uranium ISR activities.
The purpose of the MOU is to (1) provide a framework for cooperation
and coordination between the NRC and the EPA for implementing each
party's statutory responsibilities under AEA sections 84 and 275 with
respect to regulating uranium ISR activities in a timely, efficient,
and thorough manner; (2) describe the responsibilities of each party in
regulating uranium ISR activities; and (3) foster opportunities for
effective and efficient communication between the NRC and the EPA,
including the exchange of written information, and interagency
meetings.
The July 2020 MOU contains several provisions to ensure that NRC
and EPA align on the regulatory basis for technical requirements in any
future rulemaking efforts addressing groundwater protection at ISR
facilities. For example, Section VII.c. of the MOU addresses the length
of the post-restoration groundwater monitoring period by providing that
the corrective action framework of Subtitle C of RCRA is the
appropriate regulatory framework for ISR facilities, including the use
of ACLs approved by the applicable regulatory agency.

E. NRC's Current Regulatory Practice for Groundwater Protection at ISR
Facilities

The NRC has, to date, regulated groundwater protection at ISR
facilities by using site-specific license conditions that incorporate
the relevant regulations for groundwater protection found in appendix A
to 10 CFR part 40 and that are otherwise informed by the NRC's
operational experience and best management practices. The NRC requires,
as a standard condition of its site-specific ISR license, that a
licensee demonstrate that it has all necessary permits, including an
Underground Injection Control (UIC) aquifer exemption for the
groundwater in the production unit (to the extent such an exemption is
required), before a licensee can commence ISR operations. More
information on the criteria under which EPA may issue an aquifer
exemption is available at 40 CFR 146.4. The NRC regulations that
address groundwater protection requirements for the management of
uranium byproduct material are currently found in criteria 5, 7, 7A, 9,
and 13 of appendix A to 10 CFR part 40. The NRC has applied the
groundwater protection standards in these criteria to hazardous
constituents in the production unit for groundwater protection at ISR
facilities using site-specific license conditions, as informed by the
applicable regulatory guidance. Additional discussion on the NRC's
current regulatory practices for groundwater protection at ISR
facilities can be found in the 2021 proposed ISR rule package presented
to the Commission in SECY-21-0067: Enclosure 1--Proposed Rule. The
discussion in the 2021 rule package explains the differences between
conventional mill tailings impoundments and ISR facilities with respect
to groundwater protection, point of compliance wells, monitoring for
excursions, corrective actions, and groundwater restoration.

IV. Discussion: In Situ Recovery

A. Proposed Changes to 10 CFR Part 40 and Appendix A to Part 40

Appendix A to part 40 contains requirements primarily related to
the operation of conventional uranium mills rather than ISR facilities.
In the absence of NRC regulations specific to ISR facilities, licensing
reviews for each applicant and approval of other requirements for
licensees may vary--depending on differences among NRC and Agreement
State licensing reviewers. The proposed regulations are expected to
make the licensing process more efficient, and the NRC's regulatory
oversight more predictable and consistent for the NRC, licensees, and
the public.
Specifically, the NRC proposes to revise appendix A to part 40 by
adding a new section VI, ``Additional Technical Criteria for ISR
Operations,'' which consists of a new criterion 14 that establishes
groundwater protection requirements specific to ISR facilities. This
proposed rule would also revise the preamble paragraph of criterion 5
in appendix A, and paragraphs 5B(1), 5B(2), 5B(5)(b), and 5C to clarify
that several of the current conventional uranium milling requirements
apply to ISR operations, including the use of ACLs. The proposed rule
would further add a new paragraph 5(B)(1)(b) to criterion 5 that would
establish the applicable groundwater protection standard for ISR
facilities and explicitly cross-refence to paragraph 5B(5), which sets
the hazardous constituent concentration limits that must not be
exceeded at the groundwater point of compliance. The new paragraph
5(B)(1)(b) would also provide that the Commission will establish the
point of compliance and compliance period on a site-specific basis
pursuant to criterion 14, and that the Commission will identify
hazardous constituents, establish concentration limits, and may adjust
the point of compliance, if needed.
The proposed rule would revise the current definition of Byproduct
Material in 10 CFR 40.4 to include liquid wastes from ISR facilities
that may impact groundwater. The proposed rule would also add, in the
introduction to appendix A, new definitions for Aquitard, Corrective
action, Excursion, ISR facility, Indicator constituent, In situ
recovery, Production unit, and Wellfield; and revise, the current
definition of Point of compliance to add requirements specific to ISR
operations.
In addition to these definition changes related to ISR facilities,
the proposed rule also defines the term abandoned uranium mine waste
remediation. The purpose of this definition is to clarify the
difference between abandoned uranium mine waste remediation activities
and uranium milling activities. Abandoned uranium mine waste
remediation activities are regulated under the source material
framework in 10 CFR part 40 while uranium milling activities are
regulated under the source and byproduct material framework in 10 CFR
part 40 and Appendix A to 10 CFR part 40.
The proposed rule would also add a preamble paragraph to section I,
``Technical Criteria,'' of appendix A to explain that this proposed
rule, if

[[Page 57733]]

adopted, would apply to an application for, and the licensing,
operation, and decommissioning of, a new ISR facility, a new wellfield
within a licensed ISR facility, or a new production unit within an
operating wellfield of a licensed ISR facility, if the application is
submitted after the effective date of this rule. Finally, this proposed
rule would cross-reference the values for the maximum concentrations
for groundwater protection for all uranium mills (both conventional
mills and ISR facilities) to the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
regulations for drinking water.

B. Proposed New Criterion 14

The NRC proposes to add a new criterion 14 to appendix A to 10 CFR
part 40 that would establish regulations specific to uranium ISR
facilities to protect groundwater from the radiological and
nonradiological hazards associated with the generation of AEA section
11e.(2) byproduct material, thus codifying the risk-informed and best
management practices for groundwater protection used by the NRC in
site-specific license conditions. Together, with the revised applicable
requirements in criterion 5, and the existing requirements in criteria
7, 7A, 9 and 13, the criterion 14 requirements would establish a
standardized groundwater protection program for the NRC regulation of
ISR facilities.
The proposed requirements in criterion 14 are set out in eight
specific provisions: (a) site characterization and suitability
demonstration; (b) wellfield pre-operational requirements; (c) well
design and construction requirements; (d) operating, monitoring, and
reporting requirements; (e) mechanical integrity; (f) wellfield
restoration; (g) plugging and abandonment; and (h) corrective action.
The criterion 14 provisions set out technical requirements for
groundwater protection that would enable the NRC staff to determine if
the ISR facility can be operated to prevent, detect, and correct
leakage or migration of contaminants from the production unit to
surrounding groundwater.
Criterion 14(a) would require that the applicant submit specific,
detailed geologic and hydrologic site characterization information
(e.g., a description of the local and regional hydrogeologic gradient
and hydrostratigraphy; past, current and future groundwater use, etc.)
to demonstrate the suitability of a site to undertake ISR operations in
such a manner that there would be no significant impact to the
groundwater. The NRC has determined that this information is needed
because the production unit is a subsurface natural system, in contrast
to an engineered and manufactured system where the design, operation,
and behavior are understood and can be tested or simulated to predict
its performance.
Criterion 14(b) would set out wellfield pre-operational
requirements that must be satisfied after the issuance of the license
or license amendment (in the case of a new production unit or new
wellfield), but prior to the injection of lixiviant into the production
unit. The licensee would be required to undertake sampling and analysis
of radiological and nonradiological hazardous constituents described or
otherwise identified under criterion 14(b)(2) to determine the
background hazardous constituent concentration levels in the
groundwater at all point of compliance wells in the production unit in
each wellfield, and in the immediately overlying, underlying, and
adjacent aquifers to the production unit in each wellfield. The
licensee would be required to take at least four independent samples at
each point of compliance well as provided in criterion 14(b)(3)(ii) to
be consistent with the comparable RCRA regulation in 40 CFR
264.97(g)(1). These samples must be taken at a minimum of two weeks
apart or at an interval approved by the NRC. The background hazardous
constituent concentration levels would be used by the NRC to establish
the approved hazardous constituent concentration limits in paragraph
5B(5)(a) or (b) for groundwater restoration for the production unit and
for any corrective action in the aquifers immediately overlying,
underlying, and adjacent to the production unit.
The licensee also would be required by criterion 14(b)(4) to select
at least three indicator constituents to minimize the likelihood of
false positives for excursion detection as described in NUREG/CR 3967,
``An Analysis of Excursions at Selected In Situ Uranium Mines in
Wyoming and Texas.'' The licensee also would be required to measure
background concentration levels to determine the upper control limit
for each indicator constituent at point of compliance wells in the
aquifers immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent to the
production unit. The licensee also would be required by criterion
14(b)(5) to provide a wellfield restoration plan demonstrating how it
will meet the approved hazardous constituent concentration limits in
the production unit after restoration. The NRC must approve both the
background hazardous concentration levels submitted in accordance with
criterion 14(b)(3), the selection of the three indicator constituents
and the determination of the upper control limit for each indicator
constituent in accordance with criterion 14(b)(4), and the wellfield
restoration plan submitted in accordance with criterion 14(b)(5),
before the licensee may inject lixiviant into the production unit.
Criterion 14(c) would include requirements for injection,
production, and monitoring well design and construction.
Criterion 14(d) would include requirements for ISR wellfield
operation and monitoring to ensure the control of byproduct material
within the wellfield so that the leakage or migration of byproduct
material into surrounding groundwater would be prevented and detected
so that corrective action could be taken. The licensee would be
required to measure injection pressures to demonstrate that the maximum
injection pressure has not been exceeded and to measure injection and
production flow rates or volume to demonstrate an inward hydraulic
gradient in the production unit to prevent migration of byproduct
material. The licensee also would be required to conduct monitoring at
point of compliance wells to detect any excursion that may signal the
migration of byproduct material into surrounding groundwater, to
establish a program to detect leaks and spills into the uppermost
aquifer, and to meet specific reporting requirements.
Criterion 14(e) would include requirements for mechanical integrity
testing to ensure that any leaks caused by failures in specific well
installation components (e.g., casings) are detected and corrected to
prevent leakage of AEA section 11e.(2) byproduct material into
surrounding groundwater.
Criterion 14(f) would include requirements for groundwater
restoration in the production unit in the wellfield. The licensee would
be required to meet the approved hazardous constituent concentration
limits in paragraph 5B(5)(a) or (b) in the production unit after
restoration is completed. If the licensee cannot practically achieve
these limits, then under paragraph 5B(5)(c), the licensee may propose,
and the NRC may establish, an ACL for a hazardous constituent, after a
demonstration that there is no present or potential hazard to
groundwater or surface water quality pursuant to paragraphs 5B(4) and
5B(6). Under Criterion 14, groundwater restoration would occur to the
approved hazardous constituent concentration limits set forth in
paragraph 5B(5)(a) or (b) or to an approved ACL. As such,

[[Page 57734]]

criterion 14(f) would require at least one year of quarterly post-
restoration monitoring at the points of compliance in the production
unit after groundwater restoration has met the approved hazardous
constituent concentration limits or to an approved ACL. Additionally,
the licensee would be required to demonstrate that there has been no
statistically significant exceedance of the approved hazardous
constituent concentration limits or to an approved ACL for one year.
The licensee would be required to submit a wellfield restoration report
for NRC approval after these requirements are met. This proposed change
to the rule, which would codify the current practice of a minimum of
one year of post-restoration groundwater monitoring to verify that
conditions remain protective, could necessitate revisiting the July
2020 EPA MOU.
Criterion 14(g) would include requirements for the licensee to
submit a plugging and abandonment plan for all wells to ensure that
byproduct material fluids do not leak from plugged and abandoned wells
into surrounding groundwater.
Criterion 14(h) would include requirements for corrective action
pursuant to criterion 5D for three specific events. Specifically,
corrective action would be required for (1) a confirmed excursion that
lasts more than 60 days and has demonstrated an exceedance of an
approved hazardous constituent concentration limit; (2) a statistically
significant exceedance of an approved hazardous constituent
concentration limit at a point of compliance well in the production
unit during post-restoration monitoring; or (3) the detection of
leakage into the uppermost aquifer.

C. Proposed Revisions to Paragraph 5B(5) and Table 5C

The proposed rule would update paragraph 5B(5)(b) and remove the
criterion 5C table in appendix A and replace it with cross references
to specified EPA groundwater protection numerical standards. Currently,
paragraph 5B(5)(b) provides a licensee the option to restore the level
of a given hazardous constituent present in the groundwater so that it
is at or below the maximum concentration for that constituent found in
the criterion 5C table, ``Maximum Values for Groundwater Protection,''
in appendix A if the value is higher than its background concentration
level. The current criterion 5C table, which was added to appendix A by
the NRC in its 1987 rulemaking, lists the then available MCLs from the
EPA's standards for protection of drinking water and the maximum
concentrations for other selected constituents expected to be commonly
found at uranium milling sites. The proposed paragraph 5B(5)(b) would
reference the proposed criterion 5C, which would no longer be in a
tabular format but would instead cross-reference the EPA's 40 CFR part
141 tables that contain the various hazardous constituent MCLs for
drinking water and the 40 CFR 264.94 table 1, ``Maximum Concentration
of Constituents for Ground-water Protection,'' for those constituents
not listed in the 40 CFR part 141 tables (e.g., lead and silver). The
references to the criterion 5C table in the revised paragraph 5B(5)(b)
and the table itself would be removed. These proposed changes would be
applicable to both conventional mills and ISR facilities.
The NRC is considering these proposed changes to paragraph 5B(5)(b)
and to the criterion 5C table because when the NRC added the criterion
5C table in 1987, the EPA was still in the process of developing the
MCLs and the EPA has subsequently revised certain MCLs and added new
constituents of concern to the standards for protection of drinking
water (40 CFR part 141). By adding cross references in a revised
criterion 5C to the EPA's 40 CFR part 141 MCLs for hazardous
constituents and to the EPA's maximum concentrations in 40 CFR part
264, Table 1, appendix A should not require future revision if the EPA
later revises these standards.

D. Proposed Definition of a Point of Compliance Well

A point of compliance well plays an integral groundwater protection
role both in the NRC's current practice of regulating ISR facilities by
site-specific license conditions and in this proposed rule as it
represents the location where the approved hazardous constituent
concentration limits set forth in paragraph 5B(5) of appendix A to 10
CFR part 40 must be met. The proposed rule would continue to define the
term the Point of compliance as a site-specific location in the
uppermost aquifer where the groundwater protection standard must be
met; however, the proposed rule would add, for ISR operations, that the
point of compliance also includes a site-specific location below the
uppermost aquifer in the production unit in the wellfield, or in
aquifers adjacent to, above, or below the production unit, where the
groundwater protection standard must be met.
With this revised definition, a licensee would be required to
install point of compliance wells not only in the production unit but
also in the immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent aquifers to
the production unit. The point of compliance wells in the production
unit would be used to establish the background hazardous constituent
concentration levels before lixiviant injection, and subsequent to the
termination of ISR operations, would act as the points of compliance to
determine if the approved background hazardous constituent limits are
achieved after restoration of the production unit and for post-
restoration monitoring.
The point of compliance wells in the immediately overlying,
underlying, and adjacent aquifers would be used to establish the
background hazardous constituent concentration levels and the indicator
constituent upper control limits for excursion detection before
lixiviant injection. During ISR operations, these point of compliance
wells in the immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent aquifers
to the production unit would be used to detect excursions. If
corrective action is required as a result of an excursion being
detected, these point of compliance wells would be used to determine if
the corrective action has met the approved hazardous constituent
concentration limits.
Paragraph 5A(1) sets forth the primary groundwater protection
standard for a conventional mill's surface impoundment, namely, the
installation of a liner ``that is designed, constructed, and installed
to prevent any migration of wastes out of the impoundment to the
adjacent subsurface soil, groundwater, or surface water.'' The
regulatory assumption is that the liner will not fail. If leakage of
byproduct material occurs due to a failure of the liner to contain the
material, then the licensee must take corrective action, which may
include the installation of one or more point of compliance wells.
Point of compliance wells are, thus, not part of the design of the
conventional mill or its surface impoundment, but are only installed in
the event of a leakage from the impoundment that will require
corrective action.
In contrast, point of compliance wells are a critical part of
groundwater protection in the ISR wellfield. The point of compliance
wells are required to be installed before operations to measure
background hazardous constituent concentration levels in the production
unit and in the immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent
aquifers. The point of compliance wells are also used during operations
for excursion detection in the immediately

[[Page 57735]]

overlying, underlying, and adjacent aquifers and for any required
corrective action. Finally, after restoration of the production unit,
the point of compliance wells are used to demonstrate compliance with
the approved hazardous constituent concentration limits pursuant to
paragraph 5B(5) and to conduct post-restoration monitoring.

E. Proposed Definition of Excursion

The proposed rule would define the term Excursion to mean the
detection of indicator constituents that may signal the movement of
fluids containing byproduct material from the production unit into
surrounding groundwater. The term Indicator constituent is defined to
mean a parameter, such as chloride, conductivity, total alkalinity, or
other conservative solute, whose value is used to detect an excursion.
Indicator constituents travel at or close to the same velocity as the
groundwater and are not slowed by geochemical or physical processes
that impact the migration of hazardous constituents in the byproduct
material (e.g., uranium, radium). As such, the detection of an
excursion, i.e., the presence of indicator constituents, serves as an
early warning system of the movement of fluids containing byproduct
material from the production unit into surrounding groundwater, so that
the licensee can take action to eliminate migration of hazardous
constituents caused or introduced by the licensee's operations into the
surrounding groundwater.
To prevent the movement of byproduct material into surrounding
groundwater, the proposed criterion 14 would require the licensee to
establish a monitoring program to detect excursions, including the
installation of point of compliance wells in the immediately overlying,
underlying, and adjacent aquifers to the production unit that could be
affected by migration of byproduct material. Under the proposed
criterion 14(d)(2)(iii), after lixiviant injection begins in the
production unit, the licensee would be required to take samples to
measure the three selected indicator constituents every two weeks from
the point of compliance wells in the aquifers immediately overlying,
underlying, and adjacent to the production unit. In accordance with
proposed criterion 14(d)(2)(iii)(A), an excursion would be deemed to
have occurred if, in any point of compliance well, two or more
excursion indicator constituents exceed their upper control limits. An
adequate excursion indicator constituent is one that is found in
significantly higher concentrations in the production unit during ISR
operations than in the surrounding groundwater outside the production
unit.
The licensee should choose excursion indicator constituents that
are not significantly attenuated by geochemical or physical processes.
Selection of indicator parameters should be reflective of the lixiviant
used at the facility. Because a sample may result in a false positive,
an excursion confirmation sample must be taken within 48 hours after
the initial analysis that indicates that an excursion occurred. If that
second sample does not indicate the upper control limits were exceeded,
a third sample would be taken. If either the second or the third sample
confirms that an excursion has occurred, the licensee would be required
to take corrective action according to the requirements in criterion
14(h)(1). If neither of the samples confirm an excursion, the point of
compliance well would be removed from excursion status.

F. Details Regarding Proposed Alternate Concentration Limits Applicable
to Groundwater Restoration at ISR Wellfields

The proposed regulations for groundwater restoration in criterion
14(f) state that after completion of ISR operations in a production
unit, the licensee must restore the hazardous constituents in the
production unit identified under criterion 14(b)(2) to the
constituent's approved concentration limit listed in either paragraphs
5B(5)(a) or (b) pursuant to the wellfield restoration plan described in
criterion 14(b)(5). The approved concentration limit would be either
the approved background concentration for that hazardous constituent
(paragraph 5B(5)(a)) or one of the values referenced in criterion 5C
(e.g., MCLs), if the background concentration is below these values
(paragraph 5B(5)(b)).
Under proposed criterion 14(f), if the licensee cannot practically
achieve the approved concentration limit for a hazardous constituent,
the licensee may propose an ACL pursuant to paragraph 5B(5)(c). In such
an instance, criterion 14(f) would require that the licensee submit an
application for an ACL as an amendment to its license in accordance
with 10 CFR 40.44. After receiving a licensee's application requesting
an ACL and consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.104, the NRC
would publish a notice of opportunity for hearing in the Federal
Register.
Pursuant to proposed criterion 14(f), the NRC would consider the
factors specified in criteria 5B(4) and 5B(6) in its evaluation of the
ACL application. Criterion 5B(4) requires the NRC to consider the
presence of any underground source of drinking water (USDW) and
exempted aquifers.
Criterion 5B(6) states that the background concentrations pose no
incremental hazard and the other values referenced in criterion 5C,
including the MCLs, which are drinking water limits, provide an
acceptable hazard. Criterion 5(B)(6) provides the criteria for when
that the NRC may establish a site-specific ACL for a hazardous
constituent. Additionally, criterion 5B(6) provides 9 factors to
evaluate potential adverse effects on groundwater quality and 10
factors for potential adverse effects on hydraulically connected
surface water quality that will be considered by the NRC for the
present and potential hazard finding for a proposed ACL. An evaluation
of the criterion 5B(6) factors would enable the NRC to make the
appropriate present and potential hazard findings with respect to the
proposed ACL. In its license amendment application proposing the ACL,
the licensee must provide sufficient site-specific information to
enable the NRC to adequately address the criterion 5B(6) factors and to
determine whether the proposed ACL for that hazardous constituent in
the production unit presents no hazard or potential hazard to
groundwater or surface water quality.
These factors are then considered by the NRC to evaluate the ACL
for that hazardous constituent in a production unit. An ACL may not be
proposed or established until after ISR operations have ceased in the
production unit and the licensee has demonstrated that meeting either
the approved background concentration or the MCL for the subject
hazardous constituent is not practically achievable at that production
unit.
Although this proposed rule would not apply to current ISR facility
licensees who are not seeking to install a new wellfield within a
licensed ISR facility or a new production unit within an operating
wellfield of a licensed ISR facility, such current ISR facility
licensees can request that the NRC approve the use of an ACL in
accordance with criterion 5B(5)(c). The NRC would process such an ACL
request in a similar manner as described in the proposed rule's
criterion 14(f), including the publication of a notice of opportunity
for hearing in the Federal Register.

G. Proposed Post-Restoration Groundwater Monitoring Requirements for
ISR Wellfields

Presently, the NRC requires the licensee to conduct post-
restoration

[[Page 57736]]

monitoring at the applicable points of compliance wells on a quarterly
basis for at least one year, after the approved hazardous constituent
concentration limits are met, using a practice currently known as
stability monitoring. This practice is required through site-specific
license conditions. Post-restoration groundwater monitoring, as
proposed in criterion 14(f)(1), would occur after all activities to
restore the groundwater in a wellfield have ended and all monitored
hazardous constituents are at or below their approved concentration
limits in criterion 5B(5). As proposed, post-restoration monitoring
would continue the staff's current practice of quarterly monitoring for
at least one year following completion of groundwater restoration at
point of compliance wells in the restored production unit to ensure
that there is no statistically significant exceedance of the approved
hazardous constituent concentration limits.
If any point of compliance well shows a statistically significant
exceedance, the proposed rule would require the licensee to undertake
corrective action pursuant to criterion 14(h)(2). Depending on the
results of the corrective action, the NRC may require the licensee to
restart post-restoration monitoring after the corrective action is
completed. Restoration of the production unit would be deemed complete
when concentrations for all hazardous constituents remain at or below
approved limits for one year.
The proposed post-restoration monitoring requirement would be
applicable to each production unit in a wellfield and would ensure that
the hazardous constituent concentration levels in each production unit
are maintained after restoration at or below the approved hazardous
constituent concentration limits.

H. Proposed Monitoring and Corrective Action Requirements for
Protecting the Uppermost Aquifer

Although groundwater impacts from ISR operations are more likely to
occur in the aquifers immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent
to the production unit where uranium is extracted, it is important to
ensure that groundwater in the uppermost aquifer is also protected from
the effects of near surface and above surface ISR operations. Areas in
which these operations occur include waste fluid evaporation ponds,
facilities processing lixiviant, source, and byproduct material, and
associated wellfield infrastructure. Experience to date shows that
leakage or spills into the uppermost aquifer can occur as a result of
ISR operations in each of these areas.
The proposed rule's criterion 14(d)(4) would require each licensee
to establish a program, to be approved by the NRC, to detect leaks or
spills of lixiviant, source, or byproduct material into the uppermost
aquifer. If the licensee detects leakage or spills of lixiviant,
source, or byproduct material in the uppermost aquifer, the licensee
would be required to notify the NRC under proposed criterion
14(d)(5)(iii). Upon detection, the licensee would have to undertake
corrective action following the requirements of criterion 14(h)(3). The
licensee would be required to notify the NRC of the corrective action
taken and the results within 60 days of detection. Corrective action
would not be considered complete until the source of the leakage from
the licensee's operations has been eliminated and the hazardous
constituent concentration levels were restored to the approved
hazardous constituent concentration limits.

I. Interface Between EPA's Underground Injection Control Program
Requirements With the Proposed New Criterion 14

Permits for underground injection wells--a broad class of wells
that includes EPA UIC Class III injection wells used in ISR operations,
as well as Class I and V disposal wells also commonly utilized at ISR
facilities--are issued under the EPA's UIC program authority set forth
in the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR parts 144 and 146. Under EPA's UIC
program, the licensee must apply to the EPA to exempt the groundwater
in the production unit if the groundwater is defined as a USDW from the
protections of the Safe Drinking Water Act before injection in Class
III wells can begin. The EPA's regulations in 40 CFR 144.3 define an
Exempted aquifer as an aquifer or a portion thereof that meets the
criteria in the definition of USDW but which has been exempted
according to the procedures in 40 CFR 144.7. The criteria to determine
when a USDW may be designated as an exempted aquifer by the EPA
Administrator are found in 40 CFR 146.4. When the EPA Administrator
approves and issues an aquifer exemption, the EPA provides an exempted
aquifer boundary that includes the production unit in a wellfield and a
buffer zone outside the production unit.
Several UIC requirements are similar to those currently required by
the NRC in site-specific licenses. The NRC proposes to use the UIC
regulations for Class III injection wells as a regulatory framework
with slight modifications to be specific to ISR operations, such as
mechanical integrity testing, and considers these proposed regulations
as complementary to the EPA's UIC regulations. The NRC's licensees
would still be subject to the UIC program requirements through direct
regulatory oversight by the EPA or those States to which the EPA has
delegated its UIC program authority. The requirements in the proposed
criterion 14 would only be applied to Class III wells at ISR
facilities.
The EPA's UIC program regulates injection wells, whereas the NRC
intends to regulate both injection and production wells under the
proposed rule. The NRC is proposing to include production wells in the
rule as they may be converted to injection wells in order to modify
groundwater flow paths during operations, particularly during any
corrective actions. Furthermore, to the extent the Class III permittee
is granted an aquifer exemption, the UIC program does not require the
UIC Class III well permittee (i.e., the NRC licensee) to restore the
groundwater quality of the production unit of the exempted aquifer. The
NRC requires restoration of groundwater in the production unit under
UMTRCA. The intent of these complementary requirements is to prevent
contamination of any USDW surrounding the exempted aquifer (e.g.,
outside the aquifer exemption boundary) where an aquifer is exempted.
In the proposed criterion 14(f), the NRC would expressly require
restoration of the exempted aquifer. Another difference between the two
programs is that the UIC regulations require only an initial integrity
test prior to operations for uranium Class III injection wells. In this
regard, the EPA premised its UIC regulations on the determination that
most injection wells would have a relatively short service life.\1\
Based upon the NRC's regulatory experience, injection wells at ISR
facilities may need to be operational throughout the term of the ISR
facility license and, as such, the proposed criterion 14(e) will
require a mechanical integrity test for both injection and production
wells before initial use and before reuse of wells that have been
serviced with equipment or procedures that could damage the well
casing, and at least once every five years thereafter. Also, the UIC
regulations require routine monitoring of pressure and

[[Page 57737]]

flows to the injection wells. The purpose for this monitoring is to
ensure that the formation fracture pressure is not exceeded during
operations and the integrity of the wells is maintained. In the
proposed criterion 14(d), the NRC would require routine monitoring of
pressure and flows to ensure that the inward gradient is maintained
during both ISR operations and groundwater restoration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ In its June 1980 final rule promulgating 40 CFR part 146,
``Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards,''
the EPA stated that ``the periodic demonstration of mechanical
integrity will apply only to the wells with longer [useful] life,
i.e., salt and geothermal wells.'' 45 FR 42472, 42485 (June 24,
1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, proposed criterion 14(f) would ensure protection of the
USDWs when establishing an ACL for a hazardous constituent after
groundwater restoration. Specifically, criterion 14(f) would require
compliance with the existing criterion 5B(4), which requires that in
making any determination concerning groundwater use for establishment
of an ACL for a hazardous constituent under criterion 5B(6), the NRC
must consider the presence of any USDWs and exempted aquifers.

J. Agencies That Participated in the Development of This Proposed Rule

In 2021, the working group involved in the preparation of an
earlier version of this proposed rule included NRC staff and two
Agreement State representatives, one each from the respective
regulatory agencies of Texas and Wyoming. In 2025, the working group
involved in preparation of this proposed rule included NRC staff and
Agreement State representatives from the respective regulatory agencies
of Utah and Wyoming. The Organization of Agreement States approved
these representatives for both rulemakings. The EPA and Agreement
States will be able to provide comments during the formal comment
period for this proposed rule.
The NRC prepared an unofficial redline version of the proposed
changes to regulatory text that is intended to help the reader identify
the proposed changes. The unofficial redline strikeout version of the
proposed rule is publicly available and is listed in the ``Availability
of Documents'' section.

V. Specific Request for Comment: ISR

The NRC is seeking advice and recommendations from the public on
the proposed rule. The NRC is particularly interested in comments and
supporting rationale from the public on the following:
The proposed changes for ISR facilities are intended to codify the
NRC's existing licensing practices and provide regulatory certainty and
clarity with respect to groundwater protection.
1. For new and existing part 40 ISR licensees, do the rulemaking
changes add regulatory clarity or regulatory certainty? If not, what
additional changes should the staff consider?
2. Does the proposed rule or supplemental guidance create
conditions that would be contrary to the rule's purpose and objectives?
If so, which portions are contrary to the rule's purpose and
objectives, and why? Are there unintended consequences? If so, what are
the unintended consequences, and how should they be addressed?
ISR facilities typically require several permits at the Federal
and/or State level. For example, ISR facilities are required to obtain
a permit under EPA's (or an authorized State's) UIC program to inject
lixiviant into the subsurface. The NRC has developed this proposed rule
language to be complementary to EPA's UIC program but is interested in
any potential regulatory conflicts introduced by the rule.
3. Does the proposed rule or supplemental guidance create a
conflict with another federal regulation? If so, which regulation, and
how should the conflict be resolved?
The regulations in 10 CFR part 40 contain provisions requiring
submission of documents to the NRC. One example is the semi-annual
effluent reporting requirement contained in 10 CFR part 40.65.
4. Are there any reporting requirements in this proposed rule, or
in the existing language in 10 CFR part 40 that should be reconsidered
by the staff? Staff is interested in identifying reporting requirements
that could be submitted less frequently, that could be maintained on
site for review during inspections, or could be satisfied in some other
manner.
After completion of ISR operations, the facility must restore
groundwater to the approved constituent concentration limits at all
point of compliance wells in the production unit. If all efforts to
restore ground water have failed and the facility cannot practically
achieve the approved concentration limit for a hazardous constituent,
the facility may apply for an alternate concentration limit (ACL). The
NRC may approve a site-specific ACL after considering practicable
corrective actions, and that the constituent will not pose a hazard to
human health or the environment as long as the ACL is not exceeded. The
factors to make this hazard finding are currently codified in 5B(4) and
5B(6). This rulemaking proposes to apply the same criteria for ISR.
5. What additional factors or criteria should the NRC consider in
either this rulemaking or through the development of guidance documents
for the consideration of ACL's at ISR facilities?

VI. Background: Decommissioning Timeliness

A. Timeliness in Decommissioning of Nuclear Materials Facilities

The NRC has consistently determined that decontamination should be
accomplished and the license terminated as soon as practical. In the
1994 final rule, ``Timeliness in Decommissioning of Materials
Facilities.'' (59 FR 36026, July 15, 1994), the NRC amended its
regulations to establish specific time periods for decommissioning
unused portions of operating nuclear materials facilities and for
decommissioning the entire site upon license expiration, termination of
operations by choice, or termination of operations caused by a period
of inactivity. The NRC revised these requirements in recognition of the
difficulties associated with a case-by-case approach to decommissioning
issues at nuclear materials sites.
In finalizing the associated time periods in that rule, the NRC
relied upon an evaluation that indicated that, in general, for
materials facilities, further health and safety benefits derived from
radiological decay are not likely to be gained by delaying
decommissioning beyond approximately 3 years from the date that
operations cease. However, the evaluation showed that incremental
benefits due to radioactive decay between the second and third years
are small, and NRC considered 2 years as a sufficient period for a
licensee to make a business decision regarding the future use of the
currently-inactive license, separate building, or outdoor area.
Therefore, NRC determined that a reasonable time period to permit no
principal activities to be conducted under the license or for a
building or outdoor area to remain inactive without undergoing
decommissioning was 24 months. In doing so, the NRC considered both the
health and safety benefits to be obtained by allowing short-lived
isotopes to decay before beginning decommissioning operations and the
licensee's need to make business decisions concerning the initiation of
decommissioning.

B. Timely Completion of Decommissioning of Power Reactors and Nonpower
Utilization Facilities

In 1988, in a final rule, ``General Requirements for
Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities.'' (53 FR 24018, June 27, 1988), NRC
amended its decommissioning requirements and established a 60-year
period after permanent cessation of operations for an electric utility
licensee to complete

[[Page 57738]]

decommissioning. The proposed rule, ``Decommissioning Criteria for
Nuclear Facilities,'' (50 FR 5600. February 11, 1985) introduced
defined decommissioning alternatives, including decontamination (DECON)
and safe storage (SAFSTOR). The proposed rule indicated that both DECON
or SAFSTOR would be reasonable decommissioning alternatives for light
water power reactors for up to 50 years. The NRC explained that, based
on the half-life of the typical remaining radionuclides, the reduction
of occupational doses beyond about 30 years would be marginally
significant, although a significant volume reduction in contaminated
waste would result from 50 years in safe storage. At the time, NRC
considered both 30- and 50-year periods as acceptable for
decommissioning activities. The final rule established the requirement
in Sec. 50.82(a)(3) for a licensee to terminate its license within 60
years of permanent cessation of operations, explaining that the NRC
considered a 50-year period sufficient for the benefits of radiological
decay and a 10-year period for dismantlement and decontamination
activities to be completed.
Additionally, in finalizing the rule, the Commission also stated
that consideration would be given to a decommissioning alternative
which provides for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years for
power reactors only when necessary to protect public health and safety.
The amended regulations identified factors to be considered by NRC in
support of a request to extend decommissioning beyond 60 years,
including the unavailability of waste disposal capacity, presence of
other nuclear facilities at the site, and other site-specific factors
affecting capability to carry out decommissioning safely. The 60-year
decommissioning requirement for nuclear reactor facilities licensed
under 10 CFR part 50, Sec. 50.82(a)(3), is identical to the
requirement for reactor facilities licensed under parts 52 and 53,
Sec. 52.110(c) and Sec. 53.1070(c), respectively.
Other than the acknowledgment in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.185,
``Standard Format and Content for Post-Shutdown Decommissioning
Activities Report,'' that states any such request will be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis, there was little precedent or guidance regarding
how to apply the considerations currently included in Sec. Sec.
50.82(a)(3), 52.110(c), and 53.1070(c) for an alternative schedule for
decommissioning. Therefore, recently, in SECY-24-0073 ``Site-Specific
Considerations for Review of Requests to Complete Power Reactor
Decommissioning Beyond 60 Years from Permanent Cessation of
Operations,'' the staff informed the Commission of how it would
evaluate such a request. As explained in SECY-24-0073, the staff's
approach when evaluating alternative decommissioning schedule requests
draws on the methods historically used for nuclear safety reviews and
the seven safety cornerstones of the Reactor Oversight Process, and
considers issues including waste disposal capacity, the presence of
other nuclear facilities, SAFSTOR conditions, physical security, and
partial approvals.
The regulatory language in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3), Sec. 52.110(c), and
Sec. 53.1070(c) essentially provides that a licensee can request an
alternative decommissioning schedule beyond the 60-year requirement if
a licensee can demonstrate that approval of the alternative
decommissioning schedule is ``necessary to protect public health and
safety.'' For other regulatory requirements in parts 50, 52, and 53
that do not have specific criteria for relief, exemptions are sought
under the associated provision in Sec. Sec. 50.12, 52.7, and 53.080,
``Specific exemptions.'' The Atomic Energy Commission established Sec.
50.12 in 1956 in a final rule, ``Part 50--Licensing of Production and
Utilization Facilities,'' (21 FR 355, January 19, 1956) to provide
flexibility for the Commission to grant exemptions from regulatory
requirements as it determines are authorized by law, will not present
an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with
the common defense and security, and when a special circumstance is
present. The regulatory criteria for approving an alternate
decommissioning schedule in Sec. Sec. 50.82(a)(3), 52.110(c), and
53.1070(c), which allow approval ``only when necessary to protect
public health and safety,'' are much more restrictive than the criteria
for review of specific exemptions in Sec. Sec. 50.12, 52.7, and
53.080.

VII. Discussion: Decommissioning Timeliness

A. Timeliness in Decommissioning of Nuclear Materials Facilities

The proposed rule would offer several changes to the NRC's
decommissioning regulations. For nuclear materials facilities, the
proposed changes focus on the requirements to initiate timely
decommissioning and the process to request an extension to the
associated timeframes. The proposed rule would extend the timeframe for
notifications related to the initiation of decommissioning, broaden the
reasons acceptable for extensions to those timeframes, and streamline
the process to request extensions, thereby reducing the regulatory
burden on licensees while maintaining public health and safety.
Specifically, the proposed revisions to 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 70,
and 72 would restructure the decommissioning requirements in paragraphs
(d) of the applicable sections (Sec. Sec. 30.36(d); 40.42(d);
70.38(d); and 72.54(d)) to separate the requirement to notify NRC if
any of four criteria are met, from the requirement for the licensee to
initiate decommissioning actions. Also, the proposed rule would extend
the period of no principal activities that would trigger the
notification provisions from 24-months to 36- or 48-months, depending
on the licensee. Additionally, to increase flexibility, the proposed
rule would also amend the process to request extensions of the
timeframes established in paragraphs (d) of the applicable sections by
broadening the reasons for extension, reducing the amount of
information contained in the extension request, and increasing the time
to develop the extension request from 30 days prior to notification to
45 days after notification required by paragraph (d). (Sec. Sec.
30.36(f); 40.42(f); 70.38(f); 72.54(f)). This rule does not propose to
amend any requirements related to the timely completion of
decommissioning of nuclear materials facilities (e.g., within 24 months
of commencement of decommissioning).
Restructuring Requirements To Increase Regulatory Clarity and
Flexibility in Requesting Exemptions
The NRC has identified efficiencies to be gained in modifying the
regulatory structure for the requirements related to the initiation of
decommissioning and decommissioning planning of nuclear materials
licensed under Sec. Sec. 30.36, 40.42, 70.38, and 72.54 of chapter 10.
Currently, nuclear materials licensees are required to notify the NRC
and begin decommissioning activities within 60 days of the occurrence
of any of four triggering criteria. Because the requirements to notify
the NRC and initiate decommissioning or decommissioning planning are
collocated in the regulations, a failure to comply with one portion of
the regulation results in a violation of the entire regulation.
However, failure to provide timely notification after the occurrence of
one of the four criteria may be more or less risk significant than a
failure to initiate decommissioning activities in a timely manner.

[[Page 57739]]

Under current regulations, the NRC may grant requests to extend
such time periods if a licensee submits the request no later than 30
days before notification pursuant to paragraph (d) of the applicable
section, in accordance with Sec. Sec. 30.36(f), 40.42(f), 70.38(f),
and 72.54(f)(1). To approve such a request, the NRC must determine that
this relief is not detrimental to the public health and safety and is
otherwise in the public interest. However, because the time period that
licensees have to request the exemption is located within paragraph (f)
of the aforementioned regulations, neither the licensee nor NRC can use
the process established in paragraph (f) to provide relief for a
licensee that needs more than 30 days to develop its extension request.
Instead, a licensee must request relief from the 30 day requirement
using the specific exemptions process established in Sec. Sec. 30.11,
40.14, 70.17, or 72.7, as applicable.
Additionally, a licensee may request an alternate schedule for
submittal of a decommissioning plan in accordance with Sec. Sec.
30.36(g)(2), 40.42(g)(2), 70.38(g)(2), and 72.54(f)(2). To approve the
alternate schedule, the NRC must determine that the alternate schedule
is necessary to the effective conduct of decommissioning operations,
presents no undue risk from radiation to public health and safety, and
is otherwise in the public interest.
The proposed rule revises the current structure of the sections and
the differing standards for relief requests or extension requests to be
more efficient and flexible. Specifically, this proposed rule would
restructure the regulatory requirements in paragraph (d) of the
applicable sections to separate the four criteria that trigger
notification to NRC from the licensee actions that must be taken to
initiate decommissioning after notifying NRC. The proposed change would
enhance regulatory clarity as to when licensee actions are required and
increase flexibility in when and how licensees may perform these
actions. The proposed rule change would allow a licensee to use one
process to request an extension to all these timeframes, as described
in the proposed Sec. Sec. 30.36(f), 40.42(f), 70.38(f), and
72.54(f)(1).
Extend the Period of No Principal Activities Before Initiation of
Decommissioning Is Required
The NRC's policy has always been, and continues to be, that
decontamination should be accomplished and the license terminated as
soon as practical. Additionally, the agency continues to believe that
timely initiation of decommissioning for nuclear material licensees,
with notification and commencement of decommissioning activities when
there is a period of no principal activities in a separate building or
outdoor area or under the license, is appropriate.
However, over the years, it has become clear that business
decisions regarding the use or non-use of licensed materials can take
longer than the 24 months currently provided in NRC regulations as the
length of time in which no principal activity triggers action by a
licensee. As an example, a portable gauge licensee may not have a
contract to use its gauges for a period that exceeds 24 months and thus
would be required to initiate decommissioning or request an extension.
The termination of the license would result in an inability to bid on
contracts that require the use of a portable gauge for field
operations. This creates an unnecessary regulatory burden on the
licensee by requiring one of three options: (1) the licensee could
terminate the license until a contract bid is found, at which time the
licensee would need to apply for a new portable gauge license but would
be unable to bid on the contract until the license was issued by the
NRC (meanwhile, the licensee may lose the ability to bid on the
contract as the license issuance time may be longer than the bidding
process); (2) the licensee could request an extension under 10 CFR
30.36(f) if it can demonstrate that the request is not detrimental to
public health and safety and is otherwise in the public interest; or
(3) the licensee could request a ``storage only'' license and submit
the regulatory information needed. In the third scenario, once a
contract is available for bidding, a licensee would then need to
request a change for the ``storage only'' license to be reinstated as
an operational license, which can take up to 90 days for NRC to review
and approve. In such cases, developing, submitting, reviewing,
approving, and issuing license amendments for such administrative
actions is a significant resource burden on the licensee and NRC with
minimal safety benefit.
On numerous occasions, licensees have been required to implement
one of the above three options to ensure their business can continue to
deliver the safe and secure use of civilian nuclear energy technologies
and radioactive materials for the benefit of society and the
environment. In at least one instance, access to certain medical
imaging technologies or nuclear medicine treatments could have been
impacted by a licensee who had not performed principal activities
within 24 months because it did not have a qualifying patient. However,
the licensee maintained its health and safety program throughout that
period of time and was the only facility in a remote location to
provide this type of medical care. Therefore, it may have been a
detriment to public health and safety if NRC had not granted an
extension from the 24-month period of no principal activities in this
case. The changes proposed in this rule would alleviate this risk.
The proposed rule addresses this issue by amending the regulations
to extend the 24-month period of no principal activities to 36 months
for part 30 licensees and 48 months for licensees under parts 40, 70,
and 72. In gathering data to inform the proposed 36-month period of no
principal activities for part 30 licensees, NRC confirmed that
incremental benefits due to radioactive decay between the second and
third years are small and diminish significantly beyond 3 years. NRC
also considered 3 years a reasonable amount of time in which licensees
could adequately assess their future business needs in order to make a
determination as to whether they should request an extension or
initiate decommissioning. Additionally, because each record of receipt
and transfer of byproduct material must be retained for 3 years
following transfer or disposal of the material in accordance with Sec.
30.51, any period beyond 3 years may present risk of institutional
knowledge being lost. Finally, in establishing the 36 month period of
no principal activities for part 30 licensees, the NRC also recognized
that routine NRC inspections range from 1- to 5-year periodicity,
depending upon the type of licensed activities. Therefore, a licensee
would reasonably have at least one inspection within the proposed 36-
month period of no principal activities before it is required to report
to NRC. In the case that a licensee was not inspected during that
period, the next periodic inspection would occur within a short period
of time after the extension request is submitted and/or approved,
thereby providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public
health and safety, common defense and security, and the environment.
While NRC is proposing a 36 month period of no principal activities
for part 30 licensees, the NRC is proposing a 48 month period of no
principal activities for parts 40, 70, and 72 licensees. The NRC is
proposing the 48 month period of no principal activities for these
licensees because compared to part 30 licensees, facilities licensed
under parts 40, 70, and 72 typically have a lower

[[Page 57740]]

risk of abandoned material because they have greater financial
resources, and are subject to greater regulatory oversight given the
nature of the materials, including higher inspection frequency.
Additionally, source material, special nuclear material, and
independent spent fuel storage installation licensees may experience
certain economic conditions that would necessitate pausing operations
for a longer period of time, such as changes in the price of uranium
for a period of time. In general, an increase in radiological risk, and
nonradiological risk at uranium recovery facilities, for the public
could occur when nuclear material is abandoned and begins to migrate
through the environment, potentially contaminating drinking water
resources. However, as indicated above, licensees under 10 CFR parts
40, 70 and 72 typically have a lower risk of abandoned material.
Therefore, NRC has determined that 48 months is a reasonable amount of
time for no principal activities to occur at these facilities before
requiring action by the licensee.
These proposed changes would extend the existing period of no
principal activities from 24 to either 36 or 48 months (depending upon
the type of license) before requiring NRC notification, thereby
reducing reporting frequency, reducing costs for licensees and NRC, and
providing licensees flexibility to make business decisions while
retaining their NRC license, all while providing reasonable assurance
of adequate protection of public health and safety. Further, these
proposed changes retain the core safety principle that materials
facilities should be decommissioned as soon as practical.
In this proposed rule, the NRC is maintaining a focus on safety by
protecting against potentially abandoned radioactive material while
providing flexibility to licensees based on foreseeable (e.g., grant
funding lapse, gap in patient population for highly specialized nuclear
medicine procedures, delays in contract implementation or obtaining new
contacts, patient care considerations) or unforeseeable (e.g.,
pandemic, sudden and lasting economic shift) impacts that may cause a
reasonable pause in principal activities under the license. Extending
the period of no principal activities will also reduce the number of
requests to extend, transitions to a ``possession only'' status, and
premature license terminations and subsequent new license applications,
all of which are administratively intensive for the NRC to review and
disposition, and impose a regulatory burden on licensees.
Increase Flexibility in Decommissioning Timeliness Extension Requests
Under the current Sec. Sec. 30.36(f), 40.42(f), Sec. 70.38(f), or
Sec. 72.54(f)(1), the NRC may approve a request for extension to
certain decommissioning timeliness requirements if it determines the
request is ``not detrimental to the public health and safety and is
otherwise in the public interest.'' While the NRC continues to support
the position that nuclear facilities should be decommissioned as soon
as practical, operational history has demonstrated that successful
decommissioning may require delays to the schedules that do not impact
public health and safety or the environment. The proposed rule would
remove the current requirement to demonstrate that such requests are
not detrimental to public health and safety and in the public interest
and replace it with a streamlined process that risk-informs NRC's
review of the extension request by specifically focusing the review on
safety-significant elements. The proposed paragraph (f) of the
applicable sections (Sec. Sec. 30.36(f), 40.42(f), Sec. 70.38(f), and
Sec. 72.54(f)) provides the streamlined request process and includes
specific, safety-related information that must be submitted as part of
the request to delay the initiation of decommissioning. Namely, the
licensee must discuss (1) the business need for continued possession or
authorization of licensed material or how the request is otherwise in
the public interest (2) the health and safety plan that will be in
effect during the extension period and (3) the current decommissioning
cost estimate and the potential for increased decommissioning costs if
an extension of the time period is or is not approved. Currently,
Section 2.6 of NUREG-1757 Vol. 3, ``Financial Assurance, Recordkeeping,
and Timeliness,'' includes guidance on the type of information the NRC
may need to make a determination on an extension request. This proposed
rule aims to explicitly identify, in the regulation itself, a list of
the information required to support the request. The goal of these
proposed changes is to reduce the size and technical complexity of
these requests and streamline NRC review by focusing on the most
safety-significant information. As part of this proposed rule package,
the NRC is issuing draft Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) DUWP-ISG-04,
``Requirements for the Initiation of Decommissioning for Nuclear
Materials Facilities,'' to provide additional considerations for
licensees developing an extension request in accordance with the
proposed regulations.
Additionally, the proposed rule would require the request include a
timeframe for which the licensee will resume principal activities,
which will not exceed 36 months from the date of notification that
principal activities ceased under the license or in a separate building
or outdoor area, as well as a commitment that the licensee will provide
notification to the NRC if principal activities do not resume within
the specified timeframe. The NRC is proposing the 36-month maximum
timeframe for extension because, beyond 3 years, there is increased
uncertainty in the licensee's specific business projections and
decreased ability to project foreseeable shifts in the nuclear industry
and free market. Moreover, NRC routine inspections for nuclear
materials facilities are on a 1- to 5-year periodicity, ensuring that
each licensee would be inspected at least once between the initial 36-
month period of no principal activities and a maximum of 36 additional
months of inactivity during the extension period.
Currently, to request relief from the initiation of decommissioning
and decommissioning planning requirements under Sec. Sec. 30.36(f),
40.42(f), 70.38(f), or 72.54(f)(1), a licensee must submit a request to
extend initiation 30 days prior to the notification date required by
paragraph (d). In essence, a licensee must develop and submit the
request for extension to the notification and timely decommissioning
requirement before making such notification. The NRC recognizes that
this brief timeframe may not allow for licensees to develop and submit
adequate documentation to support the extension request. Additionally,
if a licensee was in violation of the notification requirement pursuant
to Sec. Sec. 30.36(d), 40.42(d), 70.38(d), or 72.54(d), as applicable,
it would have missed the opportunity for a request to delay initiation
of decommissioning, as well.
The proposed rule would allow more time for licensees to develop
and submit a request to delay the initiation of decommissioning
activities. The changes proposed also include an option for licensees
to indicate the intent to request a delay in the initiation of
decommissioning as part of the notification required by Sec. Sec.
30.36(d), 40.42(d), 70.38(d), or 72.54(d), as applicable. Then, a
licensee must submit the request to delay the initiation of
decommissioning 45 days later. This would allow for licensees to take
advantage of the full 60 days

[[Page 57741]]

provided by the requirement to notify the NRC of the initiation of
decommissioning. In turn, the licensee would be able to make an
informed business decision based on its needs or the public interest
and then decide whether to request a delay in initiating
decommissioning under Sec. Sec. 30.36(f), 40.42(f), 70.38(f), and
72.54(f)(1), or proceed with decommissioning or decommissioning
planning, if required.
To increase efficiency, NRC is proposing to include all timeliness
requirements related to the initiation of decommissioning and
decommissioning planning in the proposed Sec. Sec. 30.36(d), 40.42(d),
70.38(d), and 72.54(d). This would allow a licensee to request an
extension to any of the timelines in these provisions by using the
straightforward process described in proposed paragraph (f) of
Sec. Sec. 30.36, 40.42, 70.38, and 72.54. The proposal is intended to
reduce unnecessary regulatory burden by limiting the number of
extension requests submitted and reviewed by NRC and streamline the
request for extensions to the initiation of decommissioning and
decommissioning planning timeliness requirements without compromising
the NRC's ability to properly regulate licensed material when principal
activities have ceased. For licensees that are required to submit a
decommissioning plan, the NRC is specifically seeking stakeholder
feedback in Section VII, ``Specific Request for Comment:
Decommissioning Timeliness,'' on the applicability and usefulness of
the proposed streamlined approval of alternate schedule requests in
paragraph (f) of the Sec. Sec. 30.36, 40.42, 70.38, and 72.54. NRC is
evaluating potential alternative approaches to streamline alternate
schedule requests to ensure the regulations adequately address the
unique public health and safety concerns associated with a delay in
submitting the decommissioning plan while providing for a streamlined
process, where feasible.

B. Timely Completion of Decommissioning of Power Reactors and Nonpower
or Utilization Facilities

The proposed rule offers several changes to the decommissioning
regulations. For nuclear reactor, nonpower, or utilization facilities
licensed under 10 CFR parts 50, 52, or 53, the proposed changes focus
on the requirement to complete decommissioning in a timely manner and
the process to request an extension to the required decommissioning
timeframe. The proposed revisions to Sec. Sec. 50.82(a)(3),
50.82(b)(4)(i), 52.110(c), and 53.1070(c) would remove the criteria
that exemptions to timely completion of decommissioning may be approved
``only when necessary to protect public health and safety.'' Because
the requirements would not have criteria for exemption, exemptions
would be governed by the specific exemptions process Sec. Sec. 50.12,
52.7, and 53.080, broadening the scope of factors that NRC may consider
in its approval of a specific exemption for licensees to delay
completion of decommissioning beyond the required timeframe. This rule
does not propose to amend the required timeline to complete
decommissioning nor any requirements related to the beginning of the
decommissioning process (e.g., timely certification to the NRC of
permanent cessation of operations and removal of fuel, submittal and
implementation of the post-shutdown decommissioning activities report,
submittal of the license termination plan (LTP), or implementation of
the LTP.)
The NRC continues to support the position noted in the final rule,
``Amendments Specifying Licensee Responsibility for Nuclear Materials
and Procedures for Termination of Specific Licenses,'' that all nuclear
facilities should be decommissioned as soon as practical (48 FR 32324,
July 15, 1983). In a 1988 final rule, ``General Requirements for
Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities,'' (53 FR 24018, June 27, 1988), the
NRC's analysis demonstrated that a timeframe of 60 years was considered
to be as soon as practical for reactor decommissioning. When
considering decommissioning beyond the 60-year timeframe, in general,
the NRC explained that there are a number of risks that must be
carefully analyzed and mitigated. While the radiological risk of
licensed material to the public decreases exponentially over time,
long-lived activation products will remain in significant quantities
that require continued monitoring and controls for the duration of the
extension period. Although extended decommissioning periods benefit
from natural radioactive decay, they do not eliminate the need for
robust health and safety programs to properly manage remaining nuclear
material from potentially migrating through the environment while
remaining in safe storage. NRC continues to support the position that
the 60-year period after permanent cessation of operations is
sufficient for most facilities to complete decommissioning. It should
not be common for licensees to have a site-specific condition that
rises to the level of requesting an exemption from the requirement to
complete decommissioning in a timely manner.
However, as the current regulations recognize, certain site-
specific conditions, such as the presence of other nuclear facilities
at the site, may make it impractical to decommission within 60 years.
For example, decommissioning one permanently shutdown reactor unit
while another unit remains operational may present safety and
environmental challenges that must be carefully considered, especially
if the two units are physically located close to one another and/or
share common infrastructure. Delaying decommissioning of a permanently
shutdown reactor may support continued operations of the existing
reactor fleet for licensees that have multiple reactors at one site.
The NRC has long recognized that the presence of other nuclear
facilities at a site is a site-specific factor that can impact a
licensee's capability to complete decommissioning within the 60-year
timeframe. However, the current process to request an exemption is
nebulous, burdensome, and overly conservative without providing
commensurate safety benefits for the public.
The proposed rule seeks to remedy this by simplifying and
broadening the criteria for requesting an alternative schedule for
decommissioning and aligning the request with the well-established
specific exemption process familiar to NRC, licensees, and the public.
To reduce administrative and resource burden on the nuclear power
reactor industry and the NRC, this proposed rule would amend the
regulation to leverage the existing, well-understood ``Specific
exemptions'' process in Sec. Sec. 50.12, 52.7, and 53.080. The
proposed rule would retain the requirement to complete decommissioning
with 60 years of permanent cessation of operations and move the
criteria for requesting an alternative decommissioning schedule from
Sec. Sec. 50.82(a)(3), 52.110(c), and 53.1070(c) to the proposed
specific exemption provision in Sec. Sec. 50.12(a)(2)(vi) and
53.080(b)(6). The proposed rule does not amend 10 CFR 52.7 because,
unless other criteria are provided for in part 52, specific exemptions
for requirements in part 52 are governed by Sec. 50.12. Because the
requirements for an alternate decommissioning schedule are proposed to
be removed from Sec. 52.110(c), those requests would now be handled
under Sec. 50.12. Thus, under the proposed rule, requests for
completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years by reactor facilities
licensed

[[Page 57742]]

under parts 50 and 52 as well as requests for completion of
decommissioning with significant delay by nonpower or utilization
facilities would be governed by the specific exemption process in Sec.
50.12. Requests for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years by
reactor facilities licensed under part 53 would be governed by Sec.
53.080.
In addition to moving these requests into the well-established
specific exemption process, the proposed rule would also increase
clarity and flexibility by removing the specific examples of site-
specific factors currently listed in the regulations (e.g.,
unavailability of waste disposal capacity, the presence of other
nuclear facilities) and instead, refer broadly to ``site-specific
factors affecting the licensee's capability to carry out
decommissioning.'' Using the proposed exemption process, under
Sec. Sec. 50.12(a) and 53.080, the NRC would approve an exemption
request if the request is authorized by law, will not present an undue
risk to public health and safety, and is consistent with the common
defense and security, and if a special circumstance is present. To
address requests for decommissioning to extend beyond the required
timeframe, this proposed rule would add an additional special
circumstance in Sec. Sec. Sec. 50.12(a)(2)(vi) and 53.080(b)(6). This
additional special circumstance provides that the Commission may
consider granting an exemption that would provide only temporary relief
from the timely decommissioning requirement for cases in which site-
specific factor(s) affect the licensee's capability to complete timely
decommissioning and the extension will not adversely affect public
health and safety for the duration of the extension period. To approve
the exemption, NRC must conclude that public health and safety would
not be adversely impacted for the duration of the extension period.
Similarly, the proposed rule would amend Sec. 50.82(b)(4)(i) to
remove specific timeliness criteria for decommissioning and include
similar criteria in Sec. 50.12(a)(2) in order to improve efficiency in
reviews where safety is not adversely impacted. Currently, nonpower
production and utilization facilities (NPUFs) are required to
decommission without significant delay. Because the proposed rule would
add a special circumstance for which a licensee may request to delay
decommissioning, licensees may leverage the existing, well-understood
Sec. 50.12 process to request exemption from this requirement. In this
way, NRC intends to streamline its reviews of exemption requests for
NPUFs to delay decommissioning by pursuing SAFSTOR in certain cases.

VIII. Specific Request for Comment: Decommissioning Timeliness

The NRC is seeking advice and recommendations from the public on
the proposed rule. The NRC is particularly interested in comments and
supporting rationale from the public on the following:

Requesting Extensions to the Requirement for Timely Completion of
Decommissioning for Power Reactors and Nonpower, and Utilization
Facility (NPUF) Licensees

1. Does the Specific Exemptions process in Sec. Sec. 50.12 and
53.080 provide the most efficiency for reactor, nonpower, and
utilization facility licensees to request extensions to the timely
decommissioning requirements while presenting no undue risk to public
health and safety? Is there additional information NRC could provide to
increase clarity in this approach? Are there unintended consequences to
this approach? If so, what are the unintended consequences, and how
should they be addressed?
2. Are there additional site-specific factors that may affect a
reactor or NPUFs licensee's capability to complete decommissioning in a
timely manner that NRC should consider in its guidance? Provide why the
NRC should consider this factor as a substantial reason that a licensee
could not complete decommissioning in a timely manner.
3. What NRC oversight activities (e.g., inspections, reporting)
would be appropriate during extended decommissioning periods for power,
nonpower, or utilization facilities to ensure continued safety? Provide
the basis for your response.

Extending the Period of No Principal Activities Before Triggering
Initiation of Decommissioning for Nuclear Materials Facility Licensees

1. Are there other factors that NRC should consider in determining
an appropriate timeframe for which a licensee may conduct no principal
activities before triggering the initiation of decommissioning? Provide
the basis for your response.
2. Are the other enhancements to the requirements for the
initiation of decommissioning that the NRC should consider to improve
regulatory clarity and reduce administrative burden? Should the NRC
consider additional guidance or other outreach options?

Requesting Extensions to the Timeframes Before Initiating
Decommissioning for Nuclear Materials Facility Licensees

The NRC is proposing to restructure paragraph (f) in Sec. Sec.
30.36, 40.42, 70.38, and 72.54 to create a single, streamlined process
for requesting exemptions from any timeliness requirement in paragraph
(d) of those same sections, including extensions to the period of no
principal activities and alternate schedules for submitting
decommissioning plans (DPs). This approach consolidates multiple
similar exemption processes into one risk-informed process focused on
safety-significant elements, reducing administrative burden for both
licensees and NRC. The proposed paragraph (f) contains specific
information requests and commitments that were adapted from the
evaluation criteria in Section 2.6 of NUREG-1757 Vol. 3 to focus
reviews of such extension requests to the safety-related elements.
1. Are there additional information elements NRC should consider in
extension requests that may be supplemental to the information requests
and commitments included in the proposed (f)(1)-(5) of proposed
Sec. Sec. 30.36, 40.42, 70.38, and 72.54? Provide a basis for your
response.
2. Do the proposed requirements in paragraph (f) to request delays
in the initiation of decommissioning, in general, adequately address
the request to submit a DP on an alternate schedule (i.e., later than
12 months after notification pursuant to paragraph (d)(1))? How can the
NRC adapt the proposed paragraph (f) to better accommodate alternate
schedule requests for DPs? Should NRC reconsider the elimination of the
requirement for delaying submittal of an alternate decommissioning plan
in Sec. Sec. 30.36(g)(2), 40.42(g)(2), 70.38(g)(2), or 72.54(f)(2),
and instead, develop a separate regulation that specifically addresses
alternate schedule for DPs using this enhanced approach? Provide the
basis for your response.
3. Are there other enhancements to the streamlined extension
process that the NRC should consider to increase flexibility and ensure
usefulness and applicability for licensees to reduce the number of
licensees that request a license amendment for a ``storage only''
license out of necessity? Provide a basis for your response. Are there
unintended consequences? If so, what are the unintended consequences,
and how should they be addressed?

[[Page 57743]]

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not
have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
This proposed rule would affect a number of ``small entities'' as
defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards
established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810). However, as indicated in the
draft regulatory analysis available under the ``Availability of
Documents'' section, the proposed amendments, if promulgated, would not
have a significant negative economic impact on the affected small
entities.
Any small entity subject to this regulation that determines,
because of its size, it is likely to bear a disproportionate adverse
economic impact should notify the Commission of this opinion in a
comment that indicates--
(a) The licensee's size and how the proposed regulation would
impose a significant economic burden on the licensee as compared to the
economic burden on a larger licensee;
(b) How the proposed regulations could be modified to take into
account the licensee's differing needs or capabilities;
(c) The benefits that would accrue or the detriments that would be
avoided if the proposed regulations were modified as suggested by the
licensee;
(d) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would more closely
equalize the impact of NRC regulations or create more equal access to
the benefits of Federal programs as opposed to providing special
advantages to any individual or group; and
(e) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would still
adequately protect public health and safety.
Comments should be submitted as indicated under the ADDRESSES
caption.

X. Regulatory Analysis

The NRC has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed
regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the
alternatives considered by the NRC. The NRC requests public comment on
the draft regulatory analysis. The regulatory analysis is available as
indicated in the ``Availability of Documents'' section of this
document. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as
indicated under the ADDRESSES caption of this document.

XI. Backfitting and Issue Finality

The NRC has determined that this proposed rule would not constitute
backfitting as that term is defined in the NRC's backfitting provisions
in Sec. Sec. 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, and 76.76, all titled
``Backfitting,'' or affect the issue finality of an approval issued
under 10 CFR part 52, ``Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for
Nuclear Power Plants.'' The reasons for this conclusion for the changes
related to in situ recovery and decommissioning timelines are discussed
below.

In Situ Recovery Monitoring

The class of licensees subject to this rulemaking are applicants
for a new ISR facility license or current ISR facility licensees that
submit an application for a license amendment for a new wellfield
within a licensed ISR facility or a new production unit within an
operating wellfield of a licensed ISR facility, the application for
which is submitted after the effective date of this rule. The
rulemaking would also revise the MCLs for hazardous constituents in all
uranium mills (conventional or ISR) to those provided in EPA
regulations under 40 CFR. This class of licensees would be regulated in
accordance with 10 CFR part 40, which contains no backfitting
provisions.

Decommissioning Timeliness

The proposed rule would extend the timeframe for notifications and
allow flexibility for initiation of decommissioning for materials
facilities, as well as streamline the process to request exemptions
from decommissioning requirements, thereby reducing the regulatory
burden on licensees. Specifically, the proposed revisions to 10 CFR
parts 30, 40, 70, and 72 would restructure the regulatory requirements
in paragraphs (d) of the applicable sections to separate the four
criteria that trigger notification to NRC from the licensee actions
that must be taken to initiate decommissioning. The proposed rule would
also extend the period of no principal activities from 24 months to 36
or 48 months and extend the time to request a delay of initiation of
decommissioning from 30 days prior to notification to 45 days after
notification required by paragraph (d). Finally, the revisions to 10
CFR 50.12 and 53.080 would broaden the scope of factors that NRC may
consider in its review for a request for a specific exemption for power
reactors and NPUFs to delay completion of decommissioning. The proposed
changes would not constitute backfitting because the proposed changes
would provide non-mandatory relaxations of current requirements.
Licensees could continue to comply with the current requirements and
satisfy the proposed rule.
For these reasons, the proposed rule would not meet the definition
of ``backfitting'' under Sec. 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 76.76, or
affect the issue finality of an approval issued under 10 CFR part 52.
This proposed rule also includes the draft guidance documents
described in section XIX, ``Availability of Guidance,'' These documents
if finalized, would not constitute backfitting as defined in Sec.
50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 76.76 or affect the issue finality of any
approval issued under 10 CFR part 52 because the guidance would not
inextricably affect activities of licensees that are within the scope
of the backfitting or issue finality provisions. The guidance would not
impose new or modified requirements on existing licensees, applicants,
or certificate holders that are within the scope of a backfitting or
issue finality provision.

XII. Cumulative Effects of Regulation

The NRC seeks to minimize potential negative consequences resulting
from the cumulative effects of regulation (CER). The NRC believes that
the deregulatory impacts of this rulemaking activity are unlikely to
cause implementation challenges for stakeholders. In addition, during
the pendency of this rulemaking, the NRC is deprioritizing issuance of
regulatory actions that might influence the implementation date for the
new rule requirements (e.g., orders, generic communications, license
amendment requests, and inspection findings of a generic nature).
To fully understand any potential CER implications that could
result from this rulemaking, the NRC is asking the following questions.
Response to these questions is voluntary and any input will be
considered during development of the final rule.
1. The NRC is proposing an effective date that will be 30 days
after the date of publication of a final rule. Does this provide
sufficient time to implement the proposed requirements? Please provide
a rationale for your response.
2. Are there unintended consequences related to this rulemaking and
how should they be addressed? Please provide a rationale for your
response.
3. Please comment on the NRC's cost and benefit estimates in the
regulatory analysis that supports this proposed rule.

XIII. Plain Writing

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal
agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and

[[Page 57744]]

well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be
consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential
Memorandum, ``Plain Language in Government Writing,'' published June
10, 1998 (63 FR 31885). The NRC requests comment on this document with
respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used.

XIV. National Environmental Policy Act

A. Introduction

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended (NEPA) and NRC's NEPA implementing regulations in 10 CFR
part 51, ``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing
and Related Regulatory Functions,'' the NRC has determined that the
proposed rule is the type of action eligible for categorical exclusion
because it meets criterion described in 10 CFR 51.22(a)(1), regarding
actions that are administrative, procedural, or solely financial in
nature. The amendments to part 40 clarify applicability to, and add
definitions for ISR activities, as well as uranium mine waste
remediation. The amendments to Criterion 5 and 14 of Appendix A to part
40 would establish regulations for the technical criteria necessary for
groundwater protection for ISR activities. These criteria were
previously described in guidance, established through the course of
licensing practice, and enforced through license conditions. This
proposed rule would codify these criteria in regulations. The NRC is
not proposing to change any technical criteria, and accordingly, there
would be no change to any environmental impact. The proposed rule would
provide the basis for granting an ISR facility license but would not,
by its own operation, provide a license for ISR-related activities. Any
licensing action that specifically authorizes activities pursuant to
these amendments would involve an environmental analysis of the impacts
of such activities at the time of the licensing action. Applicants
would be required to demonstrate compliance with relevant NRC or
Agreement State regulations before they can receive an ISR facility
operating license.
Amendments to 50.12; 50.82; 52.110; 53.080; 53.1070 would modify
the procedures for filing and reviewing requests for various
decommissioning activities. These amendments would not authorize any
site-specific action on the part of the NRC or licensee. Any licensing
action that specifically authorizes activities pursuant to these
amendments would involve an environmental analysis of the impacts of
such activities at the time of the licensing action. In addition,
amendments to 30.36; 40.42; 70.38; 72.54 would amend reporting
requirements in these regulations.
The agency action, therefore, belongs to a category of actions that
the Commission, by rule or regulation, has declared to be a categorical
exclusion, after first finding that the actions within the category do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor
environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule.

XV. Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule contains new or amended collections of
information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). This proposed rule has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review and approval of the information
collections.
Type of submission: New.
The title of the information collection: In Situ Recovery
Monitoring and Decommissioning Timeliness Proposed Rule.
OMB Approval Numbers: 3150-0007, 3150-0010, 3150-0011, 3150-0014,
3150-0020, 3150-0132, 3150-0164, 3150-0165, 3150-0166.
The form number if applicable: Not applicable.
How often the collection is required or requested: Information
would be collected whenever an application is submitted for a new ISR
facility, a license amendment for a new wellfield within a licensed ISR
facility, or a new production unit within an existing wellfield of a
licensed ISR facility, or when an licensee is looking for an exemption
for decommissioning requirements.
Who will be required or asked to respond: The information
collections would apply to persons who submit an application for a new
ISR facility, a license amendment for a new wellfield within a licensed
ISR facility, or a new production unit within an existing wellfield of
a licensed ISR facility, if the application is submitted after the
effective date of this rule. The information collections would also
apply to licensees wishing to delay the initiation of decommissioning
activities.
An estimate of the number of annual responses:

10 CFR part 30: -90 (-90 reporting responses + 0 recordkeepers)
10 CFR part 40: -4 (-4 reporting responses + 0 recordkeepers)
10 CFR part 50: 0.7 (0 reporting responses + 0.7 recordkeepers)
10 CFR part 52: 0 (0 reporting responses + 0 recordkeepers)
10 CFR part 70: -3 (-3 reporting responses + 0 recordkeepers)
10 CFR part 72: 0 (0 reporting responses + 0 recordkeepers)

The estimated number of annual respondents:

10 CFR part 30: -90 respondents
10 CFR part 40: -4 respondents
10 CFR part 50: 0.7 respondents
10 CFR part 52: 0 respondents
10 CFR part 70: -2 respondents
10 CFR part 72: 0 respondents

An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to comply
with the information collection requirement or request:

10 CFR part 30: -90 (-90 reporting + 0 recordkeeping)
10 CFR part 40: -32 (-32 reporting + 0 recordkeeping)
10 CFR part 50: 0 (-26.8 reporting + 26.8 recordkeeping)
10 CFR part 52: 0 (0 reporting + 0 recordkeeping)
10 CFR part 70: 0 (0 reporting + 0 recordkeeping)
10 CFR part 72: 0 (0 reporting) + 0 recordkeeping
Abstract: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to
amend its regulations that govern the licensing of uranium mills and
the disposition of tailings and waste that arise from the extraction
and milling of uranium by issuing risk-informed requirements for
groundwater protection at uranium in situ recovery (ISR) facilities.
The NRC's current regulations are focused on conventional uranium
milling and do not expressly address uranium extraction by the ISR
process. Additionally, NRC proposes to amend its regulations that
govern decommissioning timeliness for all licensees to provide
additional flexibility for licensees to delay the initiation of
decommissioning activities in situations where safety would not be
impacted.
The NRC is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the
information collections contained in this proposed rule and on the
following issues:
1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the
information will have practical utility? Please explain your response.
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the proposed information
collection accurate? Please explain your response.

[[Page 57745]]

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected? Please explain your response.
4. How can the burden of the proposed information collection on
respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology?
A copy of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance
package and proposed rule are available in the ``Availability of
Documents'' section of this document or may be viewed free of charge by
contacting the NRC's Public Document Room reference staff at 1-800-397-
4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d6869284f884b3a5b9a3a4b5b396b8a4b5f8b1b9a0">[email&#160;protected]</a>. You may
obtain information and comment on submissions related to the OMB
clearance package by searching on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under
Docket ID NRC-2025-1204.
You may submit comments on any aspect of these proposed information
collection(s), including suggestions for reducing the burden and on the
above issues, by the following methods:
Federal rulemaking website: Go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and
search for Docket ID NRC-2025-1140.
Submit comments by October 13, 2026.

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting
or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control
number.

XVI. Executive Orders

The following are E.O.s that are related to this proposed rule:

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review (as Amended by
Executive Order 14215, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies)

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has
determined that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NRC submitted this
proposed rule to OIRA for review. The NRC is required to conduct an
economic analysis in accordance with section 6(a)(3)(B) of E.O. 12866.
More can be found in the regulatory analysis document, which is
available as indicated in the ``Availability of Documents'' section of
this document.

B. Executive Order 14154: Unleashing American Energy

NRC has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it is
consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154.

C. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation

This action is a deregulatory action as defined by E.O. 14192.
Details on the estimated costs of proposed rule can be in the
regulatory analysis, which is available as indicated in the
``Availability of Documents'' section of this document.

D. Executive Order 14270: Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting To Unleash
American Energy

E.O. 14270, ``Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American
Energy,'' requires the NRC to insert a conditional sunset date into all
new or amended NRC regulations provided the regulations are (1)
promulgated under the AEA, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as
amended (ERA), or the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended
(NWPA); (2) not statutorily required; and (3) not part of the NRC's
permitting regime. The NRC determined that the regulatory changes
proposed in this rulemaking are part of the NRC's permitting regime.
Therefore, the NRC views this rulemaking to be outside the scope of
Executive Order 14270 and did not insert conditional sunset dates for
the regulatory changes in this proposed rule.

E. Executive Order 14294: Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal
Regulations

This proposed rule includes Federal regulations that, if adopted,
would be enforceable by criminal penalty, as authorized by Section 223
of the AEA. Therefore, per E.O. 14294, those regulations constitute
``criminal regulatory offenses.''
For the purposes of Section 223 of the AEA, the NRC is issuing this
proposed rule that would amend 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 50, 52, 53, 70, and
72, under one or more of sections 161b, 161i, or 161o of the AEA,
except as noted in Sec. Sec. 30.64(b), 40.82(b), 50.111(b), 52.203(b),
Sec. 53.9010(b), 70.92(b), and 72.86(b). The applicability of criminal
penalties to regulations in parts 30, 40, 50, 52, 53, 70, and 72 is set
forth in Sec. Sec. 30.64, 40.82, 50.111, 52.203, Sec. 53.9010, 70.92,
and 72.86. Willful violations of the parts 30, 40, 50, 52, 53, 70, and
72 regulations, other than those listed in Sec. Sec. 30.64(b),
40.82(b), 50.111(b), 52.203(b), Sec. 53.9010(b), 70.92(b), and
72.86(b) (including as updated by this proposed rule), would be subject
to criminal enforcement.

XVII. Coordination With NRC Agreement States

The working group involved in the preparation of this proposed rule
included two representatives from the Organization of Agreement States.
The rule was shared with the Standing Committee for Compatibility.

XVIII. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations

On the basis of the ``Agreement State Program Policy Statement''
approved by the Commission on October 2, 2017, and published in the
Federal Register (82 FR 48535; October 18, 2017), NRC program elements
can be placed into six categories (A, B, C, D, NRC, or health and
safety (H&S)) to form the basis for evaluating and classifying the
program elements. Under the Policy Statement, a program element means
any component or function of a radiation control regulatory program,
including regulations and other legally binding requirements imposed on
regulated persons, which contributes to implementation of that program.
Compatibility Category A are those program elements that include
basic radiation protection standards and scientific terms and
definitions that are necessary to understand radiation protection
concepts. Compatibility Category A program elements adopted by an
Agreement State should be essentially identical to those of the NRC to
provide uniformity in the regulation of agreement material on a
nationwide basis.
Compatibility Category B pertains to a limited number of program
elements that cross jurisdictional boundaries and should be addressed
to ensure uniformity of regulation on a nationwide basis. For
Compatibility Category B, the Agreement State program element shall be
essentially identical to that of NRC.
Program elements in Compatibility Category C include those program
elements that are important for an Agreement State to have in order to
avoid conflict, duplication, gaps, or other conditions that would
jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of agreement material
on a national basis. An Agreement State program shall embody the
essential objectives of the Category C program elements. Under Category
C, Agreement State program elements may be more restrictive than NRC
program elements; however, they should not be so restrictive as to
prohibit a practice authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA),
as

[[Page 57746]]

amended, and in the national interest without an adequate public health
and safety or environmental basis related to radiation protection.
Compatibility Category D are those program elements that do not
meet any of the criteria of Category A, B, or C, and are not required
to be adopted by Agreement States for purposes of compatibility. An
Agreement State has the flexibility to adopt and implement program
elements within the State's jurisdiction that are not addressed by the
NRC or that are not required for compatibility (i.e., Compatibility
Category D). However, such program elements of an Agreement State
relating to agreement material shall (1) not create conflicts,
duplications, gaps, or other conditions that would jeopardize an
orderly pattern in the regulation of agreement material on a nationwide
basis; (2) not preclude a practice authorized by the AEA and in the
national interest; and (3) not preclude the ability of the NRC to
evaluate the effectiveness of Agreement State programs for agreement
material with respect to protection of public health and safety.
Compatibility Category NRC are those program elements that address
areas of regulation that cannot be relinquished to the Agreement States
under the AEA, or provisions of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The NRC maintains regulatory authority over these program
elements and the Agreement States must not adopt these NRC program
elements. However, an Agreement State may inform its licensees of these
NRC requirements through a mechanism under the State's administrative
procedure laws, as long as the State adopts these provisions solely for
the purposes of notification, and does not exercise any regulatory
authority as a result.
Category H&S program elements embody the basic health and safety
aspects of the NRC's program elements. Although H&S program elements
are not required for purposes of compatibility, they do have particular
health and safety significance. The Agreement State must adopt the
essential objectives of such program elements to maintain an adequate
program.
The proposed rule would be a matter of compatibility between the
NRC and the Agreement States, thereby providing consistency among
Agreement State and NRC requirements. The compatibility (A, B, C, D,
and NRC) and adequacy (H&S) categories are designated in the following
tables:

Draft Compatibility Table for 10 CFR Part 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compatibility
Section Change Subject ------------------------------------
Existing New
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30.36(f)..................... Revised.......... Expiration and D................ D.
termination of licenses
and decommissioning of
sites and separate
buildings or outdoor
areas.
30.36(d), (e), (g)........... Revised.......... Expiration and H&S.............. H&S.
termination of licenses
and decommissioning of
sites and separate
buildings or outdoor
areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Draft Compatibility Table for 10 CFR Part 40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compatibility
Section Change Subject ---------------------------------------
Existing New
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40.4........................ Revised......... Definition--Byproduct H&S............... H&S.
material.
40.42(d), (e), (g).......... Revised......... Expiration and H&S............... H&S.
termination of licenses
and decommissioning of
sites and separate
buildings or outdoor
areas.
40.42(f).................... Revised......... Expiration and H&S............... D.
termination of licenses
and decommissioning of
sites and separate
buildings or outdoor
areas.
Appendix A.................. New............. Definition--Abandoned .................. C.
uranium mine waste
remediation.
Appendix A.................. New............. Definition--Aquitard.... .................. C.
Appendix A.................. New............. Definition--Corrective .................. C.
action.
Appendix A.................. New............. Definition--Excursion... .................. C.
Appendix A.................. New............. Definition--In situ .................. B.
recovery.
Appendix A.................. New............. Definition--Indicator .................. C.
constituent.
Appendix A.................. New............. Definition--ISR facility .................. C.
Appendix A.................. New............. Definition--Production .................. B.
unit.
Appendix A.................. New............. Definition--Wellfield... .................. C.
Appendix A.................. Revised......... Definition--Point of A................. A.
compliance.

[[Page 57747]]

Appendix A.................. Revised......... Criteria Relating to the Definitions--A for Definitions--A for
Operation of Uranium States with States with
Mills and the authority to authority to
Disposition of Tailings regulate uranium regulate uranium
or Wastes Produced by mill activities mill activities
the Extraction or (11e.(2) (11e.(2)
Concentration of Source byproduct byproduct
Material From Ores material). material).
Processed Primarily for Criterion 11A.thru Criterion 5 and 6
Their Source Material F and Criterion are B--for States
Content. 12 are NRC. with authority to
All of the regulate uranium
remaining mill activities.
portions of the D--States without
section are C-- authority.
for States with Criterion 11A.thru
authority to F and Criterion
regulate uranium 12 are NRC.
mill activities. All of the
D--States without remaining
authority. portions of the
section are C--
for States with
authority to
regulate uranium
mill activities.
D--States without
authority.
Appendix A.................. New............. Section VI, ``ADDITIONAL .................. C.
TECHNICAL CRITERIA FOR
IN SITU RECOVERY
OPERATIONS'', Criterion
14.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Draft Compatibility Table for 10 CFR Part 70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compatibility
Section Change Subject ------------------------------------
Existing New
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70.38(d), (e), (g)........... Revised.......... Expiration and H&S.............. H&S.
termination of licenses
and decommissioning of
sites and separate
buildings or outdoor
areas.
70.38(f)..................... Revised.......... Expiration and H&S.............. D.
termination of licenses
and decommissioning of
sites and separate
buildings or outdoor
areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NRC is proposing that the new definitions in part 40 be
classified as Compatibility Category B or C. These definitions provide
information that would be essential to the common understanding beyond
the plain dictionary meaning and as such, a State's program element
should essentially be identical to the NRC's program (for Category B)
or adopt the essential objectives of the program (for Category C). To
be included in Category B, the NRC determined that these definitions
apply to activities that cross jurisdictional boundaries and should be
addressed to ensure uniformity of regulation on a nationwide basis for
regulating ISR facilities. To be included in Category C, the NRC
determined that these definitions are important for an Agreement State
to have in order to avoid conflict, duplication, gaps, or other
conditions that would jeopardize an orderly pattern in regulating
agreement material on a national basis for regulating ISR facilities.
The NRC is proposing to change the compatibility category of 10 CFR
part 40, Appendix A for Criterion 5 and 6 from Category C to Category
B. These criteria in part 40, Appendix A, contain the groundwater and
stabilization and control of material requirements that must be
achieved prior to license termination of uranium mills. Under the
Agreement State Policy Statement, Category B ``pertains to a limited
number of program elements that cross jurisdictional boundaries and
that should be addressed to ensure uniformity of regulation on a
nationwide basis.'' In Management Directive 5.9, ``Adequacy and
Compatibility of Program Elements for Agreement State Programs,'' the
NRC defines ``cross jurisdictional'' with respect to Category B as ``a
practice or licensed activity that necessitates identical requirements
to ensure an orderly regulatory pattern for the use and regulation of
agreement material between all Agreement States and NRC
jurisdictions.''
On January 29, 2025, the President issued E.O. 14156, ``Declaring a
National Energy Emergency.'' The E.O. declares a national energy
emergency and instructs heads of agencies to ``identify and exercise
lawful emergency and other authorities available to facilitate the
identification, leasing, siting, production, transportation, refining,
and generation of domestic energy resources.'' On that same day, the
President also issued E.O. 14154, ``Unleashing American Energy.'' The
E.O. sets forth several U.S. policies, including ``to protect the
United States's economic and national security and military
preparedness by ensuring that an abundant supply of reliable energy is
readily accessible in every State and territory of the Nation.''
Subsequently, on May 23, 2025, the President issued E.O. 14299,
``Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National
Security,'' which discusses the

[[Page 57748]]

national security aspects of the need for additional nuclear energy
nationwide.
The domestic milling of uranium is an essential part of the nuclear
fuel cycle and, therefore, important to national security, consistent
with the polices set forth in the above E.O.s. Criterion 5 to Appendix
A establishes applicable groundwater protection standards during
operations and prior to the end of closure. Criterion 6 establishes
additional requirements for the stabilization and control of material
prior to the end of closure. As uranium milling occurs in multiple
jurisdictions, it is important for a consistent approach and
understanding of license termination criteria nationwide. Further, a
consistent approach is essential to the overall regulatory framework
for domestic uranium milling and, therefore, important to the
development and growth of domestic uranium milling and to national
security, consistent with the policies in the above E.O.s. Accordingly,
the NRC is proposing changing Criterion 5 and 6 to Category B as the
activity necessitates identical requirements to ensure an orderly
regulatory pattern for the use and regulation of material between all
Agreement States and NRC jurisdictions.
Importantly, the NRC is not proposing that Criteria 5 and 6 are
matters relating to common defense and security such that they would be
exclusively regulated by the NRC. Rather, the national security
considerations and Administration's priorities expressed in the above
E.O.s. underpin the NRC's proposal that designate license termination
for uranium milling activities as Category B as a practice or licensed
activity that necessitates identical requirements to ensure an orderly
regulatory pattern for the use and regulation of Agreement State
material between all Agreement States and NRC jurisdictions.
The remainder of the proposed rule for ISR is classified as
Compatibility Category ``C'' for those States with authority to
regulate uranium milling activities and Compatibility Category ``D''
for those States without such authority. Those States with authority to
regulate uranium milling activities should adopt the essential
objectives to avoid conflicts, duplications, or gaps. For those States
that do not have authority over uranium milling activities,
compatibility is not required for Category D regulations.
In this proposed rule, the NRC is proposing to clarify that the
essential objective of Sec. Sec. 30.36(d), 40.42(d), and 70.38(d) is
for licensees to provide timely notification of the circumstances that
trigger decommissioning and to promptly begin decommissioning or submit
a decommissioning plan, as required. The state has flexibility in the
administration and requirements for decommissioning timeliness and
would not need to revise their current program to remain compatible
with the proposed revision to Sec. Sec. 30.36(d), 40.42(d), and
70.38(d). In addition, NRC is proposing to change the combability
designation of 40.42(f) and 70.38(f) from Category H&S to Compatibility
Category D. These requirements provide an administrative pathway for
granting a delay or postponement of initiating decommissioning, which
states are not required to offer, therefore, they more appropriately
align with the Compatibility Category D designation. This proposed
change also aligns with the Compatibility Category of 30.36(f), which
contains identical language to 40.42(f) and 70.38(f), and is currently
classified as Compatibility Category D.
The NRC invites comment on the compatibility category designations
in the proposed rule and suggests that commenters refer to Management
Directive 5.9, ``Adequacy and Compatibility of Program Elements for
Agreement State Programs,'' and its Handbook for more information. The
NRC notes that, like the rule text, the compatibility category
designations can change between the proposed rule and final rule, based
on comments received and Commission decisions regarding the final rule.
The NRC encourages anyone interested in commenting on the compatibility
category designations in any manner to do so during the comment period.

XIX. Availability of Guidance

The NRC is issuing draft guidance for implementation of the
proposed requirements in this rulemaking. The draft guidance is
available in ADAMS as described in the Availability of Documents
section. When finalized, the documents will provide stakeholders with
guidance for implementing the final requirements contemplated by this
proposed rule. You may submit comments on the draft regulatory guidance
by the methods outlined in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
Guidance documents being issued with this rulemaking include:
Current guidance on ISR is provided in NUREG-1569, ``Standard
Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License
Applications.'' The supplemental guidance is intended for use by
applicants, licensees, Agreement States, and the NRC staff and
incorporates the proposed changes into an approach and method
acceptable for implementing the requirements of the regulations. It
includes guidance concerning an application for, and the licensing,
operation, and decommissioning of, a new ISR facility, a new wellfield
within a licensed ISR facility, or a new production unit within an
operating wellfield of a licensed ISR facility, the application for
which is submitted after the effective date of the final rule.
The draft supplemental guidance is in a markup format to the NRC's
existing guidance and reflects the provisions in this proposed rule.
Comments on the draft supplemental guidance may be submitted by the
methods provided in section I, ``Obtaining Information and Submitting
Comments,'' of this document. The draft supplemental guidance is
available as indicated under section XVIII, ``Availability of
Documents,'' of this document. The NRC plans to incorporate the final
supplemental guidance into the next comprehensive revision of NUREG-
1569.
The draft Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) for nuclear materials
facilities, DUWP-ISG-04, is intended for use by licensees, Agreement
States, and the NRC staff. It provides guidance and references for the
updated process to request an extension to the initiation of
decommissioning requirements. Specifically, the guidance includes
examples of legitimate business needs that could be used to justify an
extension. This guidance is not meant to be exhaustive and should be
used to supplement existing guidance on the notification requirements
for the initiation of decommissioning, including but not limited to
NUREG-1757 Vol. 3, Rev. 1.
The draft ISG for nuclear reactor facilities, DUWP-ISG-05, is
intended for use by licensees and the NRC staff. It provides guidance
and references for the updated exemption process governed by 10 CFR
50.12 or 53.080, as appropriate. The draft ISG includes site-specific
factors that NRC considers acceptable for an alternate decommissioning
schedule request, as well as a discussion of reasonable mitigation for
each factor. Lastly, the guidance provides considerations for licensees
to ensure site safety for the duration of the extension period in
accordance with the proposed regulations.

XX. Availability of Documents

The documents identified in the following table are available to
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as
indicated.

[[Page 57749]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAMS accession No./web link/Federal
Document Register Citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule Documents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Analysis, ``In ML26243A343
Situ Recovery &
Decommissioning
Timeliness,'' August 2026.
Unofficial Redline Rule ML26243A378
Language, ``In Situ Recovery
Monitoring and
Decommissioning
Timeliness,'' August 2026.
NUREG 1569, Guidance for the ML26243A344
Proposed Rule Groundwater
Protection at Uranium In
Situ Recovery Facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Collection Documents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Supporting Statement--ISR ML25337A102
& Decommissioning Timelines
Proposed Rule.
OMB Burden Tables--ISR & ML26013A038
Decommissioning Timelines
Proposed Rule.
DUWP-ISG-04, ``Requirements ML26243A379
for the Initiation of
Decommissioning for Nuclear
Materials Facilities''.
DUWP-ISG-05, ``Approval of an ML26243A380
Alternate Schedule for
Decommissioning of Nuclear
Reactor Facilities Beyond 60
Years from Permanent
Cessation of Operations''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Orders
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735
``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' October 4, 1993.
Executive Order 14154, 90 FR 8353
``Unleashing American
Energy,'' January 29, 2025.
Executive Order 14192, 90 FR 9065
``Unleashing Prosperity
Through Deregulation,''
February 6, 2025.
Executive Order 14215, 90 FR 10447
``Ensuring Accountability
for All Agencies,'' February
24, 2025.
Executive Order 14267, 90 FR 15629
``Reducing Anti-Competitive
Regulatory Barriers,'' April
15, 2025.
Executive Order 14270, ``Zero- 90 FR 15643
Based Regulatory Budgeting
to Unleash American
Energy,'' April 15, 2025.
Executive Order 14300, 90 FR 22587
``Ordering the Reform of the
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission,'' May 29, 2025.
Presidential Memorandum, 63 FR 31885
``Plain Language in
Government Writing,'' June
10, 1998.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other References
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECY-21-0067, Enclosure 1-- ML21067A127
Proposed Rule, Groundwater
Protection at Uranium In
Situ Recovery Facilities,
2021.
NUREG-1569, ``Standard Review ML032250177
Plan for In Situ Leach
Uranium Extraction License
Applications,'' June 2003.
NUREG/CR-6733, ``A Baseline ML14236A064
Risk-Informed, Performance-
Based Approach for In Situ
Leach Uranium Extraction
Licensees,'' September 2001.
Uranium Mill Tailings Public Law 95-604, 92 Stat. 3021.
Radiation Control Act
(UMTRCA); 1978.
Final Rule: ``Uranium Mill 44 FR 50012
Tailings Licensing,'' August
24, 1979.
Final Rule: ``Uranium Mill 45 FR 65521
Licensing Requirements,''
October 3, 1980.
Final Rule: ``Environmental 48 FR 45926
Standards for Uranium and
Thorium Mill Tailings at
Licensed Commercial
Processing Sites,'' October
7, 1983.
Final Rule: ``Health and 58 FR 60340
Environmental Standards for
Uranium and Thorium Mill
Tailings,'' November 15,
1993.
Final Rule: ``Uranium Mill 50 FR 41852
Tailings Regulations;
Conforming NRC Requirement
to EPA Standards,'' October
16, 1985.
Final Rule: ``Uranium Mill 52 FR 43553
Tailings Regulations; Ground-
Water Protection and Other
Issues,'' November 13, 1987.
NUREG/CR-3967, ``An Analysis ML14237A635
of Excursions at Selected In
Situ Uranium Mines in
Wyoming and Texas,'' July
1986.
SECY-19-0123, ``Regulatory ML19221B519
Options for Uranium In Situ
Recovery Facilities,''
December 16, 2019.
SRM-SECY-19-0123, ``Staff ML20296A469
Requirements--Regulatory
Options for Uranium In Situ
Recovery Facilities,''
October 22, 2020.
``Memorandum of Understanding ML20218A248
Between the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and
the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Concerning
the Regulation of Uranium in
situ Recovery Activities,
''July 23, 2020.
Letter from Wyoming Mining ML25322A241
Association on the Proposed
ISR Rulemaking, October 16,
2025.
Letter from Cameco Resources ML25322A232
on proposed uranium in situ
recovery rulemaking, October
23, 2025.
Letter from National Mining ML25304A001
Association on Upcoming NRC
Rulemaking on Groundwater
Protection at Uranium in
Situ Recovery Facilities,
October 29, 2025.
Final Rule: ``Timeliness in 59 FR 36026
Decommissioning of Materials
Facilities,'' July 15, 1994.
Final Rule: ``General 53 FR 24018
Requirements for
Decommissioning Nuclear
Facilities,'' June 27, 1988.
Proposed Rule: 50 FR 5600
``Decommissioning Criteria
for Nuclear Facilities,''
February 11, 1985.
SECY-24-0073, ``Site-Specific ML24100A760
Considerations for Review of
Requests to Complete Power
Reactor Decommissioning
Beyond 60 Years from
Permanent Cessation of
Operations,'' September 3,
2024.
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.185, ML13140A038
``Standard Format and
Content for Post-Shutdown
Decommissioning Activities
Report,'' June 2013.
Final Rule: ``Part 50-- 21 FR 355
Licensing of Production and
Utilization Facilities,''
January 19, 1956.
Final Rule: ``Amendments 48 FR 32324
Specifying Licensee
Responsibility for Nuclear
Materials and Procedures for
Termination of Specific
Licenses,'' July 15, 1983.
NUREG-1757 Vol. 1, Revision ML063000243
2, ``Consolidated
Decommissioning Guidance:
Decommissioning Process for
Materials Licensees,''
September 2006.
NUREG-1757 Vol. 3, Revision ML12048A683
1, ``Consolidated
Decommissioning Guidance:
Financial Assurance,
Recordkeeping, and
Timeliness,'' February 2012.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 57750]]

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including
public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket ID NRC-2025-1204. In addition, the
Federal rulemaking website allows members of the public to receive
alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To
subscribe: (1) navigate to the docket folder NRC-2025-1204; (2) click
the ``Subscribe'' button; and (3) enter an email address and click on
the ``Subscribe'' button.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 30

Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Government contracts,
Intergovernmental relations, Isotopes, Nuclear energy, Nuclear
materials, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Whistleblowing.

10 CFR Part 40

Criminal penalties, Exports, Government contracts, Hazardous
materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Nuclear energy, Nuclear
materials, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Source
material, Uranium, Whistleblowing.

10 CFR Part 50

Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting,
Classified information, Criminal penalties, Education, Emergency
planning, Fire prevention, Fire protection, Intergovernmental
relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Radiation
protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Whistleblowing.

10 CFR Part 52

Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Combined license,
Early site permit, Emergency planning, Fees, Inspection, Issue
finality, Limited work authorization, Manufacturing license, Nuclear
power plants and reactors, Probabilistic risk assessment, Prototype,
Reactor siting criteria, Redress of site, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Standard design, Standard design
certification.

10 CFR Part 53

Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting,
Construction permit, Combined license, Classified information, Criminal
penalties, Early site permit, Emergency planning, Fees, Fire
prevention, Fire protection, Inspection, Intergovernmental relations,
Limited work authorization, Manufacturing license, Nuclear power plants
and reactors, Operating license, Penalties, Prototype, Radiation
protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Standard design, Standard design certification, Training
programs.

10 CFR Part 70

Classified information, Criminal penalties, Emergency medical
services, Hazardous materials transportation, Material control and
accounting, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Packaging and
containers, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Security measures,
Special nuclear material, Whistleblowing.

10 CFR Part 72

Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Indians,
Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear energy, Penalties, Radiation
protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security
measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is proposing
to amend 10 CFR part 30, 40, 50, 52, 53, 70 and 72:

PART 30--RULES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY TO DOMESTIC LICENSING OF
BYPRODUCT MATERIAL

0
1. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 81, 161, 181,
182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2111, 2201,
2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C.
5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

0
2. In Sec. 30.36:
0
a. Revise paragraph (d);
0
b. In the first sentence of paragraph (e) introductory text, remove the
phrase ``paragraph (d)'' and add in its place the phrase ``paragraph
(d)(1)'';
0
c. Revise paragraph (f); and
0
d. Remove and reserve paragraph (g)(2).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 30.36 Expiration and termination of licenses and decommissioning
of sites and separate buildings or outdoor areas.

* * * * *
(d)(1) Consistent with Sec. 30.6, each licensee must provide
notification to the NRC in writing within 60 days of the occurrence of
any of the following and indicate which approach under paragraph (d)(2)
of this section the licensee intends to pursue:
(i) The license has expired pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of
this section; or
(ii) The licensee has decided to permanently cease principal
activities, as defined in this part, at the entire site or in any
separate building or outdoor area that contains residual radioactivity
such that the building or outdoor area is unsuitable for release in
accordance with NRC requirements; or
(iii) No principal activities under the license have been conducted
for a period of 36 months; or
(iv) No principal activities have been conducted for a period of 36
months in any separate building or outdoor area that contains residual
radioactivity such that the building or outdoor area is unsuitable for
release in accordance with NRC requirements.
(2) When notification is made pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, the licensee must--
(i) Within 45 days, submit a request to delay initiation of
decommissioning activities consistent with paragraph (f) of this
section, or
(ii) Immediately begin decommissioning its site, or any separate
building or outdoor area that contains residual radioactivity so that
the building or outdoor area is suitable for release in accordance with
NRC requirements, or
(iii) Within 12 months, submit a decommissioning plan, if required
by paragraph (g)(1) of this section, and begin decommissioning upon
approval of that plan.
* * * * *
(f) The Commission may grant a request to extend the time periods
established in paragraph (d). The schedule for decommissioning set
forth in paragraph (d) of this section may not commence until the
Commission has made a determination on the request. The request must
include the following, as applicable:
(1) Discussion of the business need for continued possession or
authorization of licensed material or how the request is otherwise in
the public interest.
(2) Discussion of the health and safety plan that will be in effect
during the extension period.
(3) Discussion of the current decommissioning cost estimate and the
potential for increased decommissioning costs if an extension of the
time period is or is not approved.
(4) A timeframe for which principal activities will resume, which
must not exceed 36 months from the date of notification as provided for
in (d)(1)(iii) and (d)(1)(iv) of this section.

[[Page 57751]]

(5) A commitment that, should principal activities not resume
within the timeframe specified in paragraph (f)(4), the licensee must
provide notification to the NRC consistent with paragraph (d) of this
section.
(g) * * *
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *

PART 40--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL

0
3. The authority citation for part 40 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 69,
81, 83, 84, 122, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 193, 223, 234,
274, 275 (42 U.S.C. 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2113, 2114,
2152, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2243, 2273, 2282,
2021, 2022); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206,
211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act of 1978, sec. 104 (42 U.S.C. 7914); 44 U.S.C.
3504 note.

Sec. 40.4 [Amended]

0
4. In Sec. 40.4, in the first sentence of the definition for Byproduct
material, remove the phrase ``discrete surface wastes'' and add in its
place the phrase ``discrete surface wastes and liquid wastes''.
0
5. In Sec. 40.42:
0
a. Revise paragraph (d);
0
b. In the first sentence of paragraph (e) introductory text, remove the
phrase ``paragraph (d)'' and add in its place the phrase ``paragraph
(d)(1)'';
0
c. Revise paragraph (f); and
0
d. Remove and reserve paragraph (g)(2).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 40.42 Expiration and termination of licenses and decommissioning
of sites and separate buildings or outdoor areas.

* * * * *
(d)(1) Consistent with Sec. 40.5, each licensee must provide
notification to the NRC in writing within 60 days of the occurrence of
any of the following and indicate which approach under paragraph (d)(2)
of this section the licensee intends to pursue:
(i) The license has expired pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of
this section; or
(ii) The licensee has decided to permanently cease principal
activities, as defined in this part, at the entire site or in any
separate building or outdoor area that contains residual radioactivity
such that the building or outdoor area is unsuitable for release in
accordance with NRC requirements; or
(iii) No principal activities under the license have been conducted
for a period of 48 months; or
(iv) No principal activities have been conducted for a period of 48
months in any separate building or outdoor area that contains residual
radioactivity such that the building or outdoor area is unsuitable for
release in accordance with NRC requirements.
(2) When notification is made pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, the licensee must--
(i) Within 45 days, submit a request to delay initiation of
decommissioning activities consistent with paragraph (f) of this
section, or
(ii) Immediately begin decommissioning its site, or any separate
building or outdoor area that contains residual radioactivity so that
the building or outdoor area is suitable for release in accordance with
NRC requirements, or
(iii) Within 12 months, submit a decommissioning plan, if required
by paragraph (g)(1) of this section, and begin decommissioning upon
approval of that plan.
* * * * *
(f) The Commission may grant a request to extend the time periods
established in paragraph (d). The schedule for decommissioning set
forth in paragraph (d) of this section may not commence until the
Commission has made a determination on the request. The request must
include the following, as applicable:
(1) Discussion of the business need for continued possession or
authorization of licensed material or how the request is otherwise in
the public interest.
(2) Discussion of the health and safety plan that will be in effect
during the extension period.
(3) Discussion of the current decommissioning cost estimate and the
potential for increased decommissioning costs if an extension of the
time period is or is not approved.
(4) A timeframe for which principal activities will resume, which
must not exceed 36 months from the date of notification as provided for
in (d)(1)(iii) and (d)(1)(iv) of this section.
(5) A commitment that, should principal activities not resume
within the timeframe specified in paragraph (f)(4), the licensee must
provide notification to the NRC consistent with paragraph (d) of this
section.
(g) * * *
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
6. In appendix A to part 40:
0
a. Revise the introduction section;
0
b. Add introductory paragraph to section I;
0
c. Revise criterion 5; and
0
d. Add section VI.
The revisions and addition are as follows:

Appendix A to Part 40--Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium
Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the
Extraction or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed
Primarily for Their Source Material Content

Introduction. * * *
* * * * *
The following definitions apply to the specified terms as used
in this appendix:
Abandoned uranium mine waste remediation means any activity that
removes uranium or thorium from waste rock located at or near an
abandoned uranium mine, that was generated from uranium production
at a site that is no longer in use for that purpose. For the
purposes of this part, such activities are not considered uranium
milling and any waste stream resulting from remediation is not
byproduct material as defined in this part.
* * * * *
Aquitard means a confining bed and/or formation composed of rock
or sediment that retards but does not prevent the flow of water to
or from an adjacent aquifer. It does not readily yield water to
wells or springs, but stores groundwater.
* * * * *
Corrective action means investigation and cleanup of releases
into soil, groundwater, surface water, or air from human-created
facilities or sources.
* * * * *
Excursion means the detection of indicator constituents that may
signal the movement of fluids containing byproduct material from the
production unit into surrounding groundwater, which includes site-
specific aquifers adjacent to, above, or below the production unit
that can reasonably be expected to be impacted and where groundwater
protection standards must be met.
* * * * *
In situ recovery (ISR) means the process for extracting uranium
from an underground uranium ore body by injecting a leaching
solution (lixiviant) into an ore body and pumping the solution to a
surface facility for further processing. This definition does not
include stope leaching solution mining of conventional uranium mines
and similar processes.
Indicator constituent means a parameter, such as chloride,
conductivity, total alkalinity, or other conservative solute, whose
value is used to detect an excursion.
ISR facility means a facility licensed to conduct ISR operations
and includes wellfields and other support and ancillary
infrastructure.
* * * * *
Point of compliance means a site-specific location in the
uppermost aquifer where the groundwater protection standard must be
met and at which monitoring must be conducted. For ISR operations,
the point of compliance is located in the production unit and also
includes site-specific aquifers adjacent to, above, or below the
production unit that can reasonably be expected to be impacted by

[[Page 57752]]

byproduct material and where the groundwater protection standard
must be met.
Production unit means the part of an aquifer from which source
material is extracted by ISR operations.
* * * * *
Wellfield means the area or areas of an ISR facility--whether
spaced laterally or vertically--encompassing all or a portion of a
production unit from which source material is to be extracted by ISR
operations, and that contains injection, production, and monitoring
wells, associated infrastructure and interconnected piping as
determined by the applicant or licensee and approved by the NRC.
I. * * *
Applicability to ISR facility applicants and licensees. The
preamble paragraph to Criterion 5, paragraphs 5B(1)(b) and 5B(2)-
(6), and Criteria 5C-5D, 7, 7A, 9, 13, and 14 apply to an
application for, and the licensing, operation, and decommissioning
of, a new ISR facility, a new wellfield within a licensed ISR
facility, or a new production unit within an operating wellfield of
a licensed ISR facility, the application for which is submitted
after [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
* * * * *
Criterion 5--For conventional mills, Criterion 5A, paragraphs
5B(1)(a) and 5B(2)-(6), and Criteria 5C-5D, 7, 7A, and 13
incorporate the basic groundwater protection standards established
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR part 192,
subparts D and E, which apply during operations and prior to
closure. For a new ISR facility, a new wellfield within a licensed
ISR facility, or a new production unit within an operating wellfield
of a licensed ISR facility, the application for which is submitted
after [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
paragraphs 5B(1)(b) and 5B(2)-(6) of Criterion 5, and Criteria 5C,
5D, 7, 7A, 13, and 14 incorporate the basic groundwater protection
standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in
40 CFR part 192, subpart D, which apply during operations and prior
to closure.
* * * * *
5B(1)--This criterion provides groundwater protection standards
for conventional mills and ISR facilities.
(a) For conventional mills, uranium and thorium byproduct
materials must be managed to conform to the following secondary
groundwater protection standard: hazardous constituents entering the
groundwater from a licensed site must not exceed the specified
concentration limits in the uppermost aquifer beyond the point of
compliance during the compliance period. Specified concentration
limits are those limits established by the Commission as indicated
in paragraph 5B(5) of this criterion. The Commission will also
establish the point of compliance and compliance period on a site-
specific basis through license conditions and orders. The objective
in selecting the point of compliance is to provide the earliest
practicable warning that the impoundment is releasing hazardous
constituents to the groundwater. The point of compliance must be
selected to provide prompt indication of groundwater contamination
on the hydraulically downgradient edge of the disposal area. The
Commission will identify hazardous constituents, establish
concentration limits, set the compliance period, and may adjust the
point of compliance if needed to accord with developed data and site
information as to the flow of groundwater or contaminants, when the
detection monitoring program established under Criterion 7A
indicates leakage of hazardous constituents from the disposal area.
(b) For ISR facilities, uranium and thorium byproduct materials
must be managed to conform to the following groundwater protection
standard: hazardous constituents entering the groundwater from a
production unit in a wellfield, at the point of compliance, must not
exceed the specified concentration limits established by the
Commission as indicated in paragraph 5B(5) of this criterion. The
Commission will also establish the point of compliance and
compliance period on a site-specific basis pursuant to Criterion 14.
The Commission will identify hazardous constituents, establish
concentration limits, and may adjust the point of compliance if
needed to accord with developed data and site information as to the
flow of groundwater or licensee introduced contaminants, for the
detection monitoring program established under criterion 7A and the
additional ISR-specific monitoring requirements established under
Criterion 14 to detect migration of hazardous constituents from a
production unit in a wellfield.
5B(2)--For ISR facilities, a constituent becomes a hazardous
constituent subject to paragraph 5B(5) of this criterion only when
the constituent meets all three of the tests in criterion 14(b)(2)
of this appendix. For conventional mills, a constituent becomes a
hazardous constituent subject to paragraph 5B(5) of this criterion
only when the constituent meets all three of the following tests:
(a) * * *
* * * * *
5B(5) * * *
(b) The maximum contaminant level for that constituent as set
forth in Criterion 5C, provided that the background level is below
the value listed; or
* * * * *
5C--The maximum contaminant levels for hazardous constituents
are provided in the tables in 40 CFR 141.61(a) and (c) and 40 CFR
141.62(b), or in 40 CFR 141.66(b), (c), and (e) or, if the
constituent is not listed in the table of the aforementioned
regulations, the respective value given in Table 1 in 40 CFR 264.94.
* * * * *
VI. Additional Technical Criteria for ISR Operations
Criterion 14--The following are the groundwater protection
standards for ISR facilities:
(a) Site characterization and suitability demonstration. In
accordance with 10 CFR 40.31(h) and 40.32, the NRC will approve an
application for a license to operate a new ISR facility, or in
accordance with 10 CFR 40.45, the NRC will approve an amendment to
allow operations in an area that was not previously licensed, if the
applicant or licensee adequately demonstrates the ability of the
geologic and hydrologic units to hydraulically isolate byproduct
material from any aquifers immediately overlying, underlying, and
adjacent to the production unit. Any drilling, well installation,
testing, and related site activities required for the purpose of
site characterization and suitability demonstration under this rule
are not considered construction activities, as defined in 10 CFR
40.4. The site characterization and suitability evaluation must
include the following:
(1) Publicly available subsurface information and site-specific
drilling and testing data, including, but not limited to, cuttings
and core logging, downhole geophysical logging, aquifer pumping
tests, and one year of quarterly groundwater quality sampling for
radiological and nonradiological analytes. The data, which can
incorporate existing information, must adequately identify and
provide the location of all targeted ore bodies, as well as
characterize regional and site-specific hydrostratigraphy and
hydraulic parameters for the production unit and all appropriate
aquifers and aquitards. A geological and hydrological conceptual
model of the site must be presented. Additionally, the
characterization must include all pertinent geologic structures,
such as folds, faults, and the strike/dip of bedding, as well as
nearby wells, mines, quarries, and related/similar infrastructure
which have the potential to influence site hydrogeology; and
(2) Documentation of the characterization and suitability
evaluation in appropriately scaled maps, hydrogeologic cross
sections, graphs, charts, tables, and other types of data
presentation using professional and industry standard reporting.
(b) Wellfield pre-operational requirements. After the issuance
of the license, the licensee must submit the information required in
paragraphs 14(b)(1) through 14(b)(5) of this criterion to the NRC.
The NRC must approve the background hazardous constituent
concentration levels and the selected indicator constituents and
associated upper control limits submitted in accordance with
paragraphs 14(b)(3) and 14(b)(4) of this criterion and the wellfield
restoration plan submitted in accordance with paragraph 14(b)(5) of
this criterion before the licensee may inject lixiviant into any
injection well in the wellfield.
(1) Wellfield pre-operational characterization package. The
licensee must provide the NRC with a submittal summarizing the
characterization of an individual wellfield package prior to the
injection of lixiviant (after issuance of a license). The submittal
must demonstrate adequate hydraulic connection between injection and
production wells within the production unit, as well as between the
injection and production wells and the point of compliance wells in
the aquifer immediately adjacent to the production unit.

[[Page 57753]]

The hydraulic isolation of the immediately overlying and underlying
aquifers from the production unit must also be demonstrated. If
isolation cannot be achieved, the licensee must identify the
engineered and operational controls that will be used to prevent
migration of material into the overlying and underlying aquifers.
The submittal must provide pertinent subsurface field and laboratory
data gathered during well drilling, construction, and sampling to
include--
(i) Appropriately scaled maps showing the as-built locations and
construction details of all wells installed to support this package
submittal, including but not limited to: point of compliance
baseline sampling and all aquifer pumping test(s) related wells;
(ii) Comprehensive geologic and hydrologic cross sections across
the wellfield package area including pertinent hydrostratigraphic,
groundwater elevation, and related geologic and hydrologic data are
required in the licensee's submittal;
(iii) Descriptions of all aquifer pumping tests used to
determine hydraulic parameters for the wellfield package area;
(iv) The licensee's evaluation of the proposed operational and
restoration performance of the wellfield package area; and
(v) Appropriately scaled maps including the final as-built
locations for all injection, production, point of compliance, and
all previously installed wells, in addition to all well logging and
construction data, must be included in the first semi-annual report
to NRC following completion of the wellfield construction.
(2) Identification of hazardous constituents. Pursuant to
paragraph 5B(1)(b) of this appendix, the licensee must identify
those radiological and nonradiological constituents that are
hazardous and are reasonably expected to be present within the
production unit or that may be expected to increase in concentration
as a result of ISR operations. A radiological or nonradiological
constituent becomes a hazardous constituent when the constituent
meets all three of the following tests:
(i) The constituent is reasonably expected to be in or derived
from the byproduct material produced from ISR operations;
(ii) The constituent has been detected in the groundwater in an
aquifer in the production unit; and
(iii) The constituent is listed in Criterion 13 of this
appendix.
(3) Background hazardous constituent concentration levels. For
each hazardous radiological and nonradiological constituent
identified, the licensee must provide and submit an analysis of
groundwater samples sufficient to establish the background hazardous
constituent concentration levels to the NRC for approval pursuant to
paragraph 5B(5)(a) of this appendix. Radiological and
nonradiological constituent groundwater samples are required to be
collected and analyzed to determine the background hazardous
constituent concentration levels for each new wellfield, as follows:
(i) The licensee must identify the point of compliance wells in
the production unit and the aquifers immediately overlying,
underlying and adjacent to the production unit, as appropriate. The
number, location, and screen interval of the point of compliance
wells in the production unit and the aquifers immediately overlying,
underlying and adjacent to the production unit must be shown to be
sufficient to provide a representative sample of the background
hazardous constituent concentration levels. The licensee must
provide the number, location, and the screen interval of the point
of compliance wells and the technical justification for their
selection to the NRC for approval.
(ii) The licensee must obtain groundwater samples from all point
of compliance wells in the production unit and in the aquifers
immediately overlying, underlying and adjacent to the production
unit. The licensee must take, at a minimum of two weeks apart or at
an interval approved by the NRC, at least four independent sets of
groundwater samples from each point of compliance well.
(iii) For each wellfield, the licensee must use the groundwater
sampling data collected pursuant to paragraph 14(b)(3)(ii) of this
criterion to determine the background hazardous constituent
concentration levels in the point of compliance wells in the
production unit and in the aquifers immediately overlying,
underlying and adjacent to the production unit using generally
accepted statistical techniques. The groundwater sampling data and
the proposed background concentration levels for each hazardous
constituent at the point of compliance wells in the production unit
and in the aquifers immediately overlying, underlying and adjacent
to the production unit, and the technical justification for their
selection, must be submitted for NRC approval.
(4) Indicator constituents. In order to detect the potential
migration of byproduct material into groundwater surrounding the
production unit in each wellfield, the licensee must select a
minimum of three indicator constituents at all point of compliance
wells in the aquifers immediately overlying, underlying and adjacent
to the production unit and determine the numerical upper control
limit for each indicator constituent. Licensees can utilize a
different number of indicator constituents based on site-specific
factors with NRC approval. The licensee must obtain groundwater
samples and analyze the indicator constituents from each point of
compliance well. The licensee must take, at a minimum of two weeks
apart or at an interval approved by the NRC, at least four
independent sets of groundwater samples from each point of
compliance well before wellfield operations begin. The licensee must
use generally accepted statistical techniques to determine the upper
control limits. The proposed indicator constituents and the upper
control limits for each indicator constituent must be submitted for
NRC approval. Licensees can propose a different number of samples
for determining upper control limits based on site-specific
conditions for NRC approval, provided that generally accepted
statistical techniques are used and remain valid.
(5) Wellfield restoration plan. A wellfield restoration plan
must be submitted for NRC approval. The wellfield restoration plan
will be evaluated on whether it provides reasonable assurance that
the NRC-approved hazardous constituent concentration limits in
paragraph 5B(5)(a) or (b) of this appendix will be met after
restoration in the production unit is completed. Each wellfield
restoration plan must identify hazardous constituents introduced by
the licensee requiring remediation in the production units, as well
as a discussion of the methods used to determine the estimated pore
volumes required for restoration, the proposed remediation strategy,
and the restoration schedule. The restoration and post-restoration
groundwater monitoring plans, including monitoring parameters, well
locations, and numerical limits, must also be provided in the
submittal to the NRC.
(c) Well design and construction requirements. For new injection
and production wells, design and construction specifications are
required to provide reasonable assurance that byproduct material
does not leak into surrounding groundwater. Schematic or other
appropriate drawings of the surface and subsurface construction
details of such wells are required. In cases where the information
would be repetitive and the wells are of similar age, type, and
construction, the applicant or licensee, upon approval by the NRC,
may submit data for a representative number of wells. In addition,
the licensee must meet the following requirements:
(1) Injection and production wells must be cased and cemented to
prevent the migration of byproduct material into or between
aquifers, although the licensee may propose alternative methods to
cementing for NRC approval. The casing and cement used in the
construction of each newly drilled well must be designed for the
life expectancy of the well. In determining and specifying casing
and cementing requirements, the following factors must be
considered:
(i) Depth to the production unit;
(ii) Injection wellhead pressure;
(iii) Hole size;
(iv) Size and grade of all casing strings, including wall
thickness, diameter, nominal weight, length, joint specification,
and construction material;
(v) Corrosiveness of lixiviant and byproduct material;
(vi) Lithology of injection and confining units; and
(vii) Type and grade of cement.
(2) Appropriate well logs and other tests must be conducted
during the drilling and construction of new injection and production
wells. The well logs and tests appropriate to each well must be
determined based on the intended well's function, depth,
construction, proximity to other logged wells, and other unique
characteristics, if present.
(3) For each wellfield, point of compliance wells must be
located in the immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent
aquifers to the production unit, as appropriate, in accordance with
paragraph 14(b)(3)(i) of this criterion and constructed using
standard monitoring well installation, completion, and development
methods for the purpose of detecting excursions. If the wellfield
operation may be affected by subsidence or catastrophic collapse,
the point of

[[Page 57754]]

compliance wells must be located so that they will not be physically
affected.
(d) Operating, monitoring, and reporting requirements. During
ISR operations and wellfield restoration, the licensee must manage
byproduct materials so that any hazardous constituents from a
production unit that migrate into groundwater in aquifers
immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent to the production
unit do not exceed the hazardous constituent concentration limits
approved pursuant to paragraph 5B(1)(b) of this appendix. Operating
and monitoring reports are required on a regular basis to ensure
that groundwater protection is adequate.
(1) Operating requirements.
(i) Injection and production wells must be operated to withdraw
fluid in excess of that injected into the wellfield sufficient to
ensure inward flow of groundwater into the wellfield so as to
prevent migration of byproduct material outside the production unit.
An inward hydraulic gradient must be maintained into the production
unit at all times until post-restoration monitoring pursuant to
paragraph 14(f)(1) of this criterion is initiated.
(ii) Injection between the outermost casing protecting adjacent
aquifers and the well bore is prohibited.
(iii) Injection pressure at the wellhead must be calculated to
ensure that the pressure in the production unit during injection
does not initiate new fractures or propagate existing fractures. In
no case will wellhead injection pressure initiate fractures in
confining geologic units or cause migration of byproduct material
into aquifers immediately overlying, underlying and adjacent to the
production unit.
(iv) Before a wellfield begins operation, the applicant or
licensee must submit an operating plan for the wellfield containing
the following elements:
(A) An operations program that ensures fluid pressures within
the production unit remain safely below the minimum fracture
pressure for the confining strata and the production unit;
(B) A well development program;
(C) An injection and production well operating plan that
demonstrates an inward hydraulic gradient will be established and
maintained in the production unit during operations and restoration
until post-restoration monitoring commences;
(D) Contingency plans to address shut-ins or well failures so as
to prevent the migration of byproduct material into aquifers
immediately overlying, underlying and adjacent to the production
unit;
(E) The projec

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on September 10, 2026.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.