United States

NRC Proposes Uranium In Situ Recovery Groundwater And Decommissioning Rules

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed risk-informed groundwater controls for uranium in situ recovery facilities and more flexible decommissioning timeliness provisions.

Dr Steven Brennan

3 min readAI-drafted, expert reviewed

Groundwater monitoring wellheads and a sealed sample bottle in an arid landscape.

Uranium In Situ Recovery Groundwater Rules Gain A Dedicated Framework

The proposed uranium in situ recovery groundwater rules would add criterion 14 to Appendix A of 10 CFR part 40. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposed rule says current requirements were designed principally for conventional uranium mills and do not expressly address the solution-based recovery process.

If finalised, criterion 14 would apply to applications submitted after the final rule's effective date for a new in situ recovery facility, a new wellfield at a licensed facility or a new production unit within an operating wellfield. It would not automatically reopen every existing wellfield. The draft contemplates effectiveness 30 days after final-rule publication, but no final date is set.

Monitoring, Excursions And Restoration Would Be More Prescriptive

Applicants would need at least one year of quarterly pre-operational groundwater sampling, together with geological and hydrogeological evidence showing isolation from adjacent aquifers. A point-of-compliance monitoring network would be required around the production zone.

Operators would select at least three groundwater indicators and generally sample at least twice each month, with at least 10 days between samples. An excursion would occur when two or more indicators exceed their upper control limits. Confirmation sampling would normally be required within 48 hours, with a possible third sample within a further 48 hours.

A confirmed excursion would trigger NRC notification within one business day and a written report within seven calendar days. If it persisted for 60 days, or an alternate period approved by the NRC, injection into the contributing area would have to stop, and the licensee would need further corrective action, sampling and, where necessary, additional financial surety. Mechanical integrity testing would be required before well use, after relevant servicing and at least every five years.

Groundwater restoration would target background concentrations or referenced US Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant levels. A site-specific alternate concentration limit could be approved through a licence amendment with hearing rights. Conventional uranium mills would also cross-reference current federal drinking-water limits.

Decommissioning Flexibility Is Proposed, Not Automatic

The package would also change when decommissioning must begin after principal activities cease. It would extend the current 24-month notification trigger to 36 months for 10 CFR part 30 licensees and 48 months for licensees under parts 40, 70 and 72. It would allow an extension request up to 45 days after the relevant notification rather than requiring it 30 days beforehand. The 24-month materials-facility completion period would remain.

For power reactors, the 60-year decommissioning completion period would remain. The NRC proposes removing the narrow test that longer periods are permissible only when necessary to protect public health and safety, allowing the broader exemption process to apply. These are options available through licensing decisions, not blanket extensions.

Prospective operators should test wellfield designs, sampling capacity, excursion workflows and surety models against criterion 14. Existing licensees should separately assess whether future wellfield or production-unit applications would bring projects within scope.

Submit technically supported comments by 13 October, particularly where sampling intervals, restoration endpoints or financial-assurance assumptions affect feasibility.

Questions about this change

Would criterion 14 immediately apply to every operating in situ recovery wellfield?

No. The proposal targets applications submitted after the final rule's effective date for new facilities, new wellfields or new production units. Existing licence conditions continue unless changed through applicable processes. The scope and effective date remain proposed and may change.

Would the proposal remove the 60-year reactor decommissioning limit?

No. The 60-year completion period would remain. The NRC proposes broadening the route for requesting a longer schedule by using its general exemption framework. Any extension would still require regulatory approval and supporting evidence rather than arising automatically.

Dr Steven Brennan

CEO and co-founder of Foresight, and a co-opted member of ECHA's Committee for Socio-economic Analysis. He holds a PhD in chemical engineering.

More from Dr Steven Brennan

Find out what this means for your products

Foresight follows changes like this one and shows where they reach your substances, products and markets.

Join 3,500+ professionals staying ahead

Foresight Weekly brings the week's regulatory changes across chemicals, product safety, sustainability, ESG and EHS into one email.

Free. Unsubscribe at any time.

Read by professionals at

  • Boeing
  • AstraZeneca
  • Siemens
  • PepsiCo
  • SpaceX