Opinion ID: 173333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Whether the NRC violated NEPA by failing to consider adequately the impact HRI's mining might have if HRI is unable to restore the groundwater quality at Section 8

Text: Petitioners contend that the NRC violated NEPA by not properly considering the cumulative environmental impacts on Section 8 that might result if HRI is unable to restore the groundwater quality. [24] As previously mentioned, NEPA requires the NRC to consider the potential consequences of its proposed action by taking a hard look at those consequences. See Russell, 518 F.3d at 820-21; Krueger, 513 F.3d at 1179. This court will not set aside an agency decision unless it is `arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.' Russell, 518 F.3d at 823 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). The FEIS, in fact, does address the possibility that HRI will be unable to restore fully the groundwater at Section 8. The potential groundwater impacts of ISL mining are related to the consumption of groundwater (i.e., water is pumped from the aquifer but not returned to it) and short- and long-term changes to groundwater quality (i.e., the chemistry of the water). Perhaps the most significant environmental impact that can occur as a result of ISL mining is the degradation of water quality in the ore-bearing aquifer. (Jt.App. at 254.) Further, the FEIS recognized that [l]ocal groundwater quality in the Westwater Canyon sandstone within the proposed mining units would deteriorate during HRI's proposed project. ( Id. ) In particular, during mining, the concentrations of most of the naturally occurring dissolved constituents will be appreciably higher than their concentrations in the original groundwater. ( Id. ) The total volume of groundwater that would be chemically affected by ISL mining is estimated to be 3.3 million m3 (2671 acre-ft.). ( Id. at 287.) In addition, the FEIS recognized the dangers posed by possible excursions unanticipated releases of mining solutions that move beyond the `well field area' occurring during the mining process. ( Id. at 254.) Specifically, the FEIS noted that significant adverse effects to groundwater quality would result if an excursion (either horizontal or vertical) occurs or if, after routine mining, water quality is not restored. ( Id. at 280.) Not only did the FEIS recognize these possibilities, the FEIS expressly explored ways in which the groundwater contamination could be contained and eventually remediated. To preserve the community's use of the Westwater Canyon aquifer as a drinking water source, NRC staff would require several mitigation measures of HRI.... Generally, the measures include additional characterization, testing, and bonding above that proposed by HRI, for groundwater restoration. A groundwater restoration demonstration would be required at Church Rock before lixiviant could be injected at Unit 1 or Crownpoint. ( Id. ) The FEIS discussed monitoring the groundwater contamination during ISL mining, as well as the methods and timing of HRI's efforts to restore the groundwater quality after its mining operations cease. And the FEIS addressed the primary and secondary restoration goals which were eventually included in HRI's license. Further, the FEIS noted that, if HRI could not meet even the secondary restoration goals required of it, HRI would have to make a demonstration to NRC that leaving the parameter at a higher concentration would not be a threat to public health and safety and that, on a parameter by parameter basis, water would not be significantly degraded. ( Id. at 256.) In addressing all of these issues, the FEIS acknowledged that [s]uccessful restoration of a production-scale ISL well field has not previously occurred. Further, site-specific tests conducted by HRI have not demonstrated that the proposed restoration standards can be achieved at a production scale. [25] ( Id. at 280.) Nevertheless, the FEIS ultimately determined that HRI would be able eventually to meet the required restoration goals. It did so based upon a detailed analysis of the test results from this and other projects offered by HRI, discussed above. [26] For these reasons, we conclude that the NRC took the hard look NEPA requires regarding groundwater restoration at Section 8. See Krueger, 513 F.3d at 1178 (quotation omitted); cf. Richmond, 483 F.3d at 1140 (noting NEPA does not prohibit agency from approving project with negative cumulative effects, so long as agency considered those effects). Therefore, we cannot say that the NRC's decision to issue HRI's license was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise contrary to law.