Opinion ID: 173333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: groundwater contamination and restoration at section 8

Text: Although ... `in situ' leach mining techniques are considered more environmentally benign [than] traditional mining and milling practices they still tend to contaminate the groundwater. (Jt.App. at 1394 (NRC publication Consideration of Geochemical Issues in Groundwater Restoration at Uranium In-Situ Leach Mining Facilities).) In light of that, the license the NRC issued HRI requires HRI to restore the groundwater after it finishes mining each site. The license also requires HRI to maintain an adequate financial surety to guarantee that HRI or a third party, in HRI's absence, will be able financially to conduct this restoration. See also 10 C.F.R. §§ 40.1, 40.36, 40.42, App'x A, Criterion 9. Petitioners assert that the NRC, in crafting these license provisions, violated the AEA's mandate that the NRC not issue any license that, in the opinion of the Commission, is inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public. 42 U.S.C. § 2099; see also 10 C.F.R. § 40.32(d). Further, Petitioners contend that the FEIS violated NEPA because it failed to take the required hard look at the possible impact ISL mining might have on Section 8's groundwater quality, and particularly the impact on that groundwater quality should HRI be unable to meet the restoration goals set forth in the license.
As previously mentioned, the AEA mandates that the NRC not grant a license if, in the opinion of the Commission, the issuance of a license to such person for such purpose would be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public. 42 U.S.C. § 2099; see also 10 C.F.R. § 40.32(d). In order to implement that mandate, the NRC has promulgated regulations governing the issuance of [these] licenses ... and [to] establish and provide for the terms and conditions upon which the [NRC] will issue such licenses. 10 C.F.R. § 40.1(a); see also id. § 40.1(b). Among those regulations, Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Pt. 40 sets forth criteria the NRC will consider in making licensing determinations for an ISL uranium mining operation. [17] See In re Hydro Res., Inc., 49 N.R.C. 233, 235 (1999). At issue here, then, is whether the conditions the NRC imposed on the license it issued HRI, addressing the restoration of the quality of the groundwater at Section 8, remain true to the AEA's mandate.
This court will not set aside an agency's 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)). Further, this court defers to the agency's reasonable interpretation of its own regulations and, thus, will accept the agency's position unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Holowecki, 552 U.S. at 397, 128 S.Ct. 1147 (quotations omitted).

The problem the NRC faced in this case, regarding the restoration of the groundwater at Section 8, was this: NRC regulations require that HRI decommission the site, including restoring the quality of the groundwater. But no one had, as yet, fully restored the groundwater quality after an ISL mining operation. [19] Nonetheless, based upon results from pilot demonstrations and small-scale tests, the NRC became convinced that it was possible for HRI to restore the groundwater at a well site after it finished ISL mining. HRI proposes to do so by flushing the aquifer with naturally occurring groundwater and decontaminated water to remove any remaining lixiviant and degraded groundwater. Affected water in each mine unit being restored would be withdrawn ..., processed through [the] ion exchange to remove uranium, then treated to remove radium and total dissolved solids. This treated water, known as permeate, would then be reinjected to further flush the aquifer. Groundwater sweep and permeate injection would be balanced so that a cone of depression would be maintained, causing groundwater to flow toward the mining unit. Thus, natural groundwater would be drawn into the mining unit's center. (Jt.App. at 244.) The number of times the aquifer will need to be flushed is measured by pore volumes: A pore volume is an indirect measure of the volume of water that must be pumped or processed to restore the groundwater. It represents the water that fills the void space inside a certain volume of rock or sediment. Restoration costs are closely linked to the amount of water that must be processed to effect restoration. The pore volume parameter is used to represent how many times the contaminated volume of water in the rock must be displaced or processed to restore groundwater quality. It provides a means of comparing the level of effort required to restore groundwater regardless of the scale of the test. In general, the more pore volumes of water it takes to restore groundwater quality, the more money it will cost to achieve restoration. ( Id. at 258.) In calculating the restoration efforts needed for HRI to restore the groundwater quality during its Crownpoint project, the NRC considered at length data HRI submitted from demonstrations and test results conducted at other project locations. [20] ( Id. at 258.) The NRC concluded from this data that all the parameters used by the license to measure groundwater quality can eventually be restored to water use standards. ( Id. at 269.) The NRC, however, also concluded that, notwithstanding these demonstration and test results and because water quality in aquifers containing uranium deposits may be highly variable[,] ... groundwater restoration criteria for specific mining projects should be set taking into account site-specific conditions and spatial variation. ( Id. at 268.) Further, [r]estoration criteria should be based on a statistical analysis of groundwater chemistry data from a large set of wells sampled over a period of time. ( Id. ) In light of these conclusions, the NRC, in crafting the terms of HRI's license addressing restoration of ground water quality at Section 8, did two things. First, the NRC determined that HRI's restoration efforts would be measured using thirty-five specified parameters, or chemical elements or properties. [21] HRI [is] required to use baseline [pre-mining] conditions as the primary restoration target for all constituents or parameters. ( Id. at 244.) The parties do not challenge this means by which the license measures HRI's restoration efforts. Lixiviant shall not be injected into a well field before groundwater quality data is collected and analyzed to establish groundwater restoration goals for each monitored aquifer of the well field, as follows: A) The licensee shall establish groundwater restoration goals by analyzing three independently-collected groundwater samples of formation water from: (1) each monitor well in the well field; and (2) a minimum of one production/injection well per acre of well field. Samples shall be collected a minimum of 14 days apart from each other. Groundwater restoration goals shall be established on a parameter-by-parameter basis, with the primary restoration goal to return all parameters to average pre-lixiviant injection conditions. If groundwater quality parameters cannot be returned to average pre-lixiviant injection levels, the secondary goal shall be to return groundwater quality to the maximum concentration limits specified in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) secondary and primary drinking water regulations. The secondary restoration goal for barium and fluoride[, however,] shall be set to the State of New Mexico primary drinking water standard. The secondary restoration goal for uranium shall be 0.44 mg/L (300 pCi/L). [22] ( Id. at 320 (§ 10.21) (footnote added).) [23] The FEIS explained that meeting the secondary goals will suffice if water quality parameters cannot be returned to average pre-mining baseline levels through reasonable restoration efforts. ( Id. at 244.) And, although HRI's license does not state this, the FEIS suggests that if HRI found that it were impracticable to restore to primary or secondary goals, it might request a license amendment that would allow some change in restoration requirements on a parameter-by-parameter basis. ( Id. at 256.) The FEIS indicates, however, that [i]f a groundwater parameter could not be restored to its secondary goal, HRI would have to make a demonstration to NRC that leaving the parameter at the higher concentration would not be a threat to public health and safety and that, on a parameter by parameter basis, water use would not be significantly degraded. ( Id. ) The NRC was particularly concerned about restoring the total dissolved solids, or TDS, parameter: TDS is a measure of the total sum of all dissolved constituents, but it is most affected by the major constituents (sulfate, chloride, calcium, bicarbonate, carbonate, fluoride, sodium, and potassium). However, not all major constituents have a secondary or primary drinking water standard (for example, bicarbonate, carbonate, calcium, magnesium, potassium). Consequently, it is possible that after groundwater restoration, the TDS secondary goal might be achieved, but the secondary goal for individual major ions that contribute to TDS might not be achieved. If such a situation occurred, HRI would have to make a demonstration to NRC that leaving a parameter at higher than secondary goal concentrations would not be a threat to public health and safety and that water use would not be significantly degraded. For groundwater with TDS concentrations less than the secondary goal, NRC staff ha[s] assumed that worst-case groundwater restoration would return water quality to the secondary goal, even though it cannot be achieved without leaving some of the major parameters at higher than background concentrations (i.e., between primary and secondary goal concentrations). ( Id. at 256-58.) The second thing the NRC did in drafting the terms of HRI's license was to employ a graduated approach to groundwater restoration at Section 8 and as to the Crownpoint project as a whole. Because water quality in aquifers containing uranium deposits may be highly variable and, thus, groundwater restoration criteria for specific mining projects should be set taking into account site-specific conditions ( id. at 268), the license requires HRI, when it begins mining at Section 8, to conduct a demonstration of its restoration methods. HRI must set aside a well field in Section 8, perform ISL mining there for at least three months under commercial activity conditions, and then restore the groundwater quality in this test field to levels consistent with baseline. ( Id. at 311.) HRI will then be able to use this demonstration to calculate the pore values needed generally to restore the groundwater throughout the project to baseline. Authorization for expansion of mining into additional areas will be contingent upon the results of the restoration demonstration. ( Id. )
In order to facilitate the restoration of a mine site after the operator has finished mining it, the NRC's regulations further require that the mine operator provide a surety in order to insure that the licensee will have the economic wherewithal to decommission the ISL mine site. 10 C.F.R. Pt. 40, App. A, Criterion 9. The NRC will review the amount of the required surety annually and can adjust the surety requirements as necessary to recognize increases or decreases resulting from inflation, changes in engineering plans, activities performed, and any other conditions affecting cost. Id. In addressing this required surety arrangement, HRI's license mandates that the ground water restoration of the initial well fields shall be based on nine pore volumes ( id. at 312): Surety for groundwater restoration of the initial well fields shall be based on 9 pore-volumes. Surety shall be maintained at this level until the number of pore volumes required to restore the groundwater quality of a production-scale well field has been established by the restoration demonstration described in [the license's section] 10.28. If at any time it is found that well field restoration requires greater pore-volumes or higher restoration costs, the value of the surety will be adjusted upwards. Upon NRC approval, the licensee shall maintain the NRC-approved financial surety arrangement consistent with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 9. Annual updates to the surety amount, required by 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 9, shall be provided to the NRC at least 3 months prior to the anniversary date of the license issuance. If the NRC has not approved a proposed revision 30 days prior to the expiration date of the existing surety arrangement, the licensee shall extend the existing arrangement, prior to expiration, for 1 year. Along with each proposed revision or annual update of the surety the licensee shall submit supporting documentation showing a breakdown of the costs and the basis for the cost estimates with adjustments for inflation (i.e., using the approved Urban Consumer Price Index), maintenance of a minimum 15 percent contingency, changes in engineering plans, activities performed, and any other conditions affecting estimated costs for site closure. ( Id. at 315.)