Stripping Arizona’s Uranium Resources

The U.S. District Court in Arizona sided with the Department of the Interior in its decision to withdraw one million acres of public land from new claims for uranium mining.

The tract of land, called the Arizona Strip, has supported uranium mining and the support structure that has grown up around it for many years. None of that is changed by the current decision, but no new mines can be opened up for the 20 years that the land is withdrawn.

The most interesting aspect of this decision is that judge ruled that the withdrawal could happen despite Interior’s recognition that it presents “a low risk of significant environmental harm.” But if mining there is not problematic, why ban additional claims? In addition, the Court was not bothered by the lack of Interior’s interest in relying on a full or even a reasonable set of facts in making its withdrawal decision.

The Court’s explanation is telling but not satisfying if you believe that the government should base its decisions on available or easily developed facts. Instead, the court seemed to elevate conservation over a common sense application of the National Environmental Policy Act’s requirements for informed decision making.

“[T]he court can find no legal principle that prevents DOI from acting in the face of uncertainty. Nor can the court conclude that the Secretary abused his discretion or acted arbitrarily, capriciously or in violation of law when he chose to err on the side of caution in protecting a national treasure - Grand Canyon National Park.

What is the point of informed decision making if the outcome is predetermined?

Importantly, the agency never attempted to disguise the uncertainty or the low probability of contamination from mining. It simply determined that even a low risk was too great given the strip’s proximity to the Grand Canyon. Never mind that all one million acres would not be in such close proximity. Some smaller tract could have been removed to accomplish that goal.

A study by the Interior Department itself found nothing to justify the land’s withdrawal.

The high-grade uranium resources in northern Arizona are found in compact formations that can be developed with minimal environmental impact. In its comments on the Interior Department’s draft environmental impact statement, the Arizona Land Department said: “[T]he DEIS [draft environmental impact statement] reveals nothing in the recent history of mining the breccia pipes in northern Arizona … that would appear to justify any withdrawal.

And the economic implications of withdrawing the land are grave.

According to members of Arizona and Utah’s congressional delegations, the action would wreak economic havoc on a depressed area, breach an agreement made years ago by the federal government, and do nothing to improve or protect the environment.

And:

“The Obama administration’s ban on uranium mining is a devastating blow to job creation in northern Arizona, particularly in Mohave County,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said. “This decision is fueled by an emotional public relations campaign pitting the public’s love for the Grand Canyon against a modern form of low-impact mining that occurs many miles from the canyon walls and in no way impacts the quality of drinking water from the Colorado River.”

I don’t know whether The National Mining Association will appeal the decision.

The summary is simple. This is an unfortunate outcome that harms the economic profile of that area. Interior could have protected the environment in and around the Grand Canyon, which no one can dispute is extremely important, with a far less expansive withdrawal. You can read the whole decision here.

NEI’s Vice President and General Counsel Ellen Ginsberg contributed substantially to this post.

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog