The NRC’s Generic Environmental Impact Statement & What We Can Do About It

Why is the NRC proposing a “Generic” EIS? NRC anticipates new ISL projects or ISL re-starts in the next few years NRC does not have the staff to do comprehensive site-specific reviews Companies are pressuring NRC to speed up the process  NRC wants to streamline NEPA process through a “common” document fac/licensing/geis.html

Important Dates for GEIS NOI for GEIS published July 24, 2007 Scoping period extended until Nov public meetings held in entire area Draft released July 28, 2008 Public comment period ends Oct. 7 Scoping meetings held in eastern Wyo, NM, NE and SD (none in Western Wyo) Final anticipated June 2009 –Gov Dave wants Jan 2009

Geographic Areas Covered by GEIS Eastern Wyoming: Powder River Basin Western Wyoming: Gas Hills Uranium District, Northern Sweetwater County Black Hills projects: far NE Wyoming (Crook and Weston Counties), South Dakota, Nebraska (including Crow Buttes) New Mexico: west central, including some tribal lands

Geographic Areas Not included Agreement States: Colorado, Utah, Texas Areas where strip mines or other non-NRC licensed uranium projects will occur Areas where companies have not expressed interest in applying for a license (e.g. early exploratory projects)

Broad Problems with GEIS What is really “common” about ISL? No analysis of cumulative impacts of either the programmatic decision or individual projects –No discussion of past actions that could increase impacts (e.g. past mines) No (or very little) tribal consultation No real agency-to-agency consultation Potential to limit site-specific analysis and public involvement

More Problems with GEIS Insufficient and inaccurate information in a whole host of issues – water, air, land, socio-economics No real mention of past history of company compliance (or lack thereof) and NRC’s ability to monitor and enforce No enforceable mitigation measures No mention of ISL rulemaking

Other Concerns with NRC’s NEPA process Parsing off of impacts by stage of the project: construction, operation, restoration Categorization of impacts: “small” “moderate” “large”  what is significant? –Arbitrary determinations of significance Forgone conclusion that site-specific documents will be EAs No alternatives analysis

So what can we do about it? Organize, organize, organize! –Local opposition is critical –Local media exposure is critical Coalition-building Regional cooperation & information- sharing Legal challenges Congressional oversight? Opposition from governors and state legislators?