2011-02-09_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300

Home Browse Search

Here, the Board did not make the required cost-benefit evaluation nor did it engage in an analysis of the reasonableness of Corrective Action No. 2, as discussed below. As a result, Corrective Action No. 2 and the paragraphs of the Order on which it is based should be vacated and enforcement restrained. C. The Board Failed To Evaluate the Reasonableness of Corrective Action No. 2. Substantial evidence exists in the record that Corrective Action No. 2 will result in adverse environmental consequences. Evaluation of such negative results must be part of an analysis of the reasonableness of any reclamation activity, such as Corrective Action No. 2. The Board failed to make this legally-required analysis. Uranium is generally mobile in oxygenated environments and immobile in reducing (non-oxygenated) environments. AR:00265. Dewatering the mine pool will create oxidizing conditions in the mine pool, and mobilize otherwise immobile and insoluble uranium in the Mine water. Id. As a result of the existing reducing environment, the mine pool has experienced declining uranium concentrations. Id. The decreasing trend is expected to continue as the water in the mine pool returns to pre-mining unoxidized conditions. AR:00265; 00958:25-00959:3. Pumping the mine pool would reverse this declining trend and would result in freeing uranium from the rock into the water pumped from the Mine under Corrective Action No. 2. AR:00265. Further, evaluating the reasonableness of one reclamation action requires comparing it with the reasonableness of other alternative actions. Here, the record contains evidence of other more practical means of addressing any threat from the mine pool, but the Order does not reflect any weighing or evaluation of whether those alternatives were more reasonable than Corrective Action No. 2. These alternative, more practical means included establishing an early warning 24