This is the first time that a grassroots organization—not to mention a Native American organization—has challenged the licensing of an in-situ leach uranium mine by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

So far, two significant precedents have been set by this case that will benefit the environment and public health. First, from this point forward, companies proposing in-situ leach uranium mines will have to defend the entire license granted by the NRC -- not just portions of that license. HRI=s license to mine covers four proposed mining sites under one license. In 1998, the former Presiding Officer (the NRC administrative law judge) ruled in favor of HRI and the NRC Staff that in order to being mining, HRI was only required to defend its license with respect to Section 8, the first of the proposed mining sites. Such a position would bar citizens and environmental groups from challenging the entirety of a license to mine. Essentially, the full range of environmental and public health issues associated with a license would likely never be litigated or given a public hearing. On behalf of our clients, the Law Center challenged this position in front of the NRC Commissioners and had the decision of the Presiding Officer to allow HRI to defend only one portion of their license reversed.

Second, HRI and the NRC Staff, again with a favorable ruling from the former Presiding Officer, held that HRI did not have to submit a restoration plan and cost estimate for cleaning up the site once mining concluded. The Law Center challenged this decision to the Commission and won. Now, every ISL mining company in the United States will have to include cost estimates and a full plan for cleanup in their application so that it may be thoroughly reviewed by the public.

Hydro Resources Inc. (HRI), a subsidiary of Dallas-based Uranium Resources Inc., intends to open four uranium mining sites (Unit 1, Unit 17, Section 8 and Crownpoint sites) near and within the Navajo communities of Church Rock and Crownpoint. Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining (ENDAUM) was founded by residents concerned about the possible effects of uranium mining at these sites on their sole source aquifer. In 1994, ENDAUM and SRIC first sought a hearing before the NRC on their concerns regarding the licensing of these uranium mines near their communities.

In 1996, the Law Center began to serve as counsel for ENDAUM and SRIC. Despite our best efforts, the NRC awarded HRI a license for the mine in 1998. This follows a consistent pro-industry pattern followed by the NRC, in that the Commission granted the license prior to holding public meetings. Contingent upon conditions set by the NRC following the issuance of the license in 1998, HRI’s financial assurances and reclamation plans for all four sites must be approved by the NRC before the company can begin mining.

2005 - Navajo Nation Tribal Council passes uranium ban legislation - The first hurdle has been cleared in banning uranium mining and processing on Navajo lands.

After months of hard work, education and lobbying by Law Center Staff Attorney Eric Jantz and clients ENDAUM* and SRIC*, the Navajo Tribal Council passed the Diné Natural Resources Protection Act (DNRPA).

DNRPA will ban conventional uranium mining, such as shaft and pit mines, and uranium processing, which included in situ leach (ISL) uranium mining. The Tribal Council passed the bill overwhelmingly by a vote of 63-19, despite hard lobbying by HRI and the Eastern Navajo Allottees' Association to kill it.

Designed to protect the water resources of the Navajo Nation, as well as the health of its citizens, DNRPA will be incredibly important to the 15,000 residents in the Church Rock-Crownpoint region. For over a decade Hydro Resources, Inc. (HRI) has proposed to perform ISL uranium mining in the region's drinking water aquifer.

“Members of these communities have already given enough lives to the uranium industry. New mining, whether it be conventional or ISL, would likely devastate a new generation of Navajo citizens,” states Jantz.

“Dozens of communities have passed resolutions declaring their opposition to new uranium mining, and thousands of Navajos have signed petitions against new mines,” he continues. “We and our clients applaud the Navajo Tribal Council for exercising its inherent sovereignty to protect its valuable resources and the health of its citizens.”

Jantz joined ENDAUM staffer Lynnea Smith to testify before the Council in support of DNRPA. The bill now goes to Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley, Jr. President Shirley has indicated that he will sign the bill into law.

This law could make it impossible for HRI –and other companies – to mine uranium in Navajo communities. This victory is important in light of the decision made by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission earlier this year to validate HRI's license for its first proposed minesite, Church Rock Section 8. In addition, the price of uranium has more than doubled over the past two years, from less than $10/lb to over $23/lb.

2005 - Church Rock Section 8 License - Phase I of Litigation Ends/Phase II of Litigation Begins - After litigating for more than six years on Hydro Resources Inc's (HRI's) first proposed in situ leach (ISL) uranium minesite, called Section 8, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ruled that HRI has met all of the terms required by the agency to begin mining at Section 8.

In 2000, the NRC ruled that HRI could not begin mining at Section 8 until it had submitted its restoration action plan (RAP) and surety estimate for the site. HRI did this in 2001, and the Law Center presented technical testimony that illustrated that the company's RAP would not lead to successful reclamation, and that the surety estimate supplied by HRI is only 1/3 of the cost that would be incurred by a third-party to clean up the site should HRI abandon the site before it was reclaimed.In February 2004, Judge Thomas Moore ruled on the 2001 litigation. He agreed with several of our concerns, including that equipment, reclamation and labor costs had been underestimated. He ruled that HRI would have to amend its well-plugging plan, and that HRI would have to consult with third-party contractors in order to develop a realistic cost estimate for third-party reclamation.

We and HRI appealed the decision to the NRC Commission, a panel of 5 individuals (currently three individuals, owing to vacancies). We argued that Judge Moore had wrongly dismissed our arguments about how HRI's reclamation costs are calculated, specifically how many times HRI would need to “flush out” the contaminated groundwater at a mining site with clean water in order to reclaim it. HRI argued that it was not necessary to either consult with third-party contractors, or factor in the cost of replacement equipment should HRI's equipment either fail or be removed if HRI were to default on its reclamation responsibilities, despite the clear directive of NRC regulations to the contrary.

On December 8, the Commission ruled in favor of HRI, and against our clients.HRI can not yet mine, owing to the fact that it must first obtain an aquifer exemption, which would be granted if HRI can demonstrate that the aquifer to be contaminated by the ISL mining is not a drinking water source.However, as far as the NRC is concerned, HRI has a license to mine at Section 8.For the past ten years, uranium prices have been depressed. HRI contends that uranium must sell for approximately $14/pound in order for the mines to be profitable. While uranium sold for less than $10/lb. for much of the last decade, it is on the commodities market at over $23/lb as of April 2005.

We have begun Phase II of litigation, in which we will try to invalidate the licenses for the remaining three proposed mines on the grounds that the mines will contaminate air and groundwater. We anticipate that this phase of the case will take between 12 and 18 months. If the NRC agrees with us, and revokes HRI's licenses, we will likely appeal the license for Section 8. If the NRC rules against us, as we anticipate, we will likely appeal the entire project in federal court.

We cannot appeal the license in court until Phase II of litigation, on the remaining three sites, concludes.

2004 - New Mexico Uranium Groundwater Standard - On June 7, 2004, the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission handed the Law Center and the New Mexico Groundwater Quality Bureau a major victory by deciding unanimously to lower New Mexico's groundwater standard for uranium to 30 micrograms per liter of water, down from the previous 5000 mcg/l.

The Law Center presented extensive evidence about the adverse health effects of uranium, a toxic heavy metal, when ingested through drinking water. This decision will protect current and future drinking water supplies throughout New Mexico. Several Indian tribes, including the Navajo Nation, several New Mexico counties, ranchers, and ordinary citizens testified in support of lowering the groundwater standard for uranium The New Mexico Mining Association, especially its members that engage in uranium mining, including Hydro Resources, Inc., stronly opposed lowering the standard, arguing that it would be too expensive to comply.

The New Mexico Mining Association and the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association have appealed this decision. We are working with our client to protect the new important and beneficial standard in 2005.

2001 - Restoration Plans and Cost Estimates — After our clients won in front of the Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners and forced HRI to submit a restoration plan and cost estimate for the proposed Section 8 mining site, HRI submitted that plan in November of 2000. The Law Center, on behalf of SRIC and ENDAUM, responded to that plan just before Christmas Eve of 2000. With the help of many generous member donations, we were able to contract several experts who concluded that despite HRI’s assertions, the company would not be able to restore the groundwater after it has been polluted with uranium and other heavy metals as a result of the mining process.

The NRC Staff and HRI replied to the Law Center=s filing in late January of 2001 and disputed the findings of the Law Center=s experts. The new Presiding Officer permitted the Law Center to respond to the NRC Staff and HRI and that reply brief and the associated expert affidavits were submitted in May of 2001. Again, through the generous contribution of members, the Law Center was able to afford the assistance of in-situ groundwater restoration experts from Wyoming (in fact, a former regulator of ISL uranium mines in Wyoming) who unequivocally stated that HRI=s cleanup plan was technically and financially inadequate.

HRI must submit the restoration plans and cost estimates for the three other proposed mining sites by approximately Thanksgiving of 2001. For the hearing to go forward, the NRC Staff will have to approve of those plans. The hearing on the remaining three proposed mining sites (Section 17, Unit 1, and Crownpoint) will likely commence sometime in late winter of 2002.

Bifurcation—In 1999, the NRC allowed HRI to "bifurcate" its license—a ruling that the Law Center and our clients immediately appealed. (See below). The ruling in January, 2001, reversed the NRC’s decision, and compels HRI to submit reclamation and financial assurances for all four sites this summer. While HRI has agreed to defend its entire license (rather than relinquish the license for any of its sites) this gives the Law Center and our clients the opportunity to show how these four sites will impact the area and the Westwater Aquifer underlying the area.

Bi·fur·cate: To split into parts.

In order to begin mining, HRI must prove that the company can clean up the water that it pollutes through the uranium mining process, and that it has the financial resources to underwrite this cleanup. Bifurcation would have allowed HRI to submit its financial assurances and remediation plan for only Section 8-the first site it plans to mine.

So what's the problem?

• By defending just ¼ of its license, HRI is not held accountable for the cumulative toxic load of all four sites on the aquifer, nor held responsible for proving the that company can afford to remediate the entire mine.
• Section 8 is the furthest site from concentrated human populations; by getting a foothold here, HRI has a stronger chance of getting past public outcry.
• The NRC has ruled that license bifurcation is expressly prohibited.