## Facts

- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Strata Energy, Inc. a source-materials license to conduct in-situ uranium recovery at the Ross Project in northeastern Wyoming.
- During licensing, NRC prepared a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
- Environmental organizations challenged the EIS, arguing Strata’s corporate parent publicly contemplated multiple similar uranium projects across the broader Lance District and that NRC had to evaluate them together.
- NRC concluded the Ross Project had “independent utility” because it was financially viable even if other district projects never occurred, and it treated Ross as a stand-alone action.
- Petitioners also argued NRC failed to take a NEPA “hard look” at cumulative impacts (including groundwater, restoration, and long-term effects) and unlawfully segmented its review.
- The NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the Commission rejected the NEPA challenges and upheld the license; petitioners sought review in the D.C. Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether NRC violated NEPA’s anti-segmentation requirements by limiting the EIS to the Ross Project rather than preparing a single EIS covering other contemplated Lance District projects.
2. Whether NRC reasonably found the Ross Project had “independent utility,” permitting separate NEPA review.
3. Whether NRC took the required “hard look” at cumulative environmental impacts, including reasonably foreseeable future uranium recovery projects and groundwater-related risks.
4. Whether NRC’s NEPA determinations were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under the APA.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit denied the petition for review and affirmed NRC’s licensing decision.
- The court held NRC did not unlawfully segment its NEPA review because the Ross Project had independent utility and was not contingent on other projects.
- The court held NRC’s cumulative-impacts discussion adequately accounted for potential future regional projects to the extent they were reasonably foreseeable and not speculative.
- Applying arbitrary-and-capricious review, the court deferred to NRC’s technical judgments where the agency explained its reasoning and addressed significant criticisms.

## Legal Principles

- An agency may analyze a project separately under NEPA when the project has independent utility and can proceed without other proposed actions.
- NEPA requires consideration of cumulative impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, but not indefinite or speculative projects.
- The NEPA “hard look” standard evaluates the adequacy of the agency’s reasoned analysis and disclosure; courts do not reweigh technical disputes if the agency’s explanations are reasonable.
- Under APA arbitrary-and-capricious review, agency technical and scientific judgments receive deference when supported by a rational explanation grounded in the record.

## Conclusion

The court upheld NRC’s EIS and license for the Ross in-situ uranium recovery project, concluding that NRC permissibly treated the project as a stand-alone action due to its independent utility and that NRC reasonably evaluated cumulative impacts and technical concerns under NEPA without acting arbitrarily or capriciously.


Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n, 879 F.3d 1202 (D.C. Cir. 2018)