Panel rules on uranium mining petitioner claims
Hot Springs Star
By Brett Nachtigall
August 10, 2010
CUSTER – Petitioners opposing uranium mining in the area will be given an opportunity to further develop and present their arguments against the application submitted by Powertech, according to a ruling by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB).
Following oral
arguments presented to the ASLB
in Custer on June 8 and 9, the
three-judge panel has determined
that those seeking a hearing had
“standing,” meaning there was “a
demonstrable reason why the
proposed facility could impact
them,” said Neil Sheehan, a
Public Affairs Officer with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The panel, which
consists of a lawyer and two
nuclear engineering experts, has
granted a hearing to two
different groups. The first
group, which has three
contentions that will be further
examined, is Consolidated
Petitioners Susan Henderson,
Dayton Hyde, David Frankel, CWA
and ARM. The second group is the
Oglala Sioux Tribe, which has
four contentions the panel will
examine further.
Included in the
contentions that the ASLB will
consider are Powertech’s
presentation and analysis of
baseline ground water quality
data, the impact to surrounding
aquifers and surface waters, as
well as their ability to contain
fluid migration. Another
contention being examined
further on the application is
Powertech’s demonstration that
cultural and historic resources
are identified and protected,
pursuant to the National
Historic Preservation Act.
The ASLB panel
also ruled that Consolidated
Petitioners Gary Heckenlaible,
Lilias Jones Jarding and
Theodore Ebert are denied party
status in the proceeding.
Additionally, seven other
contentions presented by the
petitioners were also denied
further hearings.
Sheehan said the upcoming hearing will be conducted as a “Subpart L” proceeding, which means a great deal of it will be carried out in written filings and rulings.
“However, if the contentions are not dismissed along the way, an actual hearing in which the expert witnesses will testify will take place in the vicinity of the facility, perhaps in Custer once again,” Sheehan said.
In an emailed statement from
Sheehan, he added, “There is no
firm timeline yet on when the
actual evidentiary hearing would
take place. Again, that would
depend on whether the
contentions survive until that
point, since there will be an
opportunity at one point for the
company to file a dismissal
motion(s) regarding the
contentions.
“The judges would
have to rule on such a motion(s)
before an actual hearing could
occur. If an actual hearing was
conducted, the panel would rule
within several months of that
session. The parties would then
have an opportunity to appeal
the ruling, with the
presidentially appointed
Commission that oversees the NRC
functioning as the appeals
panel. The Commission has five
members. After that step, the
parties could still challenge
the outcome in federal
court.”