SMA says judge should have given more direction
By Heather Sackett
Associate Editor
Published: Friday, February 1, 2013 6:06 AM CST
Telluride-based environmental group Sheep Mountain Alliance has appealed the most recent ruling in the Piñon Ridge uranium mill case.
The filing is the latest step in the ongoing legal wrangling over whether the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment should allow project applicant Energy Fuels to build a uranium mill in Montrose County’s Paradox Valley.
Following a week-long hearing in November, Judicial arbiter Richard Dana released his decision in the case Jan. 14. In the decision, Dana made no recommendation to the state to approve or deny a radioactive materials license for what would be the first conventional uranium mill constructed in the U.S. in more than a quarter century. SMA’s appeal lists six issues, including that the hearing officer did not provide a lawful determination of the issues raised by the parties and failed to rule on the legal and factual basis of the environmental impact analysis.
Although Dana made no recommendation, he acknowledged that new information from expert testimonials was presented and certified that the hearings met Colorado state requirements. SMA initially said the absence of a recommendation for approval was promising, but the group now says Dana should have given the state more direction and the state has no option other than denial of the license.
While we are pleased with the judge’s order to the CDPHE to consider all of the evidence presented at the hearing, our interpretation of the Atomic Energy Act regulations establishing the hearing required the judge to give even more direction to the state, which is the argument behind this appeal,” SMA Executive Director Hilary Cooper wrote in an email.
The Western Mining Action Project and Rocky Mountain Wild also joined in the appeal, which was filed on Jan. 25.
In early 2011, the CDPHE issued Energy Fuels a radioactive materials license, but court challenges followed and in June 2012, a Denver District Court Judge invalidated the license, citing a lack of a public hearing process. The ruling mandated that a formal adjudicated public hearing take place
The filing is the latest step in the ongoing legal wrangling over whether the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment should allow project applicant Energy Fuels to build a uranium mill in Montrose County’s Paradox Valley.
Following a week-long hearing in November, Judicial arbiter Richard Dana released his decision in the case Jan. 14. In the decision, Dana made no recommendation to the state to approve or deny a radioactive materials license for what would be the first conventional uranium mill constructed in the U.S. in more than a quarter century. SMA’s appeal lists six issues, including that the hearing officer did not provide a lawful determination of the issues raised by the parties and failed to rule on the legal and factual basis of the environmental impact analysis.
Although Dana made no recommendation, he acknowledged that new information from expert testimonials was presented and certified that the hearings met Colorado state requirements. SMA initially said the absence of a recommendation for approval was promising, but the group now says Dana should have given the state more direction and the state has no option other than denial of the license.
While we are pleased with the judge’s order to the CDPHE to consider all of the evidence presented at the hearing, our interpretation of the Atomic Energy Act regulations establishing the hearing required the judge to give even more direction to the state, which is the argument behind this appeal,” SMA Executive Director Hilary Cooper wrote in an email.
The Western Mining Action Project and Rocky Mountain Wild also joined in the appeal, which was filed on Jan. 25.
In early 2011, the CDPHE issued Energy Fuels a radioactive materials license, but court challenges followed and in June 2012, a Denver District Court Judge invalidated the license, citing a lack of a public hearing process. The ruling mandated that a formal adjudicated public hearing take place
