Lakotas fighting new uranium mining will offer oral arguments in Nebraska:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
Before Administrative Judges:
Ann Marshall Young, Chair Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Fred W. Oliver
In the Matter of
Docket No. 40-8943-MLA
ASLBP No. 07-859-03-MLA-BD01 CROW BUTTE RESOURCES, INC. (License Amendment for the North Trend Expansion Project)
January 10, 2008
NOTICE and ORDER (Regarding Oral Argument)
Oral argument will be heard on the standing and contentions of Petitioners1 in this proceeding, which involves the application of Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (CBR) to amend its Source Materials License for development of additional uranium in-situ leach (ISL) mining resources for its North Trend Expansion Area, on January 16, 2008, continuing into January 17 as necessary, in the Chicoine Atrium, Mari Sandoz High Plains Heritage Center, Chadron State College, 1000 Main Street, Chadron, Nebraska.
This session will commence at 9:00 a.m. on January 16, beginning with oral argument on Petitioners’ standing to participate in this proceeding; followed by argument on the contentions, in the order addressed in Petitioners’ Reference Petition of December 28, 2007 (as
1 In response to a September 13, 2007, notice of opportunity for hearing that was published on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) website, Petitioners Debra L White Plume, Owe Aku/Bring Back the Way, Western Nebraska Resources Council, Thomas Kanatakeniate Cook, and Slim Buttes Agricultural Development Corporation on November 12, 2007, timely filed requests for hearing and petitions to Intervene in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309.
-2 corrected on January 10, 2008); and, finally, argument on Petitioners’ request for a 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart G hearing, and any other appropriate matters.
As discussed in the telephone conference of December 18, 2007, oral argument by the two attorneys serving as Petitioners’ counsel, and Applicant’s and NRC Staff’s counsel, respectively, will be consolidated as much as possible, with the understanding that if on certain issues counsel wish to make separate argument this can be accommodated. Also, oral argument should not be a mere repetition of written filings. With these understandings, counsel are directed to prepare for the oral argument as follows:
On standing, Petitioners’ counsel should plan to speak for no longer than a total of 10 minutes per Petitioner (including discussion of all affidavits at issue), with this time apportioned as they see fit; Applicant and Staff Counsel should plan to speak for a total of no more than 10 minutes per Petitioner. On Petitioners’ contentions, Petitioners counsel should plan to speak for a combined time of no more than 20 minutes per contention, and Applicant and Staff Counsel should plan to speak for a combined time of no more than 20 minutes per contention. Counsel and parties should expect that their argument will be interrupted as deemed necessary and appropriate by Board members, but that the time taken for such questions and responses will not be counted against their allotted time periods.
In argument on admissibility of the contentions, counsel should be prepared to focus their arguments on whether and how the contentions meet the requirements of the criteria set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1), subsections (i) through (vi). See also, e.g., the case law cited in our December 12, 2007, Order (Regarding Schedule and Guidance for Proceedings), and
-3 our December 20, 2007, Order (Confirming Matters Addressed on December 18, 2007
Telephone Conference).
It is so ORDERED. FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
_________/RA/_________________ Ann Marshall Young, Chair ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
Rockville, Maryland January 10, 20082
2Copies of this Order were sent this date by Internet e-mail to all counsel and representatives for participants for whom e-mail addresses were available.
Ann Marshall Young, Chair Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Fred W. Oliver
In the Matter of
Docket No. 40-8943-MLA
ASLBP No. 07-859-03-MLA-BD01 CROW BUTTE RESOURCES, INC. (License Amendment for the North Trend Expansion Project)
January 10, 2008
NOTICE and ORDER (Regarding Oral Argument)
Oral argument will be heard on the standing and contentions of Petitioners1 in this proceeding, which involves the application of Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (CBR) to amend its Source Materials License for development of additional uranium in-situ leach (ISL) mining resources for its North Trend Expansion Area, on January 16, 2008, continuing into January 17 as necessary, in the Chicoine Atrium, Mari Sandoz High Plains Heritage Center, Chadron State College, 1000 Main Street, Chadron, Nebraska.
This session will commence at 9:00 a.m. on January 16, beginning with oral argument on Petitioners’ standing to participate in this proceeding; followed by argument on the contentions, in the order addressed in Petitioners’ Reference Petition of December 28, 2007 (as
1 In response to a September 13, 2007, notice of opportunity for hearing that was published on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) website, Petitioners Debra L White Plume, Owe Aku/Bring Back the Way, Western Nebraska Resources Council, Thomas Kanatakeniate Cook, and Slim Buttes Agricultural Development Corporation on November 12, 2007, timely filed requests for hearing and petitions to Intervene in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309.
-2 corrected on January 10, 2008); and, finally, argument on Petitioners’ request for a 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart G hearing, and any other appropriate matters.
As discussed in the telephone conference of December 18, 2007, oral argument by the two attorneys serving as Petitioners’ counsel, and Applicant’s and NRC Staff’s counsel, respectively, will be consolidated as much as possible, with the understanding that if on certain issues counsel wish to make separate argument this can be accommodated. Also, oral argument should not be a mere repetition of written filings. With these understandings, counsel are directed to prepare for the oral argument as follows:
On standing, Petitioners’ counsel should plan to speak for no longer than a total of 10 minutes per Petitioner (including discussion of all affidavits at issue), with this time apportioned as they see fit; Applicant and Staff Counsel should plan to speak for a total of no more than 10 minutes per Petitioner. On Petitioners’ contentions, Petitioners counsel should plan to speak for a combined time of no more than 20 minutes per contention, and Applicant and Staff Counsel should plan to speak for a combined time of no more than 20 minutes per contention. Counsel and parties should expect that their argument will be interrupted as deemed necessary and appropriate by Board members, but that the time taken for such questions and responses will not be counted against their allotted time periods.
In argument on admissibility of the contentions, counsel should be prepared to focus their arguments on whether and how the contentions meet the requirements of the criteria set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1), subsections (i) through (vi). See also, e.g., the case law cited in our December 12, 2007, Order (Regarding Schedule and Guidance for Proceedings), and
-3 our December 20, 2007, Order (Confirming Matters Addressed on December 18, 2007
Telephone Conference).
It is so ORDERED. FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
_________/RA/_________________ Ann Marshall Young, Chair ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
Rockville, Maryland January 10, 20082
2Copies of this Order were sent this date by Internet e-mail to all counsel and representatives for participants for whom e-mail addresses were available.
No comments:
Post a Comment