3 business activities now involves shipment of uranium-bearing wastes to White Mesa as analternative to disposal in a licensed low-level radioactive waste facility.8.
On information and belief, Energy Fuels does not plan to start construction of the PR Mill in 2013. On information and belief, Energy Fuels has not obtained all necessary state and federal approvals for the PR Mill.9.
This lawsuit is brought to invalidate the License and Environmental Impact Analysis(“EIA”), both of which were issued without compliance with the substantive and proceduralrequirements of the Colorado Radiation Control Act (“RCA”), C.R.S. § 25-11-101,
., and the federal Atomic Energy Act (“AEA”) and UMTRCA, 42 U.S.C. § 2011,
., which areimplemented within the State of Colorado by CDPHE. These requirements are designed toensure the decisionmaking process is open to informed public involvement and subjected torigorous procedural requirements of a formal adjudication and initial decision by anadministrative law judge, subject to an appeal by right to the Executive Director, before CDPHEmay issue a radioactive materials license for purposes of uranium milling and maintaining theradioactive tailings until the property is deeded to the government for perpetual care.10.
Persons living in the Paradox Valley have repeatedly expressed their opposition and concern about constructing a uranium mill in the Paradox Valley, including the owner of thenow-closed Bedrock Store and owner of the relatively new Paradox Valley Inn. Neither CDPHEnor Energy Fuels conducted a detailed analysis of the benefits of siting the PR Mill and tailingsdisposal in an already-contaminated area as an alternative to the Paradox Valley.11.
The material issues raised by Plaintiffs were not resolved by the administrative law judge during the License Hearing mandated by the Judicial Review Order setting aside the previously issued license and remanding for CDPHE to provide a license hearing that conformswith Colorado law, including the rights of parties under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Sheep Mountain Alliance v. CDPHE
, 2011CV861, Judicial Review Order, at ¶¶32-35 (remanding for compliance with,
, C.R.S § 24-4-105).12.
Plaintiffs raised material issues early in the proceeding, including lack of water supply, waste containment and exposure pathways, toxicity and management of mill wastes,supply, on and off-site pollution, air emissions, socioeconomics, wildlife, federally protected species, due process/procedure, and the failure of CDPHE and Energy Fuels to meet the statutory burdens meant to avoid repetition of the notorious impacts caused by the ongoing failure of uranium mill tailings impoundments throughout Colorado. Similar issues were raised throughwritten and oral public comments by persons living in and near the Paradox Valley and by thosewho farm, hunt, hike, climb, bike, visit, and otherwise enjoy the Paradox Valley.13.
Plaintiffs substantiated its issues at the seven day hearing with expert witnesstestimony of Connie Travers, Dr. Ann Maste, Dr. Tom Power, cross examination, and documentary evidence.
Exh. 1 Sheep Mountain Proposed Findings of Fact and Determinations of Law, Exh. 2. Wildlife Coalition Proposed Findings of Fact and Determinations of Law.