sml early tues morning?

Still no final confirmation the PA for the 106 consultations?
This preceeds the SML issue.

They were targetting 25/26 March to circulate the doc for final signatures. I assume it is happening but will be tight.

So tomorrow I’m half expecting to awake early to find a notice of SML issue…..followed shortly therafter by an application for stay of construction by the joint petitioners.

There has been no agreement between parties to extend so it looks to be the stated 5 working days.

The following is of interest relating to the requirements the joint petitioners would need to satisfy. In particular note items under (d):


2.1213 Application for a stay.
(a) Any application for a stay of the effectiveness of the NRC staff's action on a matter involved in a hearing under this subpart must be filed with the presiding officer within five (5) days of the issuance of the notice of the NRC staff's action under § 2.1202(a) and must be filed and considered in accordance with paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section.
(b) An application for a stay of the NRC staff's action may not be longer than ten (10) pages, exclusive of affidavits, and must contain:
(1) A concise summary of the action which is requested to be stayed; and
(2) A concise statement of the grounds for a stay, with reference to the factors specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(c) Within ten (10) days after service of an application for a stay of the NRC staff's action under this section, any party and/or the NRC staff may file an answer supporting or opposing the granting of a stay. Answers may not be longer than ten (10) pages, exclusive of affidavits, and must concisely address the matters in paragraph (b) of this section as appropriate. Further replies to answers will not be entertained.
(d) In determining whether to grant or deny an application for a stay of the NRC staff's action, the following will be considered:
(1) Whether the requestor will be irreparably injured unless a stay is granted;
(2) Whether the requestor has made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits;
(3) Whether the granting of a stay would harm other participants; and
(4) Where the public interest lies.
(e) Any application for a stay of the effectiveness of the presiding officer's initial decision or action under this subpart shall be filed with the Commission in accordance with § 2.342.
(f) Stays are not available on matters limited to whether a no significant hazards consideration determination was proper in proceedings on power reactor license amendments.

As a laymen I see this as follows:

1. I doubt it could be shown the requestor will be irreparably injured.
2. This is the biggie; if the stay is granted it’s telling us that the merits of the action are deemed likely to prevail? If not at this stage, then I wouldn’t give anything for the chances at the hearing in October.
3. The granting of the stay would harm other participants in my view – financially in the short and medium term.
4. Where the public interest lies…..risks in controlling Uranium mining processes vs jobs for Wyoming’s economy, energy security for the US. I know how I’d be voting in that one.

So for me 3 out of 4 appear clearly in favour of dismissing such an application and allow Strata to proceed with construction. Item 2 may provide insight into just how solid the petitioners case is viewed by the NRC.