This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Louisiana Energy Services, LP (LES) applied for a discharge permit for its uranium enrichment facility near Eunice, New Mexico, to manage stormwater, effluent, and domestic wastewater. Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping (CARD) opposed the permit, arguing that the site was in a karst region, making it vulnerable to groundwater contamination. LES provided extensive geological and hydrological studies, while CARD presented testimony from an expert who had limited fieldwork and no direct investigation of the LES site.
Procedural History
- New Mexico Environment Department, June 28, 2006: Issued a draft discharge permit to LES, later revised after public comments.
- New Mexico Environment Department, January 29, 2007: Held a public hearing and issued a final order adopting the hearing officer’s recommendation to grant the permit.
- New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission, March 11, 2008: Sustained the Department’s decision after reviewing CARD’s petition and supplemental evidence.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (CARD): Argued that the Department failed to give due weight to its expert’s testimony, violated procedural rights by allowing additional expert testimony, and inadequately characterized the LES site under regulations.
- Respondents (LES, New Mexico Environment Department, and Water Quality Control Commission): Asserted that the permit met all regulatory requirements, the site was adequately characterized, and CARD’s expert testimony was unreliable and insufficient to challenge the permit.
Legal Issues
- Did the Department fail to give due weight to CARD’s expert testimony?
- Did the Commission violate CARD’s procedural rights during the review process?
- Was the LES site adequately characterized under the applicable regulations?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the Commission’s decision to sustain the issuance of the discharge permit to LES.
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Fry C.J. and Vigil J. concurring):
- Expert Testimony: The hearing officer did not abuse her discretion in finding CARD’s expert unqualified due to his limited investigation and lack of direct site analysis. Even if considered, his testimony was insufficient to outweigh the substantial evidence provided by LES.
- Procedural Rights: CARD received actual notice of the review and was allowed to present arguments. The Commission’s reliance on its members’ technical expertise during deliberations was appropriate and did not constitute new evidence or bias.
- Site Characterization: Substantial evidence supported the finding that the LES site was adequately characterized, and the permit included sufficient safeguards to prevent groundwater contamination. CARD failed to meet its burden of proving otherwise.
The Court concluded that the Commission’s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious, was supported by substantial evidence, and complied with the law.