This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Southwest Research and Information Center, along with other appellants, challenged the New Mexico Environment Department's (NMED) decision to grant a permit modification request (PMR) for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The modification allowed the construction of a fifth ventilation shaft and associated tunnels to improve the facility's ventilation system, which was limited after a 2014 radiological event. The appellants argued that the modification was unnecessary for current operations and was intended to facilitate an unauthorized expansion of WIPP (paras 1, 10-11).
Procedural History
- NMED, 2010: Issued a ten-year operating permit for WIPP, which was later modified by the PMR at issue in this appeal (para 6).
- NMED, 2020: Issued a draft permit for the PMR, which was challenged by the appellants (paras 34-35).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants: Argued that the fifth ventilation shaft was unnecessary for current operations and was intended to support an unauthorized expansion of WIPP. They also claimed that the hearing officer improperly excluded evidence of future expansion, and that public notice was inadequate (paras 10-11, 26, 33).
- Appellee (NMED): Argued that the PMR was necessary to restore ventilation capacity lost after a 2014 incident and to ensure worker and environmental safety. They contended that the notice provided was adequate and that the hearing officer correctly excluded irrelevant evidence (paras 15-16, 28, 34).
Legal Issues
- Whether the NMED's order granting the PMR was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law.
- Whether the exclusion of evidence regarding future expansion of WIPP was proper.
- Whether the public notice provided by NMED was adequate and complied with statutory and regulatory requirements.
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed, and the NMED's decision to grant the PMR was affirmed (para 47).
Reasons
Per Yohalem J. (Hanisee and Duffy JJ. concurring):
- The court found that the NMED's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including expert testimony that the fifth shaft was necessary to restore ventilation capacity and ensure safety (paras 15-25).
- The exclusion of evidence regarding future expansion was deemed proper, as the PMR was limited to current operations and not speculative future expansions (paras 26-32).
- The court concluded that the public notice provided by NMED substantially complied with the requirements, allowing meaningful public participation despite initial deficiencies (paras 33-40).
- The appellants' additional claims regarding the C&C Agreement and the Appropriations Clause were not addressed, as the court found the PMR justified for current needs (para 46).