AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 case revolves around a permit modification request by the Nuclear Waste Partnership LLC (NWP) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) concerning the method for tracking waste volumes disposed of at a radioactive waste repository. The modification proposed two distinct methods for measuring waste volume: one based on the outermost disposal container for RCRA requirements and another based on the inner waste container for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) capacity limit. The issue arose from the practice of "overpacking" waste, where an inner waste container is placed inside a larger outer container, leading to a discrepancy in volume calculation based on the container used (paras 2-4, 7-8).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants (Southwest Research and Information Center and Nuclear Watch New Mexico): Argued that the administrative Hearing Officer should have been disqualified and that the New Mexico Environment Department's (NMED) order approving the permit modification was contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and an abuse of discretion (para 1).
• Appellees (Nuclear Waste Partnership LLC and U.S. Department of Energy): Sought NMED approval to modify their permit to implement two distinct methods for measuring waste volume, aiming to address the issue of overpacking and ensure the accurate tracking of waste volumes disposed of at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) (paras 7-8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the administrative Hearing Officer should have been disqualified due to a conflict of interest.
• Whether NMED's order approving the permit modification request was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed NMED's order approving the permit modification request, finding no error in the proceedings below (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Bogardus, with Chief Judge Hanisee and Judge Henderson concurring, provided the following reasons for its decision:
  Regarding the disqualification of the Hearing Officer: The Court declined to address the appellants' argument for disqualification due to their failure to preserve the issue by raising it below (para 10).
  On the legality of NMED's order: The Court found NMED's order to be in accordance with applicable law, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Hazardous Waste Act (HWA), as it did not abandon NMED's authority under RCRA nor erroneously interpret the LWA. The Court also determined that the order did not create a conflict between RCRA and the LWA, and that the Department of Energy (DOE) had the authority to carry out the permit modification as it was consistent with its statutory responsibilities. Furthermore, the Court found no violation of the 1987 Consultation and Cooperation Agreement between the State and DOE (paras 11-30).
  On the order being arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion: The Court disagreed with the appellants' contention, noting that the Hearing Officer considered relevant safety testimony and that NMED's order had a rational basis supported by the record (paras 31-33).