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

• Citizen Action New Mexico appealed the New Mexico Environment Department's decision to approve the Sandia National Laboratories Long-Term Monitoring and Maintenance Plan for the Mixed Waste Landfill. The appeal was based on the argument that the approval disregarded a condition from a 2005 final order requiring Sandia to submit a report every five years to re-evaluate the feasibility of excavation and analyze the continued effectiveness of a Department-ordered remedy. Citizen Action also contended that the approval unlawfully modified Sandia’s hazardous waste permit by altering aspects of the groundwater-monitoring network (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• Citizen Action v. Sandia Corporation, 2008-NMCA-031: Affirmed the 2005 order issued by the Secretary of the Department granting Sandia’s request for a Class 3 permit modification for corrective measures for the mixed-waste landfill (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Citizen Action New Mexico): Argued that the Department’s approval of the long-term plan was unlawful as it disregarded a condition from the 2005 final order and unlawfully modified Sandia’s hazardous waste permit by changing aspects of the groundwater-monitoring network (para 2).
• Appellees (New Mexico Environment Department and Sandia Corporation): Refuted Citizen Action’s substantive arguments and contended that the appeal was untimely. They also argued that the 2005 order was ambiguous regarding the due date of the first five-year report and that Citizen Action waived its right to appeal by not addressing it in earlier proceedings (paras 2, 13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Department’s approval of the long-term plan disregarded a condition of the 2005 final order requiring a five-year report to re-evaluate the feasibility of excavation and analyze the continued effectiveness of a Department-ordered remedy.
• Whether the approval of the long-term plan unlawfully modified Sandia’s hazardous waste permit by changing aspects of the groundwater-monitoring network.

Disposition

• The appeal regarding the five-year report issue was deemed untimely, and the merits of the appeal were not considered.
• The argument that the long-term plan effectively modified the permit in regard to the groundwater-monitoring network was rejected as unsupported by the record (para 3).

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin (Michael D. Bustamante and Cynthia A. Fry, Judges concurring):
  The court concluded that the October 2011 letter from the Department, which set the timeline for the five-year report to begin five years after the approval of the long-term plan, constituted a final agency action. Since Citizen Action did not appeal this decision within the required timeframe, their appeal on this issue was untimely (paras 3, 17-25).
  Regarding the modification of the permit pertaining to the groundwater-monitoring network, the court found that Citizen Action’s claims were not supported by the record. The permit, as modified according to the 2005 order, did not include specific monitoring requirements such as the number, location, and depth of wells, thus negating the basis for Citizen Action’s argument (paras 26).
  The court affirmed the Department’s decision to approve the long-term plan, finding no grounds for reversal based on the arguments presented by Citizen Action (para 27).