Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports
if they are used for other purposes.
Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).
Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and
attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR Heaton
ORIGINAL DATE
LAST UPDATED
3-12-07
3-12-07 HM 89
SHORT TITLE WIPP Permit Modifications Stakeholders
SB
ANALYST Aubel
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (dollars in thousands)
FY07
FY08
FY09 3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring
or Non-Rec
Fund
Affected
Total
NFI
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
LFC Files
www.nmenv.state.nm.us/wipp
Response Received From
New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
House Memorial 89 acknowledges the leadership of the New Mexico Environment Department,
and specifically its negotiating team, in developing a consensus agreement of all stakeholders for
the new permitting of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The Memorial also recognizes this
agreement as a significant change in WIPP’s operations “without sacrificing environmental
protection for all New Mexicans."
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
No fiscal impact.
The Memorial does recognize WIPP as “an economic engine in southwestern New Mexico."
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Background (From NMED website):
The State of New Mexico's authority to regulate the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
for the protection of human health and the environment is governed under the New
pg_0002
House Memorial 89 – Page
2
Mexico Hazardous Waste Act (HWA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Under RCRA, State programs are authorized to operate in lieu of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); EPA does not regulate radioactive mixed
wastes in those States with an authorized program. New Mexico is authorized by EPA to
issue and enforce RCRA hazardous waste facility permits under 50 Fed Reg 1515
(January 11, 1985). New Mexico implements this authority under the HWA, NMSA
1978, §74-4-1 et seq (Repl. Pamp. 2000).
On October 27, 1999, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) issued a final
decision to grant a Hazardous Waste Facility Permit to WIPP for the storage and disposal
of transuranic mixed waste.
On November 23, 2005, NMED published notice of a public comment period of its intent
to approve a Class 3 PMR to the WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit. The PMR, a
consolidation of several previous Class 3 PMRs (remote-handled (RH) transuranic (TRU)
mixed waste, Section 311 of Pub. L. 108-137, and others) is the most comprehensive
proposed modification to the Permit since it was issued on October 27, 1999. The draft
Permit issued today proposes to allow the receipt, management, and disposal of RH TRU
mixed waste at WIPP; make significant changes to the TRU mixed waste characterization
program; create a new TRU mixed waste confirmation program in response to Section
311 of Pub. L. 108-137; increase the capacities in the Waste Handling Building and
Parking Area Container Storage Units; increase the capacities in the underground
HWDUs, or panels, for TRU mixed waste; and change the method for demonstrating that
the underground disposal rooms comply with the environmental performance standards
for volatile organic compounds in response to Section 311 of Pub. L. 108-137.
On May 9, 2006, NMED concluded negotiations on May 3, 2006 with interested
individuals and groups who requested a public hearing on the November 23, 2005 draft
Hazardous Waste Facility Permit. These negotiations were conducted pursuant to
20.4.1.901.A(4) NMAC, which states that the NMED, in conjunction with the applicants,
must respond to requests for hearings and notices of opposition to draft permits issued
under the State Hazardous Waste Act in an effort to resolve those issues that gave rise to
the hearing request(s).
On September 13, 2006, hearing officer Rip Harwood submitted his report to NMED
Secretary Ron Curry on the Class 3 PMR and draft permit that was subject to hearing
May 31 through June 9, 2006. After due consideration of all the evidence, testimony and
public comment, and as set forth in the report's proposed findings of fact and conclusions
of law, the hearing officer recommends that the Secretary approve the May 25, 2006
"
draft permit as changed
" (the result of previous negotiations among the parties) in its
entirety.
On October 16, 2006, Secretary Ron Curry and Governor Bill Richardson signed the
Secretary's Final Order approving the May 25, 2006 "
draft permit as changed
" in its
entirety. The notice of this decision was served on the Permittees on October 17, 2006,
making the effective date for the approved permit November 16, 2006. NMED also
responded to all comments received on the Draft Permit.
pg_0003
House Memorial 89 – Page
3
WIPP Permit Process
HM 89 recounts the lengthy and intense process that led to issuance of the final permit.
According to NMED, HM 89 accurately reflects the department’s success at developing
consensus among the parties – who had disparate views on the facility – on important
provisions of the permit. HM 89 recognizes that the permit process, led by the
Department, was successful, timely, inclusive, protective and accomplished under
existing law and regulation.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
The permit changes expand the scope of the WIPP operations, allowing remote-handling of
wastes, increasing the storage capacity, and adds a new method for demonstrating that
underground disposal comply with environmental performance standards for volatile organic
compounds.
The Memorial recognizes the NMED permit team of James Bearzi and Steve Zappe as well as
the WIPP permit team of Kate Lynnes and Chuck Noble for their skilled and strong leadership.
WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL
The “best practices" of utilizing and executing a stakeholder’s consensus solution to a sensitive
and significance issue will not be recognized.
MA/csd