Court Opinion

ID: 9788591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:11:35.894203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:44:28.469977
License: Public Domain

Justice HOBBS,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part. I agree that Adams County ("the County") has standing, but only to challenge the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's ("the Department") issuance of the hazardous waste permit and radioactive materials license in the absence of the County first being able to exercise its legally protected right to review an application for a Certificate of Designation ("CD") for disposal of the wastes contemplated by the facility and to decide whether to issue such a CD. I disagree with the majority's finding that county issuance of a CD is a prerequisite to the Department's issuance of a permit or license because such an interpretation contravenes Colorado's comprehensive statutory scheme for hazardous and low-level radioactive waste disposal and frustrates the Department's duty and authority to implement the Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact ("the Compact"), codified at § 24-60-2202, C.R.S. (2009). The Compact obligates party states to open and operate waste disposal facilities sufficient to manage the low-level radioactive waste generated within the region.
I. Nature of the County's Legally Protected Interest and Scope of Its Standing
Hazardous and low-level radioactive waste disposal in Colorado is governed by a comprehensive statutory scheme.1 It is a well-established principle of statutory construction that "a provision existing as part of a comprehensive statutory scheme must be understood, when possible, to harmonize the whole." Frank M. Hall & Co. v. Newsom, 125 P.3d 444, 448 (Colo.2005).
Particular provisions within the statutory scheme clearly require a facility wishing to dispose of solid, hazardous, or low-level radioactive wastes to apply to the county for a CD. See § 80-20-102(1); § 25-15-201(1)-@2); § 24-60-2206(8). This application, and the county's decision, is to occur before the facility applies to the Department for a hazardous waste permit and radioactive materials license authorizing disposal of such wastes. See § 25-15-205(1); § 24-60-2206(8). As a result, counties have a legally protected right to receive and review an application for a CD for the wastes contemplated and to decide whether to issue such a CD.
*348Although the facility in this case had an existing CD, that CD did not cover, and indeed expressly prohibited, disposal of the wastes contemplated by the facility operator. Nevertheless, the Department issued a permit and license for the disposal, despite the fact the operator did not apply for a new or amended CD. Thus, the County suffered injury to its legally protected right because it was denied its statutorily-preseribed opportunity to review an application for a CD for the wastes contemplated by the facility and to decide whether to grant such a CD. The County's standing is limited to challenging the denial of this right.
In finding that county issuance of a CD is a prerequisite to Department issuance of a permit or license, the majority erroneously defines the County's legally protected interest, and therefore the scope of its standing, too broadly. According to the majority, if the County refuses to issue the CD, the Department is powerless to act. To the contrary, particular provisions and the overall intent of the statutory scheme evince a legislative intent that the Department, in such cireumstances, be able to freely exercise its authority and expertise in the area of hazardous and low-level radioactive waste disposal.
Section 25-11-108(1) to (2) of the Radiation Control Act and section 24-60-2205(1) of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Act make clear that the Department is the sole radiation control ageney of the state. The General Assembly has charged the Department with dominant authority and expertise in issuing radioactive materials licenses and administering the Compact. § 25-11-108(1)-(2); § 24-60-2205(1). "No other agency or branch of this state shall have such power or authority." § 25-11-108(2). Likewise, seetion 25-15-801(1) to (2) of the Hazardous Waste Management Act provides that the Department is "the entity in the state responsible for the regulation of hazardous waste management" and for issuance of hazardous waste disposal permits.
The Department's authority and expertise is further evidenced by the fact that the General Assembly placed significant limitations on county discretion to issue a CD. Both the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Hazardous Waste Siting Act require applications for CDs be referred to the Department for its review and recommendation as to approval or disapproval. See §§ 30-20-1083 to -104; §§ 25-15-202 to -208.2
When read together to harmonize the entire, comprehensive statutory scheme for hazardous and radioactive waste disposal, the provisions granting the counties the right to review applications for CDs and those granting the Department dominant authority and expertise over the disposal of the waste at issue here illustrate a legislative intent that the counties play a limited and subordinate role and that the Department be able to freely exercise its authority and expertise.3 The correct interpretation of the statutory scheme therefore limits a county's legally protected interest to the opportunity to review an application and to make a decision regarding issuance of a CD for the wastes contemplated. Accordingly, the County's *349standing is limited to the injury to this narrow interest.
II. The Majority's Decision Renders the Department Unable to Comply with the Compact
I disagree with the majority's decision that the Department is powerless to act if a county refuses to issue a CD. Hazardous and low-level radioactive waste disposal is an important state interest within the dominant authority and expertise of the Department, and the Department must be able to freely exercise that authority and expertise to implement the Compact. Therefore, if the County refuses to issue a CD or fails to act in a reasonable time, the Department can proceed to entertain the facility's application pursuant to its authority and expertise and its duty to implement the Compact. As a result, I respectfully dissent from the majority's conclusion that county issuance of a CD is a prerequisite to the Department's issuance of a permit or license for waste disposal.
The majority's conclusion controverts both the Compact and the comprehensive statutory scheme evincing a legislative intent that the Department exercise dominant authority and expertise in the area of hazardous and radioactive waste disposal. Instead, the majority's construction of the statutory scheme functions to prevent the Department from overriding what are in effect local bans that render the Compact inoperative. Cf. Colo. Mining Ass'n v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Summit County, 199 P.8d 718 (Colo.2009) (holding that a local ordinance banning the use of cyanide is impliedly preempted by the Mined Land Reclamation Act). This is especially problematic where, as here, the County is a statutory county-"a political subdivision of the state, existing only for the convenient administration of the state government, created to carry out the will of the state." Bd. of County Comm'rs of Douglas County v. Bainbridge, Inc., 929 P.2d 691, 699 (Colo. 1996).
The majority's decision frustrates the Department's duty to implement the Compact because it effectively renders the Department powerless to approve a site for waste disposal within its borders. The Compact provides that "each state is responsible for providing for the management of low-level radioactive waste generated within its borders...." Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact, art. 1. A primary purpose of the Compact is to "ensure the availability ... of sufficient facilities for the proper and efficient management of low-level radioactive waste generated within the region...." Id. To this end, the Compact obligates party states to open and operate regional facilities. Id. art. 3.4
Despite the purpose of the Compact and the obligations it imposes upon the Department, the majority's decision allows all counties in Colorado to simply declare, "Not in my back yard!" Surely the General Assembly did not intend such a result. To the contrary, in approving and ratifying the Compact, the General Assembly intended that the Department be able to override a county's decision not to issue a CD for disposal of low-level radioactive wastes.
Accordingly, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.
I am authorized to state that CHIEF JUSTICE MULLARKEY joins in this concurrence and dissent.

. See Solid Waste Disposal Act, §§ 30-20-100.5 to -122, C.R.S. (2009); Hazardous Waste Siting Act, §§ 25-15-200.1 to -220, C.R.S. (2009); Hazardous Waste Management Act, §§ 25-15-301 to-327, C.R.S. (2009); Radiation Control Act, §§ 25-11-101 to -203, C.R.S. (2009); Low-Level Radioactive Waste Act, §§ 24-60-2201 to -2212, C.R.S. (2009); Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact, codified at § 24-60-2202.

. Section 25-15-203(a) of the Hazardous Waste Siting Act explicitly requires the Department's recommendation of approval before a county can issue a CD. Although the county has broader discretion to issue a CD under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, section 30-20-104(3)(a) of that Act requires the county to incorporate as requirements in the CD any technical conditions of approval made by the Department.

. In contrast, the majority erroneously finds that county issuance of a CD is a prerequisite that limits the Department's authority to issue a permit or license. In so finding, the majority relies primarily on section 24-60-2206(3), which requires that proposed facilities "first apply ... for a certificate of designation to the board of county commissioners" and that the facility "shall be reviewed and approved by such board of county commissioners prior to the issuance of any license. ..." The majority errs in reading this provision in isolation, where other provisions and the overall intent of the statutory scheme and the Compact do not support such a finding. For example, another subsection of the same provision clarifies the relationship of a county and the Department: it requires only that the Department "first cooperate with and provide counties ... the opportunity to recommend facility sites within their boundaries." § 24-60-2206(1).

. Pursuant to its authority in Article 4 of the Compact, the Compact Board already has designated the facility, Clean Harbors, as a regional disposal site.