Engaging & Guarding Laurens County's Environment v. South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control
407 S.C. 334
| S.C. | 2014Background
- MRR Highway, 92, LLC applied in 2006 for a Demonstration of Need (DON) and later a permit to build a commercial C&D landfill in Laurens County; DHEC approved the DON and issued a permit in 2008 after public notice and a hearing.
- EAGLE (Petitioner) challenged the DON/permit, arguing the region already had sufficient C&D landfill capacity (notably Curry Lake and other upstate facilities).
- DHEC applied the DON regulation’s 10-mile planning-area rules for counting facilities and generation, but declined to rely on the regulation’s catchall “additional factors” provision.
- The Administrative Law Court (ALC), after a de novo contested hearing, found substantial regional excess capacity (low utilization rates) and treated regional excess capacity as an appropriate “additional factor,” reversing DHEC and denying the permit.
- The court of appeals reversed the ALC and reinstated DHEC’s permit approval, deferring to DHEC’s decision not to invoke additional factors. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court of appeals erred by deferring to DHEC’s decision not to consider "additional factors" (DON Reg. §61‑107.17(D)(3)(d)) | ALC should be allowed to treat regional excess permitted capacity as an additional factor and deny the permit because planning-area facilities accept out‑of‑county waste and utilization is low | DHEC acted within discretion in declining to consider additional factors; ALC should defer to agency's permitting decision | Supreme Court reversed court of appeals and reinstated the ALC: the ALC properly, as factfinder in a de novo contested case, applied regional excess capacity as an "additional factor" supported by substantial evidence and was not required to defer to DHEC |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 389 S.C. 1, 698 S.E.2d 612 (discusses ALC de novo fact‑finding and judicial review scope)
- Brown v. S.C. Dept. of Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 560 S.E.2d 410 (ALC’s role as factfinder and authority to review agency permits)
- MRI at Belfair, L.L.C. v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 379 S.C. 1, 664 S.E.2d 471 (substantial‑evidence standard for administrative review)
- Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 518 S.E.2d 591 (court need not address remaining issues when an earlier issue is dispositive)