826 S.E.2d 595
S.C.2019Background
- Chem-Nuclear operates a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility at Barnwell, SC under a DHEC license; the facility uses trenches and concrete vaults without impermeable liners or leachate collection systems.
- Tritium migration from trenches into groundwater has been detected historically; DHEC designates a downstream stream (Mary's Branch Creek) as the regulatory compliance sampling point where levels have been below regulatory limits.
- Sierra Club challenged DHEC’s 2004 renewal of Chem-Nuclear’s license, arguing the facility’s practices do not meet Part VII technical requirements of Reg. 61-63, particularly provisions requiring minimization of water contact and containment of contaminated liquids.
- The ALC (2005) affirmed renewal but ordered studies addressing rainfall ingress, temporary dry storage, and vault sealing; the court of appeals constrained the ALC on remand to the 2005 factual findings (Chem-Nuclear I).
- On remand the ALC again found compliance; the court of appeals (Chem-Nuclear II) reversed as to subsections 7.11.11.1, 7.11.11.2, 7.11.11.4, and 7.10.7, holding Chem-Nuclear had not shown compliance with certain technical requirements. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether subsections 7.11.11.1 (minimize migration of water onto units) and 7.11.11.2 (minimize migration of contaminated water out) are technical requirements Chem-Nuclear must satisfy | Sierra Club: Reg. 61-63 requires affirmative design and construction actions to minimize water ingress and egress; ALC findings show insufficiency | Chem-Nuclear/DHEC: compliance can be shown by result-based performance (e.g., monitoring, ALARA analyses); terms shouldn’t mandate specific physical fixes | Court: Affirmed court of appeals — these are technical requirements Chem‑Nuclear must demonstrate compliance with; remand open to full evidentiary record (but no mandate of specific measures) |
| Scope of subsection 7.11.11.4 (collection/retention for detection/removal) — does it require testing/removal of radioactive material? | Sierra Club: reads subsection to require detection/removal of radioactive contamination from collected liquids | Chem‑Nuclear/DHEC: ALC interpreted it to require collection/retention of water, not mandatory testing/removal of radioactivity | Court: Reversed court of appeals; adopts ALC view that the clause refers to detection/removal of the water/liquids (not necessarily radioactive testing/removal), and finds Chem‑Nuclear’s surface water management satisfies 7.11.11.4 |
| Whether "minimize" in 7.11.11 means "prevent" (i.e., whether trenches must be fully sheltered from rainfall) | Sierra Club: argue minimization requires very significant measures; point to evidence of rain ingress into active units | Chem‑Nuclear/DHEC: argue "minimize" should be treated less stringently and be judged by ALARA/result-based compliance | Court: "Minimize" does not equal "prevent"; adopts parties’ joint definition (reduce to the smallest possible amount) but rejects an interpretation that demands specific remedies; ALARA must be considered but cannot be sole basis for compliance |
| Whether appellate review improperly shifted burden of proof to Chem‑Nuclear by demanding affirmative actions | Chem‑Nuclear/DHEC: court of appeals required demonstration of affirmative steps and thus shifted burden from Sierra Club (the challenger) | Sierra Club: record supports noncompliance under the ALC’s factual findings | Court: No impermissible burden shift — Sierra Club bore burden below, but appellate review applied existing 2005 factual findings to legal requirements; substantial‑evidence review justified conclusions of noncompliance for specified subsections |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 354 S.C. 436, 581 S.E.2d 836 (S.C. 2003) (agency interpretations contrary to plain regulatory language are rejected)
- Kiawah Dev. Partners, II v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 411 S.C. 16, 766 S.E.2d 707 (S.C. 2014) (deference rules for agency interpretations)
- S.C. Dep't of Revenue v. Blue Moon of Newberry, Inc., 397 S.C. 256, 725 S.E.2d 480 (S.C. 2012) (ALC review standard and correcting errors of law)
- Duvall v. S.C. Budget & Control Bd., 377 S.C. 36, 659 S.E.2d 125 (S.C. 2008) (avoidance of statutory/regulatory surplusage)
- State v. Sweat, 386 S.C. 339, 688 S.E.2d 569 (S.C. 2010) (statutory construction to avoid rendering provisions superfluous)
- DIRECTV, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 421 S.C. 59, 804 S.E.2d 633 (Ct. App. 2017) (burden in adjudicatory administrative proceedings)
- Waters v. S.C. Land Res. Conservation Comm'n, 321 S.C. 219, 467 S.E.2d 913 (S.C. 1996) (appellants must show agency decision unsupported by evidence)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (framework for judicial deference to reasonable agency interpretations)
- Sierra Club v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control (Chem‑Nuclear I), 387 S.C. 424, 693 S.E.2d 13 (Ct. App. 2010) (remand limited to ALC 2005 findings)
- Sierra Club v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control (Chem‑Nuclear II), 414 S.C. 581, 779 S.E.2d 805 (Ct. App. 2015) (court of appeals’ findings on noncompliance with specific subsections)