Starlink Logistics, Inc. v. ACC, LLC
494 S.W.3d 659
| Tenn. | 2016Background
- ACC operated a Class II landfill (1981–1993) that leached high levels of chlorides and ammonia into Sugar Creek and Arrow Lake on adjoining StarLink property; prior remedial efforts failed.
- TDEC and ACC prepared and revised corrective plans; in 2011 they entered a consent order and later proposed an Amended Order requiring diversion of stormwater away from the landfill and removal of waste within four years (with penalties for missed milestones).
- StarLink intervened and objected that the Amended Order failed to require treatment or diversion of contaminated water leaving the landfill during waste removal; StarLink proposed piping/diversion paid for by it but presented no detailed feasibility evidence at the Board hearing.
- The Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Control Board held a contested hearing, heard expert testimony supporting waste removal as the most effective, cost‑effective remedy, considered but rejected diversion/treatment as infeasible or insufficient, and approved the Amended Order.
- The Davidson County Chancery Court affirmed; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further fact‑finding about StarLink’s willingness to pay for piping and the feasibility/costs of diversion; the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court held the Court of Appeals improperly substituted its judgment for the Board’s, applied the deferential standard of review under Tenn. Code Ann. § 4‑5‑322(h), reversed the Court of Appeals, and remanded for consideration of pretermitted issues.
Issues
| Issue | StarLink's Argument | ACC/TDEC/Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board’s approval of the Amended Order was arbitrary or capricious under Tenn. Code Ann. § 4‑5‑322(h) | Board failed to consider a feasible, economically viable diversion/treatment plan that would stop discharge to Arrow Lake; piping offer existed and should be pursued | Board reasonably weighed evidence and experts; waste removal/divert‑upgradient approach was the most feasible, cost‑effective remedy, and diversion/treatment was technically infeasible or unaffordable | Board’s decision was supported by substantial and material evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious; Court of Appeals erred by substituting its judgment for the agency |
| Whether Court of Appeals could remand to develop proof about StarLink’s willingness to pay and cost/feasibility of piping | Remand necessary to determine feasibility and funding of diversion option | Such further fact‑finding was unnecessary because Board considered and rejected diversion as unsupported by evidence | Court of Appeals exceeded its limited review authority; remand was improper on that basis |
| Whether agency decision‑making must require specific numeric water‑quality criteria for discharge during remediation | StarLink sought immediate cessation or concrete numeric reduction/permit requirements | Board/TDEC/ACC argued phased remediation and removal were appropriate; monitoring and potential future modification allowed | Court approved agency discretion to adopt the remediation plan without immediate numeric limits, given expert support and uncertainty of hydrogeology |
| Whether requiring diversion/treatment would be economically impracticable and risk bankrupting responsible party | StarLink argued third‑party funding could cover costs and ACC should address discharge now | ACC testified inability to both remove waste and build/treat diversion; treatment likely costly and technically limited | Court accepted agency finding that requiring simultaneous treatment/diversion would be economically impractical and could frustrate remediation efforts |
Key Cases Cited
- Wayne Cnty. v. Tenn. Solid Waste Disposal Control Bd., 756 S.W.2d 274 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (explaining narrow and deferential standard of judicial review for agency decisions)
- Tenn. Envtl. Council, Inc. v. Tenn. Water Quality Control Bd., 254 S.W.3d 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (deference to agency expertise on technical environmental matters)
- City of Memphis v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 216 S.W.3d 311 (Tenn. 2007) (arbitrary or capricious standard and review limits)
- Humana of Tenn. v. Tenn. Health Facilities Comm’n, 551 S.W.2d 664 (Tenn. 1977) (courts do not reweigh evidence when reviewing agency factfinding)
- Consolo v. Fed. Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (U.S. 1966) (describing substantial evidence standard under administrative review)
- Jackson Mobilphone Co. v. Tenn. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 876 S.W.2d 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993) (arbitrary and capricious review explained)
- Pittman v. City of Memphis, 360 S.W.3d 382 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (agency decision arbitrary when unsupported by substantial and material evidence)