ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ B)Ç DCð AM3U*€àªv~ŠvÓ BÛ D3ø 0@+ AOkƺ 0D€ D/Ä Bó˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ¼ ½ ¾ ¿À£ÁÂÃDÄÓ€ÎDÒ 3|xÎ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ÖÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌApril€25,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌó óà à)ò òÌPROFILL€DEVELOPMENT,€INC.,ó óà à)à àDavidson€County€Chancery€CourtÌà à)à àNo.€95„1748„IIIÌ€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant.à à)Ìà à)̜ـ€ÙßR€ "A1-j|ýÑ` ç `€€@ÿRß›VS.à à)à àC.€A.€NO.€01A01„9607„CH„00326Ìà à)Ìò òDON€DILLS,€COMMISSIONER€OF€ó óà à)Ìò òTHE€TENNESSEE€DEPARTMENT€ó óà à)Ìò òOF€ENVIRONMENT€ANDó ó,à à)Ìò òCONSERVATION,€ET€ALó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendants/Appellees.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County€at€Nashville.Ìò òHonorable€Robert€S.€Brandt,€Chancellor€ó óÌÌÌÌò òJ.€Alan€Hanoveró ó,Ìò òJames€R.€Newsom,€IIIó ó,Ìò òHelen€L.€Keithó ó,ÌHANOVER,€WALSH,€JALENAK€&€BLAIR,€PLLC,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Plaintiff/Appellant.ÌÌÌÌò òCharles€W.€Bursonó ó,€Attorney€General€and€ReporterÌò òElizabeth€P.€McCarteró ó,€Senior€Counsel€ÌAttorney€for€Defendants/Appellees€Don€Dills€and€Charles€W.€BursonÌò òÌGary€A.€Davisó ó,€Knoxville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee€West€Tennesseans€for€Clean€Water€and€Environment.Ì.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌHIGHERS,€J.€ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òLILLARD,€J.€ó ó:€œ(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ›ÌÓÓÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓœà àThis€appeal€from€a€declaratory€judgment€lawsuit€arose€out€of€Appellantððs€attemptsÏto€construct€and€to€operate€a€solid€waste€landfill.€€In€1992,€Profill€Development,€Inc.€(hereinafter,Ïð ðProfillðð)€applied€to€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Environment€and€Conservation€(hereinafter,Ïð ðDepartmentðð)€for€a€solid€waste€disposal€permit€to€construct€and€to€operate€a€ð ðClass€I€disposalÏfacilityðð€in€Gallaway,€Fayette€County,€Tennessee.€€The€Tennessee€Solid€Waste€Disposal€Act,ÏT.C.A.€ðð68„211„101òòò ò€et€seqó óóó.€(1996)€authorizes€the€Tennessee€Solid€Waste€Disposal€ControlÏBoard€(hereinafter,€ð ðthe€Boardðð)€to€promulgate€rules€governing€solid€waste€processing€andÏdisposal€facilities.€€These€rules€have€been€promulgated€by€the€Board€as€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.Ï(hereinafter,€ð ðRuleðð)€1200„1„7,€òòò òet€seqó óóó.€€A€Class€I€disposal€facility€is:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[A]€sanitary€landfill€which€serves€a€municipal,€institutional,€and/orÏrural€population€and€is€used€or€to€be€used€for€disposal€of€domesticÏwastes,€commercial€wastes,€institutional€wastes,€municipal€wastes,Ïbulky€wastes,€landscaping€and€land€clearing€wastes,€industrialÏwastes,€construction/demolition€wastes,€farming€wastes,€discardedÏautomotive€tires,€and€dead€animals.ÌÌÌÌÓÓRule€1200„1„7„.01(3)(a).ÌÌà àThe€1989€enactment€of€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„701€òòò òet€seq.óóó ó,€(hereinafter,€ð ðPart€Seven")Ïpermitted€local€governments€that€did€not€have€zoning€ordinances€to€approve€or€disapprove€ofÏlandfill€proposals€submitted€to€the€Department.€€As€originally€enacted,€Part€Seven€gave€cities€andÏcounties€the€authority€to€approve€or€disapprove€of€proposals€for€solid€waste€facilities€located€withinÏtheir€respective€boundaries€and€also€gave€cities€the€same€authority€over€solid€waste€facilities€locatedÏwithin€one€mile€of€municipal€boundaries.€€In€1995,€Part€Seven€was€amended€so€as€to€permitÏcounties€to€approve€or€disapprove€of€solid€waste€facilities€to€be€located€within€the€municipalÍboundaries.€ÌÌà àAs€originally€enacted€in€1989,€Part€Seven€contained€the€following€provision:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThis€act€shall€remain€effective€until€the€approval€and€effectiveÏimplementation€of€the€plan€as€set€forth€in€Senate€Bill€1322/HouseÏBill€1305€of€the€Ninety„Sixth€General€Assembly,€being€theÏð ðTennessee€Solid€Waste€Planning€and€Recovery€Actðð,€if€enacted,€orÏJune€30,€1991,€whichever€shall€first€occur.ÌÌÌÌ1989€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€chap.€515,€ðð9.€€ÓÓThe€Solid€Waste€Management€Act€of€1991,€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„801€òòò òet€seqó óóó.,€€(hereinafter,€ð ðPart€Eight")€was€enacted€in€response€to€the€requirements€imposedÏunder€the€Tennessee€Solid€Waste€Planning€and€Recovery€Act,€T.C.A.€ðð68„211„603òòò ò.€€ó óóó(hereinafter,Ïð ðPart€Sixðð).€€In€1991,€the€legislature€amended€Part€Seven€to€extend€the€expiration€date€of€PartÏSeven€from€June€30,€1991,€until€June€30,€1994.€€In€1994,€the€expiration€provision€was€againÏamended€so€as€to€extend€the€expiration€date€to€June€30,€1995.€€On€March€15,€1995,€the€generalÏassembly€again€amended€Part€Seven€to€remove€the€expiration€clause€altogether.€€ÌÌà àApplications€to€construct€and€to€operate€disposal€facilities€such€as€the€one€ProfillÏsubmitted,€consist€of€two€parts€known€as€ð ðPart€Iðð€and€ð ðPart€II.ðð€ò ò€ó óIn€June€1992,€Profill€submittedÏPart€I€to€the€Department.€€The€Part€I€application,€in€addition€to€the€landfill€proposal,€referenced€aÏproposed€materials€recycling€facility€to€be€located€at€the€Fayette€County€site.€€Profill€submitted€theÏfirst€portion€of€the€Part€II€application€in€May€1993,€and€it€submitted€the€second€portion€of€the€PartÏII€application€in€May€1994.€€The€Department€regularly€conducts€ð ðcompletenessðð€reviews€ofÏapplications€in€order€to€ensure€that€the€numerous€reports€and€plans€submitted€by€the€applicantÏinclude€all€required€components€and€items.€€Upon€the€review€of€the€Part€II€application,€theÏDepartment€determined€that€Profillððs€application€was€incomplete.€€Therefore,€the€Department€sent€aÏnotice€of€incompleteness€letter€dated€July€1,€1994.€€Profill€submitted€a€revised€application€inÏAugust€1994.€€ò òÌó óÌà àUnder€procedural€rules€governing€consideration€of€landfill€applications,€theÏDepartment€must€conduct€its€completeness€review€of€the€first€phase€of€the€Part€II€application€withinÏ30€days€after€receipt€of€said€application.€€The€completeness€review€of€the€second€phase€must€beÏconducted€within€45€days€after€receipt€of€that€portion€of€the€application.ò ò€€ó óOnce€the€permitÏapplication€has€been€certified€to€be€complete,€the€Department€has€an€additional€270€days€to€conductÏits€technical€review,€issue€a€tentative€permit€decision,€conduct€public€hearings,€and€make€a€finalÏdecision€upon€the€application.€€On€September€2,€1994,€the€Department€notified€Profill€that€itsÏapplication€was€complete.€€That€letter€commenced€the€running€of€the€270€day€period€for€theÏDepartment€to€review€the€application,€make€tentative€and€final€decisions€thereon€and€either€grant€orÏdeny€the€permit.ÌÌ€à àIn€December€1994,€the€Department€sent€a€notice€of€deficiency€letter€to€ProfillÏdetailing€fifteen€technical€deficiencies€in€the€application.€€One€of€the€deficiencies€cited€in€theÏDecember€1994,€letter€referenced€Profillððs€failure€to€submit€a€separate€notification€for€its€materialsÏrecycling€facility.€€After€a€meeting€between€officials€from€both€the€Department€and€Profill,€theÏDepartment€still€concluded€that€the€processing€facility€notification€should€be€separated€from€theÏClass€I€landfill€application.€€Profill€filed€with€the€Department€a€separate€notification€for€theÏprocessing€facility€on€March€2,€1995.ÌÌà àThe€Class€I€landfill€application€was€submitted€for€consideration€by€the€DepartmentððsÏpermit€review€committee€which€was€to€consider€the€application€on€April€13,€1995.€€However,€theÏapplication€was€never€considered€because€the€Department€was€notified€on€March€28,€1995,€thatÏFayette€County€had€ð ðopted€inðð€to€the€amended€Part€Seven€provisions€which€permitted€counties€toÏdisapprove€of€landfill€proposals€located€within€municipal€boundaries.€€As€amended,€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„105(h)€states€that€the€Commissioner:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[S]hall€not€review€or€approve€any€construction€for€any€new€landfillÏfor€solid€waste€disposal€or€for€solid€waste€processing€in€any€countyÏor€municipality€which€has€adopted€the€provisions€of€ðððð€68„211„701Ï„„€68„211„704€and€ðð€68„211„707€until€such€construction€has€beenÏapproved€in€accordance€with€the€provisions€of€such€sections.ÌÌà àÌÌÓÓTherefore,€the€Department€ceased€review€of€Profillððs€application€upon€notification€that€FayetteÏCounty€had€adopted€Part€Seven.ÌÌà àOn€April€18,€1995,€Profill€filed€with€the€Tennessee€Solid€Waste€Disposal€ControlÏBoard€a€petition€for€declaratory€order€seeking€a€determination€of€the€validity€and€applicability€ofÏPart€Seven,€as€amended.€€Pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„223,€the€board€declined€to€issue€a€declaratoryÏorder€in€the€matter€and€waived€jurisdiction€on€all€issues€before€it.€€By€consent€order€entered€June€6,Ï1995,€the€Board€ordered€that€the€petition€be€submitted€to€the€Davidson€County€Chancery€Court€forÏconsideration€and€determination.€€Thereafter,€on€June€6,€1995,€Profill€filed€its€Complaint€forÏDeclaratory€Judgment.€€The€chancellor€entered€an€order€granting€West€Tennesseans€for€CleanÏWater€and€Environment€(hereinafter€ð ðWest€Tennesseansðð)€permission€to€intervene€as€a€partyÏdefendant.€€The€defendants€filed€motions€to€dismiss€and€for€summary€judgment.€€The€trial€courtÏgranted€in€part€and€denied€in€part€the€motion€to€dismiss€filed€by€West€Tennesseans.€€Specifically,Ïthe€trial€court€dismissed€Profillððs€claims€brought€pursuant€to€the€Commerce€Clause€and€SupremacyÏClause€of€the€United€States€Constitution€and€left€the€remaining€claims€for€trial.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€to€the€state€defendants€on€the€followingÏclaims:€(1)€the€1995€amendments€to€Part€Seven€did€not€apply€to€Profill€because€the€City€ofÏGallaway€had€not€opted€to€be€covered€by€it;€(2)€the€application€of€the€1995€amendments€violatedÏthe€Commerce€Clause€of€the€United€States€Constitution;€(3)€the€application€of€the€1995Ïamendments€impaired€the€right€of€Profill€to€contract€under€the€United€States€Constitution;€(4)ÏProfillððs€property€had€been€taken€without€due€process€of€law€in€violation€of€the€United€StatesÏConstitution;€and€(5)€the€enactment€of€the€1995€amendments€was€a€suspension€of€the€general€lawÍin€violation€of€Art.€II,€Section€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€remaining€claims€against€theÏState€proceeded€to€trial,€without€intervention€of€a€jury,€on€January€8€and€9,€1996,€and€February€5Ïand€6,€1996.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€filed€a€memorandum€opinion€stating€its€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law.€€Judgment€was€entered€denying€the€relief€sought,€and€Profill€appeals.ÌÌà@ àò òISSUESó óÌÌà àProfill€raises€the€following€issues€for€review:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à1.€€Whether,€due€to€the€ð ðeffective€implementationðð€of€PartÏEight,€Part€Seven€expired€prior€to€the€enactment€of€the€1995ÏAmendments.ÌÌà8 àà à2.€€Whether€due€to€the€provisions€of€[T.C.A.]€ðð€68„211„707,€Part€Seven€is€inapplicable€to€the€Profill€application.ÌÌà8 àà à3.€€Whether€Part€Seven€applies€to€the€Solid€WasteÏProcessing€Facilities€proposed€by€Profill.ÌÌà8 àà à4.€€Whether€Part€Seven€is€preempted€by€the€ResourceÏConservation€and€Recovery€Act€of€1976,€42€U.S.C.€ðððð€6941€òòò òetÏseqóóó ó.,€pursuant€to€the€Supremacy€Clause€of€the€United€StatesÏConstitution.ÌÌà8 àà à5.€€Whether€Profillððs€rights€to€administrative€due€processÏhave€been€denied.ÌÌà8 àà à6.€€Whether€the€ð ðlocal€vetoðð€authority€granted€by€Part€SevenÏis€an€unconstitutional€delegation€of€legislative€power€in€violation€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Constitution.ÌÌà8 àà à7.€€Whether€Part€Seven€suspends€the€general€law€byÏpermitting€local€governmental€entitles€to€determine€legislative€policyÏof€statewide€concern€in€violation€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ÌÌà8 àà à8.€€Whether€[T.C.A.]€ðð€68„211„105(h)€has€been€repealed€byÏimplication€by€[T.C.A.]€ðð€68„211„707(b).ÌÌà8 àà à9.€€Whether€the€application€of€Part€Seven€to€the€ProfillÏlandfill€application€impermissibly€impairs€Profillððs€contractualÏrights.ÌÌÌÌÓÓAppellees€have€submitted€the€following€issue€for€review:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àDoes€the€exemption€in€[T.C.A.]€ðð€68„211„706(b)€forÏpublicly€owned€landfills€violate€equal€protection?ÌÌÌÌÓÓò òòòà@ àI.€€Part€Seven€Had€Not€Expired€Prior€to€1995ó óÌÌà àóóProfill€asserts€that€Part€Seven€expired€by€its€own€terms€prior€to€the€1995Ïamendments.€€As€originally€adopted€in€1989,€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„708€(1989),€read€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThis€act€shall€remain€effective€until€the€approval€and€effectiveÏimplementation€of€the€plan€as€set€forth€in€Senate€Bill€1322/HouseÏBill€1305€of€the€Ninety„Sixth€General€Assembly,€being€theÏð ðTennessee€Solid€Waste€Planning€and€Recovery€Act,ðð€if€enacted,€orÏJune€30,€1991,€whichever€shall€first€occur.ÌÌÌÌ1989€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€chap.€515,€ðð€9.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà à1991€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€chap.€451,€ðð€85€amended€ðð€708€to€extend€the€expirationÏdate€to€June€30,€1994.€€Subsequently,€1994€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€chap.€784,€ðð€1€further€amended€ððÏ708€and€extended€the€expiration€date€until€June€30,€1995.€€On€March€13,€1995,€the€generalÏassembly€again€amended€Part€Seven€to€remove€the€expiration€clause€from€ðð€708,€and€said€law€wasÏenacted€on€March€15,€1995.€€ÌÌà àAs€originally€enacted€in€1989,€Part€Seven€gave€county€legislative€bodies€theÏauthority€to€disapprove€plans€for€landfills€in€unincorporated€areas€only,€and€reserved€forÏmunicipalities€the€same€power€over€proposed€landfills€within€incorporated€areas€and€those€locatedÏwithin€one€mile€of€the€municipality.€€Because€Profillððs€proposed€landfill€was€located€within€theÍincorporated€town€of€Gallaway,€Fayette€Countyððs€legislative€body€could€not€veto€Profillððs€plansÏdespite€the€countyððs€opposition.€€The€1995€amendments€to€Part€Seven€granted€counties€vetoÏauthority€regarding€proposed€landfills€within€municipalities.€€That€section€provides€in€relevant€part:ÌÌÓÓà8 àNo€construction€shall€be€initiated€for€any€new€landfill€for€solid€wasteÏdisposal€or€for€solid€waste€processing€until€the€plans€for€such€newÏlandfill€have€been€submitted€to€and€approved€by:ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà à(2)€Both€the€county€legislative€body€and€the€governing€bodyÏof€the€municipality€in€which€the€proposed€landfill€is€located,€if€suchÏnew€construction€is€located€in€an€incorporated€area;€.€.€.€à8 àà8 àà8 àÌÌÌÌÓÓT.C.A.€ðð68„211„701€(1995).€€Fayette€County€adopted€the€1995€amendments€to€Part€Seven€onÏMarch€28,€1995.ÌÌà àAs€originally€enacted€in€1989,€Part€Seven€would€have€expired€upon€the€occurrenceÏof€one€of€two€alternative€conditions.€€These€conditions€were€either€the€approval€and€effectiveÏimplementation€of€the€plan€as€set€forth€in€the€Tennessee€Solid€Waste€Planning€and€Recovery€Act,Ïcompiled€in€Part€Six€or€June€30,€1991,€whichever€occurred€first.€€Profill€asserts€that€when€theÏ1991€general€assembly€enacted€Part€Eight,€which€is€the€ð ðSolid€Waste€Management€Act€of€1991,ððÏthat€action€constituted€the€approval€and€effective€implementation€of€the€ð ðplanðð€required€by€Part€Six.€€ÌÌà àThe€plan€required€by€Part€Six€and€referred€to€in€1989€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€chap.€515,Ïðð€9,€is€a€blueprint€for€a€statewide,€comprehensive€solid€waste€management€program€that€theÏDepartment€€was€required€to€establish€no€later€than€January€1,€1991.€€There€is€no€explanation€byÏwhat€is€meant€by€the€terms€ð ðeffective€implementationðð€of€the€plan€referenced€in€1989€Tenn.€Pub.ÏActs,€chap.€515,€ðð€9.€€Consequently,€it€is€incumbent€upon€the€Court€to€look€to€the€legislativeÏhistory€in€order€to€determine€what€the€general€assembly€meant€by€ð ðeffective€implementation.ððÌÌà àIt€is€evident€that€when€the€1989€general€assembly€passed€Part€Seven,€it€intendedÏthat€local€government€authority€over€landfill€plans€would€expire€upon€the€passage€of€Part€Eight.€ÏProfillððs€contention€in€this€regard€is€correct.€€Representative€Jackson,€the€sponsor€of€Part€Seven,€inÏan€appearance€before€the€House€Committee€on€state€and€local€government€was€asked€about€theÏexpiration€of€Part€Seven:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àRep.€Jackson:€Mr.€Chairman,€amendment€number€one,Ïwhich€was€discussed€with€the€subcommittee,€would€specify€that€thisÏbill€would€sunset€upon€the€effective€implementation€of€theÏcomprehensive€plan€as€provided€for€in€Chairman€Ivy€Hillisðð€bill€andÏSenator€Greerððs€bill.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àMr.€Chairman:€When€the€other€plan€is€adopted€by€theÏlegislature,€then€this€sunsets€this€bill?€ÌÌà8 àà àRep.€Jackson:€Thatððs€correct.€€ÌÌà8 àò òÌó óÌÓÓIt€is€evident€that€both€the€Chairman€and€Representative€Jackson€were€referring€to€Part€Eight€as€ð ðtheÏother€plan.ðð€€Part€Seven's€Senate€sponsor€was€Senator€Darnell.€€In€a€debate€before€the€Senate€onÏMay€25,€1989,€Senator€Darnell€explained€when€Part€Seven€would€terminate:€€ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àSenator€Darnell:€If€I€could€explain€the€bill€to€the€members.€ÏThis€is€a€solid„waste€disposal€act€that€will€allow€a€system€to€go€intoÏeffect€that€is€the€equivalent€to€a€zoning€operation.ÌÌà8 àà àAnd€in€this€instance€because€amendments€that€have€beenÏadopted€in€the€House,€the€whole€process€is€going€to€sunset€whenÏSenator€Greerððs€bill€comes€into€play€July€1,€1991.€€So€the€bill€isÏgoing€to€have€a€short€life„span€because€of€the€comprehensiveÏplanning€that€Senator€Greerððs€bill€calls€for.ÌÌà8 àà àIt€allows€those€counties€that€do€not€have€a€comprehensiveÏzoning€plan€.€.€.€to€opt€into€this€legislation€and,€in€effect,€give€themÏan€opportunity€to€review€applications€for€landfills.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓSenator€Greer€had€been€the€sponsor€of€the€1989€rational€planning€approach€enacted€as€Part€Six.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€68„211„601€òòò òet€seq.ó óóó€€ÌÌà àThe€Court€finds€that€had€it€not€been€for€subsequent€amendments€to€Part€Seven€thatÏoccurred€in€the€1991,€1994€and€1995€legislative€sessions,€Part€Seven€would€have€expired€uponÏenactment€of€Part€Eight.€€It€was€clearly€the€intent€of€the€general€assembly€in€1989€that€passage€ofÏPart€Eight€would€operate€as€ð ðeffective€implementationðð€of€the€plan€required€by€Part€Six.€€However,Ïthe€1991€general€assembly€passed€Part€Eight€and€extended€the€expiration€date€for€Part€Seven€fromÏJune€30,€1991,€until€June€30,€1994.€€The€Court€finds€it€noteworthy€that€the€legislature€enacted€PartÏEight€and€amended€Part€Seven€at€the€same€time,€on€the€same€date€and€in€the€same€act.€ÏFurthermore,€both€Senators€Greer€and€Darnell,€key€players€in€the€enactment€of€Part€Seven€in€1989,Ïwere€also€sponsors€of€1991€Tenn.€Pub.€Act,€chap.€451.€Evidently,€in€1991,€the€general€assemblyÏno€longer€intended€that€the€enactment€of€Part€Eight€would€automatically€cause€Part€Seven€to€expire.€ÏBy€1991,€the€legislative€intent€was€that€the€authority€of€the€local€governments€and€the€politicalÏprocess€permitted€by€Part€Seven€would€not€expire€automatically€when€Part€Eight€was€passed.€€TheÏgeneral€assembly€is€presumed€to€have€knowledge€of€its€prior€enactments€and€to€know€the€state€ofÏthe€law€at€the€time€it€passes€legislation.€€òòò òNeff€v.€Cherokee€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€704€S.W.2d€1,€4€(Tenn.Ï1986).€€Therefore,€we€find€that€by€1991,€ð ðeffective€implementationðð€of€the€Part€Six€plan€meantÏsomething€other€than€the€passage€of€Part€Eight.€€ÌÌà àIf€Part€Eight€is€not€ð ðthe€planðð€then€the€Court€is€left€to€determine€from€the€legislativeÏintent€what€ð ðthe€planðð€is.€€Part€Eight€contemplated€that€the€implementation€of€the€State€plan€wouldÏoccur€over€a€number€of€years.€€A€comprehensive€statewide€plan€was€predicated€upon€theÏsubmission€and€approval€of€nine€regional€plans€that€were€to€have€been€submitted€to€the€StateÏplanning€office€by€December€31,€1993.€€Section€814(a)€was€amended€in€1993€in€order€to€extendÏthe€date€for€submission€of€the€regional€plans€to€July€1,€1994.€€Part€Eight€gives€deference€to€PartÏSeven€and€its€goal€of€providing€local€control€over€the€location€of€solid€waste€facilities€by€PartÏEight's€provisions€giving€regional€approval€authority€to€new€solid€waste€facilities€once€the€regionððsÏplan€has€been€approved€by€the€Department.€€The€Departmentððs€division€of€solid€waste€assistance€isÍcharged€with€facilitating€the€implementation€of€the€State€plan.€€The€divisionððs€director,€Paul€EvanÏDavis,€testified€at€trial€that€the€passage€of€Part€Eight€was€the€first€step€in€the€planning€process€andÏthat€the€plan€had€not€been€effectively€implemented€and€would€not€be€finally€implemented€until€hisÏdivision€had€approved€regional€plans€for€each€of€the€solid€waste€regions.ÌÌà àThe€passage€of€Part€Eight€did€not€constitute€effective€implementation€of€the€Part€SixÏplan.€€In€1991,€1994,€and€1995,€the€general€assembly€did€not€intend€that€the€passage€of€Part€EightÏwould€constitute€effective€implementation€of€the€Part€Six€plan.€€While€the€legislature€may€haveÏintended€in€1989€for€Part€Seven€to€expire€upon€the€passage€of€Part€Eight,€that€legislative€intentÏchanged€by€1991€when€Part€Seven€was€amended€to€extend€its€expiration€date€until€1994.€€TheÏlegislature€again€extended€the€expiration€date€of€Part€Seven€in€1994€and€removed€it€altogether€inÏ1995.€€The€Court€finds€that€the€general€assembly€expressed€its€view€that€Part€Eight€had€not€beenÏeffectively€implemented€and€that€more€time€was€necessary€for€development€and€approval€of€theÏregional€plans.€€When€the€legislature€amended€Part€Seven€in€1995€to€remove€the€expiration€dateÏaltogether,€its€intent€was€that€Part€Seven€had€not€expired€and€would€not€expire.€€ÌÌà àThe€Court€finds€that€it€has€been€the€intent€of€the€general€assembly€since€at€leastÏ1991€that€landfill€location€decisions€should€be€subject€to€the€political€process.€€Good,€bad€orÏindifferent,€this€is€the€public€policy€of€this€State€as€determined€by€the€general€assembly.€ÏAccordingly,€the€Court€affirms€the€chancellorððs€decision€finding€that€Part€Seven€had€not€expired€inÏ1995.ÌÌòòÓÓò òà@ àII.€€Part€Seven€Does€Not€Require€Both€the€County€and€the€Municipality€to€Adopt€Ìà@ àIts€Provisions€in€Order€for€it€to€Applyó óóóÌÌÓÓÌà àProfill€argues€alternatively€that€even€if€Part€Seven€is€still€in€effect,€that€part€does€notÏapply€to€the€facts€of€the€instant€case€because€the€City€of€Gallaway,€where€the€landfill€was€to€beÏlocated,€had€not€adopted€or€ð ðopted€intoðð€Part€Seven.€€The€argument€is€premised€on€the€theory€thatÍboth€the€city€and€the€municipality€must€adopt€Part€Seven€before€its€provisions€will€apply.€€ProfillÏcites€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„707(a),€which€states€in€relevant€part:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€provisions€of€ðððð€68„211„701€„€68„211„705€and€thisÏsection€shall€only€apply€in€any€county€or€municipality€in€which€it€isÏapproved€by€a€two„thirds€(2/3)€vote€of€the€appropriate€legislativeÏbody.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÌÓÓSince€the€property€on€which€Profill€had€proposed€constructing€the€landfill€is€located€within€the€CityÏof€Gallaway€and€because€Gallaway€never€adopted€Part€Seven€using€the€procedure€established€byÏT.C.A.€ðð€68„211„707,€Profill€asserts€that€Part€Seven€is€not€applicable€to€it.€€ÌÌà àPart€Seven€provides€for€approval€by€either€a€county€or€a€city€or€both€where€aÏproposed€solid€waste€facility€is€to€be€located€in€an€incorporated€municipality.€€Specifically,€T.C.A.Ïðð€68„211„701€states€in€relevant€part:ÌÌÓÓà8 àNo€construction€shall€be€initiated€for€any€new€landfill€for€solid€wasteÏdisposal€or€for€solid€waste€processing€until€the€plans€for€such€newÏà8 àlandfill€have€been€submitted€to€and€approved€by:€ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà à(2)€Both€the€county€legislative€body€and€the€governing€bodyÏof€the€municipality€in€which€the€proposed€landfill€is€located,€if€suchÏnew€construction€is€located€in€an€incorporated€area.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€68„211„701(1995).€€The€Court€finds€that€the€approval€mechanism€established€by€PartÏSeven€does€not€require€that€both€the€county€and€city€adopt€Part€Seven.€€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„707(a)Ïgrants€the€option€of€opting„in€at€the€discretion€of€the€county€and€the€municipality.€€Therefore,€weÏdecline€to€find€that€local€governments€are€under€any€obligation€to€adopt€the€provisions€of€PartÏSeven.€€Even€before€the€1995€amendments,€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„701€granted€municipalities,€such€asÏthe€City€of€Gallaway,€the€exclusive€right€to€opt€into€Part€Seven.€€The€City€of€Gallaway€chose€not€toÏopt€into€Part€Seven€when€it€was€the€only€governmental€entity€entitled€to€do€so€in€regard€to€a€landfillÍwithin€its€boundaries.€€By€not€adopting€Part€Seven,€the€City€of€Gallaway€entered€into€contracts€inÏ1992€with€Profill€for€the€construction€of€the€landfill€facility.€€A€local€governmentððs€failure€to€optÏinto€Part€Seven€operates€as€òòò òdefactoóóó ó€approval€of€the€proposed€landfill,€thus€permitting€companiesÏsuch€as€Profill€to€seek€approval€directly€from€the€Department.€€The€Court€finds€no€requirement€thatÏboth€the€city€and€the€county€must€adopt€the€provisions€of€Part€Seven€in€order€for€that€Part€to€apply.€ÏAdoption€of€Part€Seven€by€either€or€both€entities€is€sufficient€for€the€provisions€of€Part€Seven€toÏapply.€€ÌÌòòò òà@ àIII.€Part€Seven€Applies€to€the€Solid€Waste€Processing€Facilitiesó óóóÌÌà àIn€addition€to€the€landfill,€Profill€also€planned€to€construct€and€to€operate€a€solidÏwaste€processing€facility.€€Profill€asserts€on€appeal€that€Part€Seven€does€not€apply€to€the€proposedÏsolid€waste€processing€facility,€and€argues€that€the€Department€has€not€demonstrated€a€basis€for€itsÏfailure€to€grant€or€deny€approval€for€the€processing€facility.€€Profill€maintains€that€it€intends€toÏoperate€the€processing€facility€regardless€of€the€outcome€of€the€landfill€application.€€ÌÌà àRule€1200„1„7„.02(1)(c)€provides€that€certain€classes€of€activity€shall€be€deemed€toÏhave€a€ð ðpermit„by„ruleðð€if€certain€conditions€are€met.€€One€such€enterprise€noted€in€Rule€1200„1„7„.02(1)(c)(1)(I)€is€a€processing€facility.€€Under€the€permit„by„rule€procedure,€an€applicant€is€entitledÏto€approval€from€the€Department€if€it€demonstrates€that€all€the€requirements€of€the€rule€have€been€orÏwill€be€met€before€operation€of€the€facility€begins.€€Profill€asserts€that€it€has€met€all€theÏrequirements€to€construct€a€processing€facility.€€Therefore,€Profill€asserts€that€it€is€entitled€to€anÏorder€directing€the€Department€to€dispose€of€the€processing€facility€notification€regardless€ofÏwhether€Profill€prevails€on€the€landfill€issue.€€ÌÌà àThe€proposed€solid€waste€processing€facility€was€a€part€of€the€original€permitÏapplication€which€was€certified€as€complete€by€the€Department€on€September€2,€1994.€€Rule€1200„1„7„.07(6)(b)€states€that€a€permit€application€for€a€processing€facility€shall€be€acted€upon€by€theÏDepartment€within€ninety€days€after€the€application€is€certified€as€complete.€€Accordingly,€ProfillÏasserts€that€the€Department€should€have€acted€on€its€notification€for€the€processing€facility€no€laterÏthan€December€1,€1994.€By€letter€dated€December€7,€1994,€the€Department€requested€that€ProfillÏseparate€the€processing€facility€notification€from€the€landfill€application€and€submit€a€separateÏnotification€for€the€processing€facility.€€Profill€complied€with€the€Departmentððs€request€by€filing€aÏseparate€notification€on€March€2,€1995.€€Profill€asserts€the€Department€could€not€reasonablyÏpresume€that€the€processing€facility€notification€was€dependent€upon€the€landfill€application;Ïtherefore,€the€Department€should€have€acted€upon€the€notification€regarding€the€processing€facilityÏwithin€ninety€days€of€March€2,€1995.€€ÌÌà àThe€Court€concludes€that€Profillððs€argument€has€no€merit.€€Profill€expressly€waivedÏthe€90€day€deadline€in€order€to€have€its€processing€facility€considered€together€with€the€landfillÏapplication.€€In€a€December€22,€1994,€letter€to€the€Department€responding€to€the€DepartmentððsÏnotice€of€deficiency€letter,€Profillððs€representative€William€Hagerman€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àIf€the€Department€is€concerned€about€the€shorter€period€for€theÏDepartmentððs€permit€determination€of€Permit„by„Rule€facilities€asÏcompared€to€that€of€the€land€disposal€unit,€Profill€acknowledges€that€Ïby€incorporation€of€the€Permit„by„Rule€facilities€within€thisÏApplication€with€the€land€disposal€unit€(a€unit€that€requires€lengthyÏreview€by€the€Department),€Profill€has€forfeited€its€rights€asÏprovided€by€the€Rules€to€a€shorter€permit€determination€period€onÏthe€Permit„by„Rule€facilities.€€à8 àÌÌÌÌÓÓà àProfill€also€maintains€that€Part€Seven€applies€to€landfills€only,€and€has€noÏapplication€whatsoever€to€solid€waste€processing€facilities.€€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„701€states€inÏpertinent€part:ÌÌÓÓà8 àNo€construction€shall€be€initiated€for€any€new€òòlandfillóó€for€solid€wasteÏdisposal€or€for€solid€waste€processing€until€the€plans€for€such€newÏòòlandfillóó€have€been€submitted€to€and€approved€by€.€.€.€.€€(EmphasisÍadded.)ÌÌÌÌT.C.A.€ðð€68„211„702€defines€landfill€as€follows:ÌÌÌÌà8 àFor€purposes€of€this€part,€ð ðlandfill€or€landfillingðð€means€any€landÏused€for€disposal€of€solid€waste€by€filling€and€covering.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àWhen€called€upon€to€construe€statutes,€courts€presume€that€the€general€assemblyÏselected€the€words€deliberately,€òòò òTenn.€Manufactured€Housing€Assððn.€v.€MetropolitanÏGovððt.ó óóó,€798€S.W.2d€254,€257€(Tenn.€App.€1990),€and€that€each€word€is€a€necessary€part€of€theÏstatute.€€òòò òTenn.€Growers,€Inc.€v.€Kingó óóó,€682€S.W.2d€203,€205€(Tenn.€1984).€€StatutoryÏwords€draw€their€meaning€from€the€context€of€the€entire€statute,€òòò òKnox€County€ex€rel€KesselÏv.€Lenior€City,€Tenn.ó óóó,€837€S.W.2d€382,€387€(Tenn.€1992),€and€from€the€statuteððs€purposesÏand€objectives.€€òòò òDorrier€v.€Darkó óóó,€537€S.W.2d€888,€892€(Tenn.€1976);€òòò òPearson€v.€Hardyó óóó,Ï853€S.W.2d€497,€500€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€€ÌÌà àThe€general€assembly€was€imprecise€in€the€use€of€the€term€ð ðlandfill.ðð€€The€definitionÏof€ð ðlandfillðð€contained€in€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„702€does€not€contain€any€reference€to€ð ðsolid€wasteÏprocessing.ðð€€Likewise,€the€definition€of€ð ðsolid€waste€processingðð€found€in€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„103(11)€does€not€contain€any€reference€to€ð ðlandfill.ðð€€Specifically,€that€section€states:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àð ðSolid€Waste€processingðð€means€an€operation€for€theÏpurpose€of€modifying€the€characteristics€or€properties€of€solid€wasteÏto€facilitate€transportation€or€disposal€of€solid€waste€including,€butÏnot€limited€to,€incineration,€composting,€separation,€grinding,Ïshredding,€and€volume€reduction.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àWe,€nonetheless,€find€it€to€be€the€general€assemblyððs€intent€that€Part€Seven€appliesÏto€solid€waste€processing€facilities€as€well€as€to€landfills.€€The€general€assembly€intended€that€theÏapproval€provisions€of€Part€Seven€apply€to€construction€of€solid€waste€processing€facilities€as€wellÍas€to€landfills€for€solid€waste€disposal€because€the€general€assembly€specifically€referenced€ð ðsolidÏwaste€processingðð€in€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„701.€€A€statute€should€not€be€construed€in€a€manner€thatÏwould€render€any€of€its€language€superfluous.€€òòò òHorne€v.€Coxó óóó,€551€S.W.2d€690,€691€(Tenn.Ï1977);€òòò òTidwell€v.€Collinsó óóó,€522€S.W.2d€674,€676„77€(Tenn.€1975).€€Furthermore,€we€find€it€toÏbe€the€general€assemblyððs€intent,€as€interpreted€by€the€Department,€that€Part€Seven€apply€to€solidÏwaste€processing€facilities€as€well€as€to€landfills.€€In€an€August€15,€1995,€memorandum,€JoeÏSanders,€an€attorney€in€the€Departmentððs€office€of€general€counsel,€stated€the€DepartmentððsÏposition€that€ð ð[t]he€Jackson€Law€applies€to€ððnewðð€landfills€and€ððnewðð€solid€waste€processingÏfacilities.ððÌÌà àOur€supreme€court€in€òòò òJackson€Express,€Inc.€v.€Tennessee€Public€ServiceÏComm.óóó ó,€679€S.W.2d€942,€945€(Tenn.€1984),€held€that€courts€must€give€great€deference€andÏcontrolling€weight€to€an€agencyððs€interpretation€of€its€own€rules.€€As€the€supreme€court€stated,Ïadministrative€interpretation€ð ðbecomes€of€controlling€weight€unless€it€is€plainly€erroneous€orÏinconsistent€with€the€regulation.ðð€€òòò òJackson€Express,€Inc.€óóó ó679€S.W.2d€at€945;€òòò òSee€also,ÏCompton€v.€Tennessee€Dept.€of€Public€Welfareóóó ó,€532€F.2d€561,€565€(6th€Cir.€1976).€€TheÏCourt€finds€that€the€Department€has€the€knowledge,€expertise€and€experience€and€is€charged€withÏthe€administration€of€the€technical€details€of€the€statute.€€Accordingly,€the€Departmentððs€decisionsÏconcerning€the€applicability€of€technical€terms€of€the€statute€are€entitled€to€deference€in€the€sameÏmanner€as€other€technical€decisions.€€òòò òWayne€County€v.€Solid€Waste€Disposal€ControlÏBoardóóó ó,€756€S.W.2d€274,€279„280€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€It€is€undisputed€that€Profillððs€proposedÏrecycling€facility€is€a€solid€waste€processing€facility.€€Therefore,€such€facilities€are€subject€to€theÏprovisions€of€Part€Seven.€€€ÌÌòòò òà@ àIV.€€The€Federal€Resource€Conservation€and€Recovery€Act€Does€Not€Preempt€PartÏSevenó óóóÌÌà àProfill€claims€that€Part€Seven€is€preempted€by€the€Federal€Resource€ConservationÏand€Recovery€Act€(hereinafter€ð ðRCRAðð),€42€U.S.C.€ðð€6901€òòò òet€seq.óóó ó,€which€contains€the€federalÏrequirements€for€solid€and€hazardous€waste€management.€€The€chancellor€dismissed€this€claimÏpursuant€to€Rule€12.02(6)€T.R.C.P.€€The€Court€finds€that€the€federal€act€explicitly€addressed€theÏissue€of€preemption€and€specifically€provided€that€states€may€enact€requirements€that€are€moreÏstringent€than€the€federal€requirements.€€Federal€preemption€of€state€laws€arises€from€theÏSupremacy€Clause€of€the€United€States€Constitution.€€Under€the€Supremacy€Clause,€federal€lawÏmay€preempt€the€conflicting€state€law€where€(1)€Congress€enacts€a€federal€law€that€explicitlyÏpreempts€state€authority,€(2)€where€Congress€impliedly€enacts€a€pervasive€scheme€of€federalÏregulation€that€occupies€a€field€leaving€the€states€no€room€to€supplement€the€scheme,€or€(3)€whereÏstate€law€actually€conflicts€with€federal€law.€€òòò òSee€Gade€v.€Natððl€Solid€Wastes€ManagementÏAssoc.óóó ó,€505€U.S.€88,€112€S.Ct.€2374,€2383€(1992).€€Where€Congress€expressly€addresses€theÏissue€of€federal€preemption€of€state€law,€courts€should€limit€their€preemption€analysis€to€theÏmeaning€of€the€state€law€provision€instead€of€addressing€the€issue€of€implied€preemption.€Ïòòò òCipollone€v.€Liggett€Group,€Inc.óóó ó,€505€U.S.€504,€112€S.Ct.€2608€(1992);€òòò òVango€MediaÏv.€The€City€of€New€Yorkó óóó,€34€F.3d€68,€72€(2d€Cir.€1994).€€The€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏstated€in€òòò òCipolloneóóó ó:ÌÌÓÓà8 àWhen€Congress€has€considered€the€issue€of€preemption€and€hasÏincluded€in€the€enacted€legislation€a€provision€explicitly€addressingÏthat€issue,€and€when€that€provision€provides€a€ð ðreliable€indicium€ofÏcongressional€intent€with€respect€to€state€authority,ðð€.€.€.€ð ðthere€is€noÏneed€to€infer€congressional€intent€to€preempt€state€laws€from€theÏsubstantive€provisionsðð€of€the€legislation.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òCipolloneóóó ó,€112€S.Ct.€at€2618.€€ÌÌà àCongress€expressly€addressed€the€preemption€issue€in€RCRA.€€Section€3009€ofÏRCRA,€42€U.S.C.€ðð€6929,€provides€in€pertinent€part:ÌÌÓÓà8 àUpon€the€effective€date€of€regulations€under€this€sub„chapter€noÏState€or€political€subdivision€may€impose€any€requirements€lessÏstringent€than€those€authorized€under€this€sub„chapter€respecting€theÏsame€matter€as€governed€by€such€regulations,€except€that€ifÏapplication€of€a€regulation€with€respect€to€any€matter€under€thisÏsubchapter€is€postponed€or€enjoined€by€the€action€of€any€court,€noÏstate€or€political€subdivision€shall€be€prohibited€from€acting€withÏrespect€to€the€same€aspect€of€such€matter€until€such€time€as€suchÏregulation€takes€effect.€€òòò òNothing€in€this€chapter€shall€beÏconstrued€to€prohibit€any€State€or€political€subdivisionÏthereof€from€imposing€any€requirements,€including€thoseÏfor€site€selection,€which€are€more€stringent€than€thoseÏimposed€by€such€regulations.ó óóó€€(Emphasis€added.)ÌÌÌÌÓÓCongress€expressly€addressed€the€preemption€issue€of€state€law€when€enacting€RCRA.€€Therefore,Ïin€determining€whether€the€RCRA€preempts€Part€Seven,€the€analysis€should€be€limited€to€theÏexpress€language€without€any€consideration€of€implied€preemption.€€òòò òCipolloneó óóó,€112€S.Ct.€atÏ2618.€€ÌÌà àThe€United€States€Environmental€Protection€Agency€(hereinafter,€ð ðEPAðð)€has€madeÏit€clear€that€its€criteria€for€the€design€and€operation€of€municipal€solid€waste€landfills€do€not€preemptÏstate€authority€to€enact€more€stringent€statutes€and€regulations€for€location€of€solid€waste€landfills.€Ïòòò òSeeóó€56€Fed.€Reg.€50978,€òòet€seqóó.€(Oct.€9,€1991)ó ó.€€Specifically,€the€EPA€regulations€state:ÌÌÓÓà8 àEPAððs€approach€to€State€program€approval€recognizes€the€traditionalÏState€role€in€implementing€landfill€standards€and€protecting€groundÏwater.€€EPA€fully€intends€that€States€will€maintain€the€lead€role€inÏimplementing€this€program.€€EPAððs€goal€is€for€all€States€to€apply€forÏand€receive€approval€of€their€programs.€€Under€this€rule,€States€willÏhave€the€flexibility€to€tailor€standards€to€meet€their€state„specificÏconditions.ÌÌÌÌòòò òÓÓIdóóó ó.€at€50994.€€ÌÌà àContrary€to€Profillððs€assertions,€the€Court€does€not€find€within€RCRA€either€anÏexpress€or€implied€federal€preemption€of€state€requirements€regarding€site€location.€€In€fact,€statesÍmay€adopt€more€stringent€procedures.€€In€Tennessee,€Part€Seven€authorizes€local€governments€toÏeither€approve€or€disapprove€of€the€location€of€solid€waste€facilities,€but€that€Part€does€not€impose€aÏban€on€solid€waste€disposal.€€The€Court€finds€that€Profill€has€failed€to€demonstrate€federalÏpreemption€by€the€RCRA€of€the€Tennessee€Solid€Waste€Disposal€statutes.€€Accordingly,€theÏchancellorððs€decision€dismissing€this€claim€is€affirmed.ÌÌòòò òà@ àV.€€Profill€Has€Not€Been€Denied€Due€Processó óóóÌÌà àProfill€asserts€that€there€has€been€a€denial€of€administrative€due€process€of€law€Ïarising€from€the€Departmentððs€alleged€delay€in€processing€the€permit€application€in€order€to€allowÏthe€legislature€to€amend€Part€Seven.€€Profill€contends€the€Department€intentionally€ð ðslow€walkedððÏits€permit€application€under€pressure€from€the€Speaker€of€the€Tennessee€House€of€Representatives,ÏJimmy€Naifeh,€and€the€Speaker€of€the€Tennessee€Senate,€Lieutenant€Governor€John€Wilder,€whoÏeach€represent€the€district€in€which€the€proposed€landfill€is€located.€€ÌÌà àProfill€further€asserts€that€the€December€7,€1994,€notice€of€deficiency€letter€wasÏarbitrary€in€nature€in€that€the€sole€basis€upon€which€such€a€letter€may€be€issued€is€when€theÏapplication€does€not€comply€with€the€specific€requirements€contained€within€the€rules.€€ProfillÏasserts€that€the€notice€of€deficiency€letter€was€contrary€to€the€Departmentððs€September€2,€1994,Ïnotice€of€compliance€letter.€€Rule€1200„1„7„.02(3)(b)1€states€that,€after€a€notice€of€compliance€letterÏis€issued,€the€Commissioner€may€only€ask€for€clarification€of€items€in€an€application€and€that€suchÏrequest€does€not€render€the€application€incomplete.€€Profill€asserts€that€the€delay€in€the€processingÏof€the€€application€was€due€solely€to€political€pressure€placed€upon€the€Department€by€the€SpeakersÏand€that€the€defendants€did€not€rebut€the€clear€inference€that€the€application€was€delayed€for€politicalÏreasons€rather€than€for€legitimate€administrative€concerns.€€On€September€2,€1994,€the€DepartmentÏissued€a€notice€of€compliance€letter.€€According€to€Rule€1200„1„7„.07(6)(b),€the€Department€wasÏrequired€to€complete€consideration€of€Profillððs€application€within€270€days€of€September€2.€€TheÍgeneral€assembly€passed€the€amendments€to€Part€Seven,€and€the€amendments€were€signed€into€lawÏby€the€Governor€on€March€15,€1995.€€The€amendments€were€enacted€within€270€days€ofÏSeptember€2,€1994,€the€date€of€the€notice€of€compliance€letter.€€1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Act,€chap.€5,€ðð€1Ïamended€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„701€by€inserting€language€that€made€Part€Seven€available€to€countiesÏeven€where€the€proposed€landfill€was€located€within€a€municipality.€€Fayette€County€adopted€PartÏSeven,€as€amended,€on€March€28,€1995.€€Immediately€thereafter,€the€Department€ceasedÏprocessing€Profillððs€application.€€Profill€asserts€that€it€has€demonstrated€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€that€its€application€was€ð ðpolitically€killedðð€and€that,€as€such,€it€has€been€deniedÏadministrative€due€process.€€ÌÌà àIn€order€to€prevail€on€a€procedural€or€administrative€due€process€violation€claim,ÏProfill€must€demonstrate€that€it€possessed€a€constitutionally€protected€liberty€or€property€interest.€Ïòòò òBoard€of€Regents€of€State€Colleges€v.€Rothó óóó,€408€U.S.€564,€92€S.Ct.€2701,€2705„06,Ï2709€(1972).€€A€personððs€interest€in€a€government€benefit€is€a€property€interest€subject€to€dueÏprocess€protection€only€if€the€entitlement€to€the€benefit€is€supported€by€statute€or€rules.€€òòò òPerry€v.ÏSindermanó óóó,€408€U.S.€593,€92€S.Ct.€2694,€2699€(1972).€€A€state€agencyððs€procedural€rulesÏcannot,€by€themselves,€serve€as€the€basis€for€a€constitutionally€protected€property€interest.€Ïòòò òClemente€v.€U.S.ó óóó,€766€F.2d€1358,€1364€(9th€Cir.€1985);€òòò òBills€v.€Hendersonó óóó,€631€F.2dÏ1287,€1298„99€(6th€Cir.€1980).€€In€this€instance,€the€rules€governing€the€procedure€the€DepartmentÏis€to€follow€do€not€give€rise€to€a€guarantee€of€due€process€because€there€is€no€property€interest€atÏstake.€€The€very€rules€Profill€relies€upon€to€assert€a€due€process€violation€expressly€state:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€issuance€of€a€permit€does€not€convey€any€property€rightsÏof€any€sort,€or€any€exclusive€privilege.€Ìà àÌÌÌÓÓRule€1200„1„7„.02(4)(d)2.ÌÌà àUnder€the€Rules,€the€Department€had€270€days€from€the€issuance€of€the€notice€ofÍcompliance€letter€on€September€2,€1994,€in€which€to€make€a€final€determination€to€grant€or€to€denyÏProfillððs€application€for€a€permit.€€On€December€7,€1994,€the€Department€issued€the€notice€ofÏdeficiency€letter€which€specified€fifteen€deficiencies€the€Department€found€with€ProfillððsÏapplication.€€Rule€1200„1„7„.07(6)(c)€expressly€states:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€above€time€periods€shall€be€stayed€if:ÌÌà8 àà à1.€The€applicant€requests€that€review€be€suspended.ÌÌà8 àà à2.€The€department€issues€a€written€notice€of€deficiency€andÏuntil€the€applicant€adequately€addresses€said€deficiency.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€this€case,€the€Court€declines€to€find€that€Profill€enjoyed€a€property€interest€orÏentitlement€to€a€public€notice€of€a€tentative€approval€regarding€the€proposed€landfill.€€òòò òChongris€v.ÏBoard€of€Appeals€of€the€Town€of€Andoveró óóó,€811€F.2d€36,€43„44€(1st€Cir.€1987).€€RuleÏ1200„1„7„.02(4)(d)(2)€operates€to€thwart€claims€of€property€rights€or€privilege€in€such€instances.€ÏFurther,€Profill€knew€that€a€complete€application€did€not€constitute€ð ðapproval.ððÌÌà àProfillððs€delay€argument€centers€around€Wayne€Scharber,€the€Departmentððs€deputyÏcommissioner.€€Throughout€the€life€of€the€Profill€application,€Scharber,€acting€under€directionsÏfrom€then€„€Commissioner€J.€W.€Luna,€instructed€Scharber€to€keep€Speaker€Naifehððs€officeÏinformed€about€Profillððs€application.€€Some€time€around€February€15,€1995,€Scharber€learned€thatÏProfillððs€application€might€be€considered€at€the€March€1995€permit€review€committee€meeting.€€ByÏthis€time,€the€bill€to€amend€Part€Seven€had€been€introduced€into€the€general€assembly€and€allegedlyÏthere€were€discussions€within€the€Department€regarding€the€consequences€of€the€proposedÏamendments€for€Profill.€€Thereafter,€Scharber€suggested€to€Tom€Tiesler,€Director€of€the€DivisionÏof€Solid€Waste€Management€that€consideration€of€Profillððs€application€should€be€postponed€untilÏApril.€€According€to€Scharber,€it€was€Tiesler€who€made€the€ultimate€decision€to€postponeÏconsideration€of€Profillððs€application.Ì€€Ìà àProfill€expresses€concern€over€Speaker€Naifehððs€continuing€contact€with€theÏDepartment€concerning€Profillððs€application.€€The€trial€court€found,€and€we€agree,€that€even€if€true,Ïthis€has€not€deprived€Profill€of€its€administrative€due€process€rights.€€The€Speaker,€after€all,Ïrepresents€the€people€in€the€affected€area.€€Appellees€concede€that€both€speakers€showed€interest€inÏthe€application€as€early€as€1992.€€Nonetheless,€the€Department€continued€processing€of€theÏapplication€and€issued€a€notice€of€compliance€on€the€hydrogeological€component€of€the€applicationÏin€1993,€and€later,€a€notice€of€compliance€on€the€remainder€of€the€application€in€1994.ÌÌà àThere€is€evidence€that€there€were€numerous€unresolved€questions€within€theÏDepartment€concerning€Profillððs€application€and€that,€as€Scharber€testified,€it€simply€made€moreÏsense€to€delay€the€permit€review€committeeððs€consideration€of€Profillððs€application€until€thoseÏquestions€had€been€resolved.€€In€December€1994,€the€Department€had€requested€that€ProfillÏseparate€its€landfill€and€materials€recycling€facility€applications.€€Profill€did€not€file€a€separateÏnotification€for€the€processing€facility€until€March€2,€1995.€€Furthermore,€Profill€had€not€submittedÏthe€ð ðkey€personnelðð€disclosure€forms€required€by€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„106(h),€which€the€Division€hadÏrequested€regarding€Profillððs€principals.€€Scharber€testified€that€the€suggestion€of€a€one€monthÏdelay€was€made€to€avoid€any€potential€problems€for€the€Department;€he€did€not€want€ProfillððsÏpermit€application€considered€until€all€questions€had€been€resolved.ÌÌà àProfill€has€not€demonstrated€that€it€has€been€deprived€of€a€viable€property€interest€inÏviolation€of€the€administrative€due€process€of€law.€€No€constitutional€right€arises€during€theÏapplication€process€for€a€permit.€€òòò òState€ex€rel.€SCA€Chemical€Waste€Services,€Inc.€v.ÏKonigsburgó óóó,€636€S.W.2d€430,€437€(Tenn.€1982);€òòò òSchneider€v.€Lazarovó óóó,€390€S.W.2d€197,Ï200€(Tenn.€1965);€òòò òHowe€Realty€Co.€v.€City€of€Nashville,€et€al.,ó óóó€141€S.W.2d€904,€906„7Ï(Tenn.€1940).€€Any€restriction€or€limitation€upon€the€Departmentððs€discretion€to€issue€or€deny€aÏpermit€is€the€270€day€time€period€of€Rule€1200„1„7„.07(6),€and€these€rules€were€properlyÏpromulgated€in€accordance€with€T.C.A.€ðð€ðð€4„5„201€òòò òet€seq.ó óóó€(1991).€€The€Department€did€notÍexceed€the€270€day€time€limit.€€Without€taking€into€consideration€the€stay€of€proceedings€created€byÏthe€notice€of€deficiency€letter€of€December€7,€1994,€only€207€days€passed€from€issuance€of€theÏnotice€of€compliance€letter€on€September€2,€1994,€until€Fayette€County€opted€into€Part€Seven€onÏMarch€28,€1995,€and€the€Department€stopped€processing€the€application.€€€However,€consideringÏthat€the€stay€entered€December€7,€1994,€was€not€lifted€until€March€2,€1995,€only€122€of€the€270Ïdays€had€elapsed.€€€ÌÌà àThe€burden€of€proof€is€upon€Profill€to€demonstrate€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€that€the€Department€intentionally€delayed€consideration€of€its€permit€application.€€UponÏdue€consideration€of€the€evidence€in€this€cause,€we€affirm€the€chancellorððs€finding€that€Profill€failedÏto€carry€the€burden€of€proof€on€this€issue.ÌÌòòò òà@ àVI.€€Part€Seven€is€Not€an€Unconstitutional€Delegation€of€Legislative€Poweró óóóÌÌà àProfill€asserts€that€Part€Seven€amounts€to€an€unconstitutional€delegation€ofÏlegislative€power€in€violation€of€Article€II€ðð€3€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€because€it:€(1)€containsÏno€time€limits€in€which€local€governments€must€act;€(2)€lacks€adequate€standards€or€criteria€for€localÏgovernments€to€follow;€and€(3)€provides€that€local€governments€may€opt€into€or€out€of€itsÏprovisions€by€a€two„thirds€vote€of€the€appropriate€legislative€body.€€Contrary€to€ProfillððsÏassertions,€the€Court€does€not€find€that€Part€Seven€violates€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€WhileÏArticle€II€ðð€3€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€prohibits€the€general€assembly€from€delegating€itsÏpower€to€make€the€law,€it€does€not€preclude€the€general€assembly€from€delegating€certain€of€itsÏpowers€to€governmental€agencies€and€local€governing€bodies€if€it€establishes€basic€standards€toÏguide€their€actions.€€òòò ò€Mistretta€v.€United€Statesóóó ó,€488€U.S.€361,€109€S.Ct.€647,€655€(1989);Ïòòò òLobelville€Special€School€Dist.€v.€McCanlessóóó ó,€381€S.W.2d€273€(Tenn.€1964).€€InÏòòò òLobelvilleó óóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€true€distinction€is€between€the€delegation€of€power€toÏmake€the€law,€which€necessarily€involves€a€discretion€as€to€what€itÏshall€be,€and€conferring€an€authority€or€discretion€as€to€its€execution,Ïto€be€exercised€under€and€in€pursuance€of€the€law;€.€.€.€it€is€onlyÏnecessary€that€the€statute€establish€a€sufficient€basic€standard,€aÏdefinite€and€certain€policy€and€rule€of€action€for€the€guidance€of€theÏinstrumentality€that€is€to€administer€the€law€.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÌÌòòò òÓÓLobelvilleóóó ó,€381€S.W.2d€at€274€(quoting€16€C.J.S.€òòò òConstitutional€Lawó óóó€ðð€133,€pages€560„561).€€ÌÌà àProfill€incorrectly€asserts€that€Part€Seven€contains€no€time€limit€within€which€theÏlocal€government€must€act€in€approving€or€disapproving€the€siting€of€a€new€landfill€or€solid€wasteÏprocessing€facility.€€To€the€contrary,€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„704(a)€clearly€provides€that€localÏgovernments€must€make€the€decision€regarding€approval€or€disapproval€of€proposed€landfillsÏwithin€thirty€days€after€the€notice€and€opportunity€for€public€hearing€provided€in€ðð€703.€€Part€SevenÏalso€details€the€methods€and€procedures€by€which€local€governments€must€conduct€the€approvalÏprocess,€which€include€public€notice,€comments€and€public€hearings,€and€these€proceduresÏincorporate€some€of€the€time€frames€for€issuance€of€public€notice€and€submission€of€comments.€Ïòòò òSeeóóó ó€ðððð€68„211„703(d),€(e)€and€(f).€€Furthermore,€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„704(b)€sets€forth€the€criteriaÏwhich€local€governments€are€to€consider€when€evaluating€landfill€construction.€€The€trial€courtÏfound€these€criteria€to€be€vague€but€noted€that€Profill€did€not€have€a€justiciable€claim.ÌÌà àProfill€next€asserts€that€the€ð ðopt„in/opt„outðð€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„707(b)Ïconstitute€an€unconstitutional€delegation€of€authority€in€that€a€local€government,€acting€on€a€whim,Ïmay€determine€at€any€given€time€whether€Part€Seven€shall€apply.€€This€Court€held€in€òòò òMenefeeÏCrushed€Stone€Co.,€Inc.€v.€Tayloróóó ó,€760€S.W.2d€223,€227€(Tenn.€App.€1988),€that€ð ð[o]nlyÏthe€legislature€can€say€what€the€general€law€will€be.ðð€€Part€Seven€gives€local€governmentsÏdiscretion€regarding€whether€to€adopt€it,€but€that€is€not€the€same€as€making€a€lawððs€effectivenessÏdependent€upon€local€government€approval.€€The€legislature€has€exclusive€authority€to€determineÍwhether€there€will€be€regulation€of€landfills,€and€by€enacting€Part€Seven,€the€general€assembly€hasÏvested€in€local€governments€the€power€to€accept€or€reject€landfills€within€their€boundaries.€ÌÌà àThe€Court€finds€persuasive,€the€trial€courtððs€analogy€to€local€option€liquor€lawsÏwhich€have€been€held€to€be€constitutional.€€In€òòò òClark€et€al.€v.€State€ex€rel€Boboóóó ó,€113€S.W.2dÏ374,€379„80€(Tenn.€1938),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€local€option€law€regardingÏliquor€was€complete€upon€its€enactment€by€the€general€assembly.€€The€local€referendum€which€wasÏlitigated€in€òòò òClarkó óóó€did€not€bear€upon€the€effectiveness€of€the€statewide€law€but€simply€concerned€theÏlawððs€implementation€in€a€particular€locality.€€òòò òClarkóóó ó,€113€S.W.2d€at€379„80.€€Appellees€haveÏpointed€out€other€laws€which€permit€local€option,€including€horse€racing,€T.C.A.€ðð€4„36„401Ï(1996);€wheel€taxes,€T.C.A.€ðð€5„8„102€(1993);€metropolitan€forms€of€government,€T.C.A.€ðð€7„2„106€(1992);€and€sales€taxes,€T.C.A.€ðð€67„6„705€(1994).€ÌÌà àPart€Seven€does€not€violate€Article€II€ðð€3€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€because€theÏeffectiveness€of€Part€Seven€does€not€depend€upon€the€approval€of€local€governments.€€LocalÏgovernments€merely€have€authority€regarding€the€implementation€of€Part€Seven€within€theirÏparticular€locale.€€Accordingly,€we€do€not€find€Part€Seven€to€be€an€unconstitutional€delegation€ofÏlegislative€power.ÌÌòòò òà@ àVII.€Part€Seven€Does€Not€Suspend€the€General€Law€of€the€Stateó óóóÌÌà àProfill€asserts€that€the€1995€amendments€to€Part€Seven,€in€conjunction€with€theÏrequirements€of€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„105(h),€suspend€the€general€law€of€the€State€for€the€benefit€ofÏFayette€County,€in€violation€of€Article€XI€ðð€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Article€XI€ðð€8€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution€requires€that€only€general€laws€are€to€be€passed€by€the€legislature.€€ItÏprohibits€the€general€assembly€from€passing:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[A]ny€law€for€the€benefit€of€individuals€inconsistent€with€the€generalÏlaws€of€the€land;€[or]€.€.€.€any€law€granting€to€any€individual€orÏindividuals,€rights,€privileges,€immunitie€[immunities],€orÏexemptions€other€than€such€as€may€be,€by€the€same€law€extended€toÏany€member€of€the€community,€who€may€be€able€to€bring€himselfÏwithin€the€provisions€of€such€law.ÌÌÌÌÓÓTenn.€Const.,€art.€XI,€ðð€8.€€The€Tennessee€courts€have€interpreted€Article€XI€ðð€8€as€prohibiting€theÏgeneral€assembly€from€passing€laws€that€affect€the€rights€of€citizens€without€affecting€others€in€aÏlike€condition€elsewhere€in€the€State.€€òòò òCity€of€Tullahoma,€et€al.€v.€Bedford€County,€etÏal.ó óóó,€01S01„9511„CH„00208€(Tenn.€Jan.€27,€1997);€òòò òJones€v.€Haynesóóó ó,€424€S.W.2d€197,€199Ï(Tenn.€1968);€òòò òState€ex€rel.€Hamby€v.€Cummingsó óóó,€63€S.W.2d€515,€516€(Tenn.€1933).€€ÌÌà àPart€Seven€affects€all€citizens€in€all€counties€and€municipalities€of€the€State.€€TheÏCourt€finds€that€the€1995€amendments€to€Part€Seven€are€a€valid€exercise€of€police€power€that€isÏneutral€and€universal€in€its€application€to€counties€and€municipalities€throughout€Tennessee.€ÏAccordingly,€the€Court€declines€to€find€that€Part€Seven€violates€Article€XI€ðð€8€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.ÌÌòòò òVIII.€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„105(h)€Has€Not€Been€Repealed€by€the€1995€AmendmentsÏto€Part€SevenÌÌóó€€ó óà àOn€appeal,€Profill€argues€that€the€Department€exceeded€its€authority€in€terminatingÏits€review€of€the€Profill€application€at€the€time€Fayette€County€adopted€Part€Seven.€€Profill€assertsÏthat€the€Department€should€be€directed€to€complete€review€of€its€application€and€to€make€aÏdetermination€upon€the€application.€€Profill€maintains€that€the€1995€amendments€to€Part€SevenÏrepealed€by€implication€the€prohibitive€language€which€is€contained€within€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„105(h).€€That€code€section€states€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€commissioner€shall€not€review€or€approve€anyÍconstruction€for€any€new€landfill€for€solid€waste€disposal€or€forÏsolid€waste€processing€in€any€county€or€municipality€which€hasÏadopted€the€provisions€of€ðððð€68„211„701€„„€68„211„704€and€ðð€68„211„707€until€such€construction€has€been€approved€in€accordanceÏwith€provisions€of€such€sections.ÌÌÌÌÓÓAs€amended€in€1995,€ðð€68„211„707(a)€provides:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€provisions€of€ðððð€68„211„701€„„€68„211„705€and€thisÏsection€shall€only€apply€in€any€county€or€municipality€in€which€it€isÏapproved€by€a€two„thirds€(2/3)€vote€of€the€appropriate€legislativeÏbody.€€The€provisions€of€ðððð€68„211„701€„„€68„211„705€and€thisÏsection€are€for€local€review€and€approval€and€shall€be€conductedÏprior€to€issuance€of€a€permit€by€the€department€of€environment€andÏconservation€or€the€commissioner.ÌÌÌÌÓÓSection€707(a)€authorizes€cities€and€counties€to€review€and€approve€construction€once€they€haveÏopted€into€Part€Seven.€€Section€105(h)€is€directed€at€the€authority€of€the€Commissioner€and€theÏDepartment€to€review€and€approve€construction€once€the€city€or€county€has€opted€into€Part€SevenÏand€approved€the€proposed€plans.€€1989€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€chap.€515,€ðð€13,€which€was€deleted€byÏthe€1995€amendments€to€Part€Seven,€provided€that€cities€and€counties€did€not€have€local€approvalÏrights€if€the€Department€had€ð ðpublic€noticedðð€its€tentative€approval€of€a€landfill€permit.€€Section€13Ïprovided€in€relevant€part:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThis€act€shall€take€effect€upon€becoming€law,€the€publicÏwelfare€requiring€it€and€shall€be€only€applicable€to€any€applicationÏfor€permit/registration€for€which€a€tentative€approval/determinationÏhas€not€been€public€noticed€by€the€commissioner.ÌÌÌÌ1989€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€chap.€515,€ðð€13.€€ÓÓAs€amended€in€1995,€ðð€707(a)€provided€thatÏmunicipalities€and€counties€would€have€local€approval€rights€even€if€the€Department€had€alreadyÏbegun€the€permit€review€process€so€long€as€the€Department€had€not€approved€or€issued€a€permit.€ÏInstead€of€tentative€approval,€which€was€the€relevant€event€for€cities€and€counties€under€the€1989Ïact,€the€relevant€event€under€the€1995€amendments€was€final€permit€approval.ÌÌà àThe€Court€finds€that€Profillððs€argument€of€repeal€by€implication€is€without€merit.€€InÏòòò òSteinhouse€v.€Nealóóó ó,€723€S.W.2d€625,€627€(Tenn.€1987),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€heldÏthat€an€implied€repeal€could€only€be€found€where€two€statutes€irreconcilably€conflict€or€where€twoÏstatutes€govern€the€same€subject€matter,€in€which€case,€the€later€enactment€repeals€the€former€byÏimplication.€€Courts€should€construe€statutes€so€as€to€avoid€placing€one€statute€in€conflict€withÏanother.€€òòò òParkridge€Hospital,€Inc.€v.€Woodsóóó ó,€561€S.W.2d€754,€755€(Tenn.€1978).€€We€doÏnot€find€that€ðð€105(h)€has€been€impliedly€repealed€by€the€1995€amendments€to€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„707(a)€because€the€statutes€are€complementary€and€work€in€conjunction€with€one€another.€€ÌÌòòò òà@ àIX.€Part€Seven€Does€Not€Impair€Any€Contractual€Rights€of€Profilló óóóÌÌà àProfill€asserts€that€the€amendments€to€Part€Seven€unlawfully€impair€its€contractualÏrights€€guaranteed€by€the€Tennessee€and€United€States€Constitutions.€€As€such,€Profill€asserts€thatÏthe€amendments€constitute€an€improper€exercise€of€police€power.€€The€trial€court€grantedÏDefendants€summary€judgment€on€this€claim.ÌÌà àProfill€asserts€that€the€contract€it€executed€with€the€City€of€Gallaway€derived€itsÏforce€from€the€laws€in€effect€at€the€time€the€contract€was€made€in€1992.€€Those€laws€did€not€requireÏcounty€approval,€and€neither€Profill€nor€the€City€of€Gallaway€recognized€that€Profill€would€have€toÏobtain€approval€from€the€county.€€Therefore,€the€adoption€of€Part€Seven€violated€both€the€UnitedÏStates€and€Tennessee€Constitutions€by€imposing€an€unanticipated€step€in€the€permit€review€processÏwhich€ultimately€invalidated€the€contract.€€ÌÌà àAs€this€Court€stated€in€òòò òSherwin€Williams€Co.€v.€Morrisóóó ó,€156€S.W.2d€350,Ï352€(Tenn.€App.€1941),€ð ð[a]ll€contracts€are€subject€to€be€interfered€with,€or€otherwise€affected€by,Ïsubsequent€statutes€and€ordinances€enacted€in€the€bona€fide€exercise€of€police€power.ðð€€AsÍpreviously€noted,€the€Court€finds€that€Part€Seven€is€a€bona€fide€exercise€of€police€power€thatÏspecifically€addresses€the€public€health,€safety€and€welfare.€€Accordingly,€Part€Seven€does€notÏunlawfully€impair€Profillððs€contractual€rights.ÌÌòòò òà@ àX.€Part€Seven€Violates€Equal€Protectionó óóóÌÌà àThe€trial€court€concluded€that€Part€Seven€unconstitutionally€discriminated€againstÏð ðprivateðð€landfills€through€its€exemption€of€county€and€municipally€owned€and/or€operated€landfillsÏfound€in€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„706(b).€€Specifically,€that€section€exempts€from€the€local€approvalÏrequirements€of€Part€Seven:€(1)€privately€owned€landfills€that€only€accept€waste€generated€by€theÏowner,€and€(2)€landfills€that€are€owned€and/or€operated€by€a€municipality.€€While€the€trial€courtÏconcluded€that€Part€Seven€denied€equal€protection,€the€trial€court€applied€the€doctrine€of€elision€dueÏto€the€presence€of€a€severability€clause€contained€within€1989€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€chap.€515,€ðð11€andÏreached€the€determination€that€Profill€had€not€been€denied€equal€protection.€€We€agree€and€affirmÏthe€trial€courtððs€decision€in€this€regard.€€ÌÌà àAppellees€have€raised€the€issue€on€appeal€and€assert€that€Part€Seven€does€not€denyÏequal€protection.€€Conversely,€Profill€urges€that€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€its€conclusion€thatÏPart€Seven€denied€equal€protection€but€asserts€that€the€severability€clause€does€not€apply€to€theÏ1995€amendments.€€Therefore,€the€doctrine€of€elision€should€not€apply.€€ÌÌà àA€cursory€review€of€Part€Seven€reveals€that€it€does€not€treat€all€landfills€equally.€ÏLocal€governments€cannot€disapprove€plans€for€private€landfills€to€contain€solid€waste€solelyÏgenerated€by€its€owner€and€cannot€disapprove€landfills€owned€or€operated€by€a€municipality€orÏcounty.€€Equal€protection€denial€claims€under€both€the€Tennessee€and€United€States€ConstitutionsÏare€subject€to€the€rational€basis€test,€that€is€whether€the€classification€has€a€reasonable€relationshipÏto€a€legitimate€state€interest.€€òòò òState€v.€Testeróóó ó,€879€S.W.2d€823,€828€(Tenn.€1994).€€As€theÍchancellor€observed,€the€Department€classifies€landfills€according€to€what€is€put€in€them,€notÏaccording€to€who€owns€or€operates€them.€€The€trial€court€found€and€we€agree,€that€there€is€noÏrational€basis€to€sustain€Part€Seven's€discrimination€against€private€landfills.€€Accordingly,€we€findÏthis€section€to€be€unconstitutional.ÌÌà àA€finding€of€unconstitutionality€does€not€mean€that€Part€Seven€in€its€entirety€isÏunconstitutional.€€A€severability€clause€contained€within€1989€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€chap.€515,€ðð€11Ïstates:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àIf€any€provision€of€this€act€or€the€application€thereof€to€anyÏperson€or€circumstance€is€held€invalid,€such€invalidity€shall€notÏaffect€other€provisions€or€applications€of€the€act€which€can€be€givenÏeffect€without€the€invalid€provision€or€application,€and€to€that€endÏthe€provisions€of€this€act€are€declared€to€be€severable.ÌÌÌÌÓÓ1989€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€chap.€515,€ðð11.ÌÌà àThe€doctrine€of€elision€is€applicable€in€this€instance.€€Our€supreme€court€noted€inÏòòò òLoweððs€Companies€Inc.€v.€Cardwellóóó ó,€813€S.W.2d€428,€430€(Tenn.€1991),€that€ð ða€courtÏmay,€under€appropriate€circumstances€and€in€keeping€with€the€expressed€intent€of€a€legislativeÏbody,€elide€an€unconstitutional€portion€of€a€statute€and€find€the€remaining€provisions€to€beÏconstitutional€and€effective.ðð€€The€supreme€court€further€noted€that€the€expressed€intent€of€theÏlegislative€body€should€appear€on€the€face€of€the€statute,€and€the€supreme€court€determined€that€theÏinclusion€of€a€severability€clause€is€evidence€of€the€legislatureððs€expressed€intent.€€òòò òLoweððsÏCompanies,€Inc.,óóó ó€813€S.W.2d€at€431.€òòò òSee€alsoó óóó,€òòò òCatlett€v.€Stateó óóó,€336€S.W.2d€8€(Tenn.Ï1960).ÌÌà àThe€legislative€intent€is€crystal€clear€due€to€the€presence€of€a€severability€clauseÏwithin€1989€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€chap.€515,€the€same€chapter€which€also€contained€theÍunconstitutional€ðð€12€which€was€codified€at€T.C.A.€ðð€68„211„706(b).€€We,€therefore,€concludeÏthat€Part€Seven€unconstitutionally€discriminates€against€private€owners€and€operators€of€landfills.€ÏNonetheless,€the€remainder€of€Part€Seven€is€upheld€as€constitutionally€valid€by€operation€of€theÏdoctrine€of€elision.€€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€is€affirmed,€and€the€costs€of€this€cause€are€taxed€to€the€appellant.€€ÌÌÓÓÓ` Ü` È“XÓà à________________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHIGHERS,€J.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌLILLARD,€J.€(Concurs)›