### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE O ct obe r 9, 200 7 S es sio n BRUCE WO OD, ET AL 

### . v. MET ROP OLITA N N AS HVILL E BOA RD OF HEAL TH, ET AL 

### . Appeal from t he Chancery Court for D avidson County No. 05-275 Ellen Hobb s Lyle, Chancellor

No. M2006- 01599-COA-R 3-CV - Filed November 28, 2007

This is an appea l challenging the issuanc e of se vera l permit s t o No rt h Americ an Ga lvanizing Compa ny by the Ai r P oll uti on Di vis ionof the Me tr op oli ta n De pa rt me nt of He a lth . A pp e lla nts ba se their cha llenge on the f

ailure of the Depa rtment to consider the location of the c ompany as we ll as no ise a nd e xh aus t fu me s a ri sin g f ro m tr uc k tr a ff ic tr a ve lin g th ro ug h a

re sid e nti a l ne igh bo rh oo d to and fr om the company. They also challenge the represe ntation of bot h the Department and the Board of He alth by Metropolitan Depa rtm en t o f Law attorneys. The Chance llor ruled against the app e lla nts . W e a ff

ir m. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancer y Court Af firme d
A NDY D. B ENNETT , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D ON A SH , S P
. J

. , j o i n ed. P AT R I C I A J. C OTTRE LL , P.J., M.S., not participating.
Bruce W ood, Pro Se ; Bessie Hanser d, Pro Se ; Elizabeth Ha rris, Pro Se ; R.C. B artlett, Pro Se ; Susan Hende rson, Pro Se.
Lora Ba rkenbus Fox and Paul J. Campbell, II, N ashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellees, Me tropolitan Na sh vil le Boa

rdof He a ltha ndMe tr op oli ta n N a sh vil le Go ve rn me nt.
Anne C. Ma

rt in andSus a n H igh -M c Au le y, He nd e rs on vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lle e , N orth Americ an Ga lvanizing.
OP IN ION
No r t h A m e r i c a n G a l v a n i z i n g C o m p a n y o p e r a t e s a p l a n t a t 2 0 0 3 2 n d A v e n u e No rt h in Na sh vil le

. Th e plant ha s be e n a t the sa me loc a tio n s inc e 19 56 , a lth ou gh it w a s n ot kno wn a s N orth Ameri c a n G a lvaniz ing un til 19 96 . G a lvaniz ing is a pr oc e ss that a dd s a

pr ote c tiv e ou te r l a ye r t o steel. Galvaniz ing provides long-term protec tion from rust and the e lements. Items to be ga lvanized are brought to the plant large ly by eighteen whe el diesel truc ks. Prior to the construction of I -440 in the 19 70 s, the truc ks turne d o ff Cha rl ott e Av e nu e on to 3 2n d Av e nu e No rth a ndpr oc e e de d d ir e c tlyM r
. Br uce W ood, M r s
. Bes s i e H ans er d, M r s
. El i za bet h H ar r i s , M r
. R

. C

. B ar t l et t and M s
. Sus an H ende r s on. 1
-2- to the plant. I-440 blocke d this most direc t acc ess to the plant. Today, truc ks turn on 33rd Ave nue No rth, turn le ft

on El kin s A ve nu e a ndthe n righ t on to 3 2n d A ve nu e to r e a c h th e plant.
North American Ga lvanizing was not re quired t o h av e an air pollution permit from the Metropolitan Government prior to 1999. The company had existed at t he same location long befor e air qua lity st andar ds were cre ated, so it was “grandf ather ed” in. Furthermore, the c ompany was suc h a minor sourc e of air pollution that no permit was r equire d. In 1999, the c ompany sought to replac e its old 42 fo ot l on g g a lvaniz ing ke ttl e wi th a ne w 5 1 fo ot ke ttl e
. Th is r e qu ir e d a c on str uc tio n p e rm it. The Air Pollution Divisi on of the Metropolitan Depa rtment of Health (“D epartment”) granted the company’ s application and issued pe rmit C-1794, which allowed the company to bui ld the new kettle and se rved a s a tempora ry oper atin g p er m i t

. By late 2001, the compa ny had met the require ments of this permit. Also in late 2001, North American Galvanizing transferr ed a 14 f oot galvanizing ke ttle to Nashville from Tulsa, Oklahoma. This nece ssitated a new permit application, which wa s filed on Janua ry 4, 2002. A re vised application was submitted March 25, 2002.
Du r in g th e D e p ar tm e n t’ s r e v ie w o f th e p e r mi t ap p li c a ti o n s in 2 0 0 2 , a p u b li c n o ti c e of the applications wa s published in The Tennessean on January 15, 2002. A num ber of persons submitted written comments and one or more r equeste d a public hea ring. Notice of

the hea ring was published in The Tennessean on February 26, 27 and 28, 2002. In c onnection with the April 2, 2002 hearing, verba l and written c omments were provided re gard i n g s u ch topics as re gulatory authority, monitoring, plant emissions, pollution control equipment, and zoning, as we ll as traff ic, noise and emissions from trucks transporting materials to and fr om the plant. After considering the a pplication and the public’s conce rns, the Depa rtment issued revised permit C-1794, operating permit 290-1 and construction permit C -1991 on August 5, 2002. The D epartment viewed se vera l of the matters r aised by the public comments as f alling outside its jurisdiction and re fer red the m to another a gency. U pon issuing the permits, the Direc t o r o f t he Pollution C ontrol Division specifically wr ote the Metropolitan Zon in g A d mi n is tr ato r in d ic ating that sever al public commentator s were conce rned that the prope rty wher e the plant wa s located w as not zone d corr ectly and that its operations cre ated exce ssive noise. Appellants are a group of private citizens and residents of Davidson C ounty near the plant 1 wh o a pp e a le d th e iss ua nc e of

the pe rm its to the Boa

rd of He a lth

. Th e Boa

rd re fe rr e d the ma tte r t o an admi n i s t ra t ive law judge f or a f ormal hea

ring pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-7-105. T he a dmi nis tr a tiv e la w j ud ge he ld th e hear in g on Ju ly 2 9- 31 , 2 00 3 a ndon Ju ne 9, 20 04 iss ue d h is re c omm e nd a tio n u ph old ing the De pa rt me nt’ s d e c isi on to i ssu e the pe rm its . T he Boa rdof Hea lth approve d the re commendation to issue the permits on October 12, 2004. Appellants filed a w rit of c e rt ior ari in C ha nc e ry Cou rt , w hic h w a s d e nie d. Ap pe lla nts app e a l no w t o th is C ou rt

. S TANDA RD OF R EVIEW
Under the common law writ of ce rt i o ra ri , the re viewing court must examine whethe r the municipal agenc y’s ac tion is i llegal, in exce ss of its jurisdiction, arbitrary or c apric ious. McCallen-3-

v . City of M

e mp his , 786 S.W.2d 633, 638 (Tenn. 1990) . In doing so, the cour t determines whe ther there is any materia l evidence that supports the ac tion of the administrative age ncy. Lai dla w En v tl. Se rv s. of N

as hv ill e , I nc
. v
. Me tro

. Bd

. o f H e alth fo r Na sh v ill e an d D av ids on Cou nty , 934 S.W.2d 40, 49 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 1 99 6)

. Suf fi c ie nc y of e vid e nc e is a

qu e sti on of

la w, thu s w e re vie w d e no vo wi th no presumption of cor

rec tness. Lafferty v. City of Winchester , 46 S.W.3d 752, 759 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Courts must not rew eigh t he evidence or scrutinize the intrinsic corr ectne ss of the dec ision, De mo nb re un v . M

e tro . B d. of Z

on ing Ap pe als , 206 S.W.3d 42, 46 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), but independe ntly review the rec ord to ensure “it contains ‘suc h rele vant evidenc e t h at a r e a s o n able mind might ac cept as adequate to support a rational conclusion.’” Laf fe rty , 46 S.W.3d at 759 (quoting Hedge path v. Norton , 839 S.W.2d 416, 421 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992))

. Appellants ra ise sever al issues, but they all ce nter on two que stions: whethe r the Polluti on Control Divisi o n i s au t h orize d to consider the noise and other circ umstances a

rising from truck traff ic going through the re sidential neighborhood to and f rom North American Ga lvanizing, and whether the Metropolitan De partment of Law’ s repr esentation of both the Depa rtment and the Boar d of He alth is proper.
S COPE OF A U THO R I TY O F THE P OL L UT I ON C ON TRO L D I V I SI ON OF TH E D E PA RT M E NT OF H E AL T H Appellants base their ca se on portions of Metropolit an Code Chapter 10.56, which governs air pollution control. Rules of statutory construc tion apply to local ordinanc es. Jo r d a n v. Knox C o u nty , 2 1 3 S.W.3d 751, 763 (Tenn. 2007) . When statutory language is clear and unambiguous courts must apply its plain meaning without any forced interpretation that would limit or expand the statute’s application. Jordan, 21 3 S.W .3 d at 763

. Ap pe lla nts a dmi t th a t § 1 0. 56 .0 50 (A )( 7) e xe mpt s “[m]obile sour ces, suc h as automobiles, trucks, busses, locomotives, airplane s and boats,” f rom the municipal pollution provisi ons. They point, howeve r, to subsection (B) a s authority for the Depa rtment to c onsider matters they raise – the location of the plant, the noise cr eate d by delivery truc ks a ndthe e xh aus t f

ume s f ro m th e truc ks . Su bs e c tio n ( B) state s: Notwithstanding the exempti o n s g ra nted in Paragr aph A of this section, no person shall discharge , from any sourc e whatsoever, suc h quantities of air c ontaminants or oth e r m a te ri a ls w hic h c ause or hav e a t e nd e nc y to c a us e , in jury, de tr ime nt, annoyanc e, or a dverse eff ect to the public. Metro. Code § 10.56.050(B). Ap pe lla nts a lso re ly o n M e tr o. Cod e § 1 0. 56 .1 70 , w hic h s ta te s: No per son shall cause , suffe r, allow or pe rmit any emission of gases, va pors or objectionable odor s beyond the prope rty line from a ny source whatsoeve r which caus e s in ju r y , d e trim e n t, n u is a n c e o r a n n o y a n c e to a n y c o n s id e r ab le n u mb e r of persons or to the public, or which ca uses or ha s a natura l te ndency to cause injury or damage to business or property.M r
. Rane y w as di s cus s i ng Se ct i on 10. 56. 240( A ) opa ci t y s t anda r ds

. Subs ec t i on ( C ) r equi r es c ur r ent s m oke 2 and o do r el i m i nat i on equi pm ent on al l buses and t r ucks r egi s t er ed i n t he m et r op ol i t an go vernm ent ar ea. -4- Metro. Code § 10.56.170.
The Court does not wish to trivialize the conce rns of Appellants. The matters they raise de al with the conduct of

their daily lives and the enjoyment of their property. H oweve r, the a ir pollution rules and permitting process simply do not offer them a vehic le for r elief. To nullify the e xemptions in s ub sec tio n § 10 .5 6. 05 0( A) , s ub se c tio n ( B) re qu ir e s th a t th e of fe nd ing e nti ty “ dis c ha

rg e
.. . a ir contaminants or other

materia ls....” Clearly, the issues of zoning and noise do not fa l l wi thin the scope of subsection (B) since they involve no dischar ge. Se c tio n 1 0. 56 .1 70 pr ov ide s n o p os sib ili ty o f r e lie f e it her. Th e re is n o s ho wi ng that N orth Americ an Galvanizing i s emitting odors from its property. Appellants rely he avily on Laidlaw for a number of propositions, however , Laidlaw does not support Appellants’ claims. In that ca se, odors from a w astewater tre atment fa cility spread be yond the boundaries of the facility’s property. Laidlaw , 9 34 S.W .2 d at 42 . Se c tio n 1 0. 56 .1 70 c le arl y a llo we d the Dep art ment a c tio n b e c aus e it addre sses “a ny emission of gases, vapors or objec tionable odors beyond the property line....” That is not the situation i n this case.
What is re ally at issue is th e n o i se and/or pollution allegedly e mitted from delivery truc ks trave ling to and from North Americ an Galvaniz ing. North Americ an Galvaniz ing doe s not own the delivery truc ks. Furthermore, the rec ord is clea r about how polluting delivery trucks a re tre ated. Mr. Rob Raney, the Dire ctor of the Depa rtment’s Polluti on Control Divisi on, tes t i fi ed at the administrative hea

ring that the individual truc ks are cited for polluting, “so [the c itation] gets to the 2
owner , whoeve r owns it.” Thus, vehicular pollution is not c onsidered part of the pollution source that is th e ob

je c t of the pe rm it, in this c a se , th e No rth A me ri c a n G a lvaniz ing plant. Th is i s a rea sonable a dminist rati v e i nterpre tation which re quires eve ry vehic le to adher e to air pollution standards. Vehicula

r pol lution is addre ssed s epar ately from other sources in C ode § 10.56.240 (B)- (D). T he air

pollution provisi ons simply do not allow the de l i v er y t ru ck s to be consider ed whe n deciding whe ther to issue construc tion or operating permits to North America n Galvaniz ing. Ap pe lla nts su gg e st that Laidlaw allows the De partment to consider the problems they r aise. We a gree Laidlaw do e s say that unde r the Me tr op oli ta n Code § 1 0. 56 .1 00 , “ [t ]h e Boa rdis c le arl y auth oriz e d to c on sid e r the loc a tio n a ndsu rr ou nd ing are a of the so ur c e of

po llu tio n ‘in e xe rc isi ng its power s....’” Laidlaw , 934 S.W.2d at 53. The Boar d’s power s, howeve r, re late only to preve nting, abating and c ontrolling air pollution. Metro. Code § 10.56.100. Bec ause truc k emissions are tre ated se pa rate ly u nd e r the Cod e , we de c lin e to c on sid e r the m pa rt of the “ su rr ou nd ing are a ” of the plant.
A re view of the rec ord reveals ample evidenc e supporting the Department’s iss uance of the permits. As such, the De partment’s a ctions were not arbitra ry or capricious and mus t be af firmed.
R EPR ESENTA TI ON BY TH E M E T ROP OL I T AN D EP ARTM ENT OF L AW-5-

Appellants maintain that the same Metropolitan attorne y repr ese n t ed t h e intere sts of the Direc tor o f th e A ir Po ll u ti o n D iv is io n a n d th e Bo ar d o f H e a lth

. T h e r e c o r d , h o w e v e r , d o e s n ot support Appellants’ c ontention. The administrative re cord indicates at p ag e 8 t hat attorne y Lora Barkenbus r epre sented Metr o in the hearing befor e the a dminist rative la w judge. At page 267 of the administrative rec ord it is equally clea r that attorney Marga

ret Holleman of the M et ro p o litan Depa rtment of La w advised the Board of H ealth.
The M e tr o p o li tan Ch ar te r r e q u ir e s th e D e p ar tm e n t o f L a w to p r o v id e c o u n s e l to the Depa rtment and to the Board. Metropolitan Charter § 8.602(b). As the Scope sec tion of the Rules of Professional Conduct observe s, “governmental lawyer s
... may be authorized to re prese nt severa l go ve rn me nt a ge nc ie s, of

fi c e rs , o r e mpl oy e e s in le ga l con tr ov e rs ie s in c ir c ums ta nc e s w he re a private lawyer could not repr esent multiple private c lients.” Tenn. Rules of Prof ’l Conduct, Scope ¶ ( 4). It was the D epartment of Law’ s duty under t he Metropolitan Charter to furnish legal advice and repr esentation in thi s matter. One attorney a dvised the Board w hile anoth er at t o rney repre sented Me tr o. Th e re is n oth ing ill e ga l or un e thi c a l a

bo ut this arr a ng e me nt.
Th e de c isi on of

the Cha nc e ry Cou rt

is a ff irme d ina ll r e sp e c ts. Costs of appeal a

re a ssessed against Appellants, for which e xecution, if n e c e ssary, may issue.

___________________________________ ANDY D . BENNETT, JUDG E