Opinion ID: 1679440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: arbitrability of design features

Text: The court of appeals held that the design of the 1) landfill liner and cap, 2) the landfill gas control system, and 3) the environmental monitoring and testing system were operational concerns and so were arbitrable under sec. 144.445(8)(b)5. [27] We agree. [7] Although we review de novo whether an issue is arbitrable, we will not deny an order to arbitrate a particular matter unless it may be said with positive assurance that the language defining the arbitrable issues is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Jt. School Dist. No. 10, 78 Wis. 2d at 112 (quoting United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582-83 (1960)). Further, we resolve any doubts in favor of coverage. Id. This Court's decision in Jt. School Dist. No. 10 is particularly instructive. There the arbitrator held that an employment dispute was arbitrable under a contract that set out a limited list of arbitrable grievances. The employee claimed the dispute involved a discharge and non-renewal (an arbitrable dispute), while the school district claimed the dispute was a counteroffer and non-acceptance (a non-arbitrable dispute). Although the court noted that the invocation of the contractual language did not halt the court's inquiry into the issue, it had no difficulty finding that the phrase was susceptible of the definition offered by the employee given the presumption of arbitrability created by the positive assurance standard. Id. at 112-13. Similarly, section 144.445(5), Stats. (1991-92), provides a limited list of arbitrable matters. LLNC claims that the design features at issue are arbitrable under that section as operational concerns including, but not limited to, noise, dust, debris, odors and hours of operation but excluding design capacity. Section 144.445(5)(b)3, Stats. (1991-92). MLI contends the design features do not fall within the definition of any of the arbitrable items. We do not end our review based on the mere invocation of the statutory language. However, we do conclude that sec. 144.445(5)(b)3, Stats. is susceptible to the definition put forward by LLNC and accepted by the Board. The American Heritage Dictionary defines operational as of or pertaining to an operation or a series of operations, and concern as a matter that relates to or affects one. American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, 305, 871 (1985). Thus, operational concern as used in the statute can mean any matter that relates to or affects the operation of a solid waste facility. The design features at issue are thus operational concerns because they affect the potential exposure of the community to harmful by-products and odors created by the operation of the waste facility. While the features of the gas and environmental monitoring systems do not affect the day-to-day functioning of the facility, they nevertheless are operational concerns to the extent that they relate to potential nuisance problems similar to those illustrated by the list contained in sec. 144.445(5)(b)3, Stats.: noise, dust, debris, odors... . As such, we hold that the design aspects of the gas systems which affect nuisance factors, such as screening requirements, air pollution controls, and mitigation of noise and odor are arbitrable. Similarly, design aspects of the environmental monitoring system which affect noise, dust, debris, odor and screening are arbitrable operational concerns. The features of the liner and cap are also susceptible to the definition of operational concerns in the statute. Only one operational concern is not arbitrable, design capacity. However, the liner material and cover are specifically excluded from the definition of design capacity. Wis. Adm. Code NR 500.03(33). [28] If the liner material and cover were not operational concerns, there would be no need to exclude them from the definition of the one operational concern that is not arbitrable. Therefore, its exclusion from that definition means that the liner and cap are arbitrable operational concerns. MLI argues that the liner and cap should not be considered operational concerns because the Board concluded that the leacheate collection system was not an operational concern, even though both control and collect leacheate. Obviously, for this inconsistency to have any bearing on the arbitrability of the liner and cap, the Board's decision on the leacheate collection system would have to be correct. Although we express no opinion on the arbitrability of the collection system, we do note that the inconsistency alone does not require the court to overturn the Board's decision on the liner and cap, especially given the positive assurance standard. Even without the presumption of arbitrability created by the positive assurance standard, we do not accept MLI's argument that operational concerns should be construed narrowly. We conclude the legislature intended a broad definition of the term. The statute says operational concerns are not limited to the list of issues in the statute. This means that the list is merely illustrative, not exclusive, and therefore should be construed broadly. MLI correctly states that the scope of arbitrable issues is narrower than the scope of negotiable issues. However, in the operational concerns subsection, the legislature did choose to use the expansive but not limited to language. Therefore, a broad interpretation of operational concerns is appropriate. MLI accurately recognizes that this interpretation would allow the Board to adopt a proposal that differs from the plans used in the DNR feasibility review. However, contrary to MLI's assertions, the statute actually contemplates the possibility of an arbitration award more stringent than would be required by DNR regulations. Section 144.44(2)(n)2, Stats. (1991-92). Thus, arbitration proceedings are expressly permitted to overlap the DNR feasibility review, and the mere fact that an item is subject to DNR regulation does not take it outside the purview of the arbitration process. Even though the Board may adopt a plan that differs from the feasibility review, there is no danger of overruling environmental safety decisions made with DNR expertise. If the Board approves an item different from that in the DNR feasibility report, the item must be reviewed by the DNR to assure that the design is not less stringent than that approved by the DNR prior to approval of the plan of operation or initial operating license. Sections 144.44(3)(c), (4)(b), Stats. (1991-92). [8] We hold that the court of appeals correctly concluded that the Board does not have the power to set aside preexisting local ordinances that are not arbitrary or discriminatory, and that the court of appeals was correct in concluding that the Board had the power to arbitrate design features that affected the operation of the facility. The cause is therefore remanded to the circuit court with instructions to reinstate and confirm the Board's Award pursuant to sec. 788.09, Stats., [29] except for the portion of the Award concerning source of waste, which should, in accordance with the court of appeals decision, be vacated pursuant to sec. 788.10(1)(d), Stats. [30] By the Court.  The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed, and the cause remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.