Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves appeals by both the Ohio EPA and Textileather Corporation regarding the closure of Textileather's hazardous waste facility under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. Textileather, a manufacturer, faced scrutiny over its facility's closure plans after withdrawing its permit application, leading to a debate on whether interim or general standards applied. The Ohio EPA issued several Notices of Deficiency (NODs) for inadequate contamination assessment and omitted chemicals, such as tetrahydrofuran (THF). Textileather contended that the Ohio EPA's guidance documents were improperly treated as binding rules. The Environmental Review Appeals Commission (ERAC) held hearings and issued a mixed ruling, which both parties appealed. The court affirmed ERAC's decision that interim standards applied due to the absence of a final permit decision. It also upheld the inclusion of THF and phthalates in the closure plan and rejected the claim that guidance documents were improperly applied as rules. However, it acknowledged ERAC's correct decision to issue a NOD rather than approve the extensively modified closure plan. The matter was remanded to the Ohio EPA for further action in line with these findings.
Legal Issues Addressed
Definition of Contamination for Hazardous Waste Managementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Textileather's definition and assessment of contamination levels were deemed sufficient by the ERAC, despite Ohio EPA's later contradictions.
Reasoning: Testimony from Textileather's expert, Jack Michels, indicated that extensive sampling from various years established the contamination levels in soil and groundwater.
Inclusion of Chemicals in Hazardous Waste Closure Planssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The inclusion of THF and phthalates in the closure plan was justified despite Textileather's objections, based on evidence of potential contamination sources within the facility.
Reasoning: Textileather failed to prove that only solid phthalates were stored at the site, which undermines its argument against the Ohio EPA's directives for cleanup.
Interim vs. General Standards for Facility Closuresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated whether interim or general standards applied to Textileather's facility closure, concluding interim standards were applicable due to the lack of a final administrative disposition on their permit application.
Reasoning: Since Textileather withdrew its application before any decision was made, no final disposition occurred, thus necessitating the application of interim standards.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Closure Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case examines the RCRA's mandate for safe closure of hazardous waste facilities to protect human health and the environment, with a focus on Textileather's compliance through its closure plans.
Reasoning: The RCRA mandates safe closure of hazardous waste facilities to protect human health and the environment.
Role of Guidance Documents in Regulatory Compliancesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Ohio EPA's use of the Closure Plan Review Guidance (CPRG) as non-binding guidance rather than a rule was upheld, as it did not expand existing obligations.
Reasoning: The Ohio EPA considers the CPRG as guidance rather than a rule, thus not requiring formal adoption under R.C. Chapter 119.
Standard of Review for Environmental Review Appeals Commission (ERAC) Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: ERAC's decisions are reviewed based on whether they are unreasonable or unlawful, with the court affirming ERAC's findings except where substantial evidence indicates otherwise.
Reasoning: ERAC's review standard assesses whether the Director's actions are 'unreasonable or unlawful,' while the court evaluates ERAC's orders for reliability, probative value, and legal compliance.