The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) categorizes solid waste facilities based on their design, operation, and potential environmental impact. Class I landfills are the most stringent, designed for the disposal of non-hazardous solid waste, requiring extensive liner systems, leachate collection, and groundwater monitoring. Class II landfills are for less restrictive waste streams, often industrial byproducts, with less rigorous containment measures. Class III landfills are the least regulated, typically for inert materials like construction debris or uncontaminated soil. Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 3734, specifically ORC 3734.02, governs solid waste management and facility classification. A facility that receives municipal solid waste, which includes a broad range of residential, commercial, and institutional refuse, must meet the highest standards for containment and monitoring to prevent contamination of soil and groundwater. Therefore, a facility designed and permitted to accept municipal solid waste would be classified as a Class I landfill under Ohio’s regulatory framework. The question asks about a facility designed for municipal solid waste, which by definition necessitates the most robust environmental controls.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) utilizes a tiered approach for assessing and managing contaminated sites, often involving a risk-based framework. When a site requires remediation, the agency must determine the appropriate cleanup standards. Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 3746, the Voluntary Action Program (VAP), provides a mechanism for property owners to investigate and remediate contaminated sites with the goal of obtaining a Covenant Not to Sue. Under the VAP, the Ohio EPA establishes generic and specific cleanup standards. Generic standards are numerical values for various contaminants in different media (e.g., soil, groundwater). Specific standards, however, are developed on a site-specific basis when generic standards are not protective or feasible. This site-specific development often involves a Uniform Environmental Risk Assessment (UERA) or a similar risk assessment process, as outlined in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-300. The UERA process evaluates potential exposure pathways and health risks to determine acceptable contaminant concentrations. If a UERA demonstrates that a higher concentration of a contaminant than the generic standard is protective of human health and the environment, that specific concentration becomes the applicable cleanup standard for that particular site. This allows for more flexible and cost-effective remediation while ensuring environmental protection. Therefore, the most appropriate method for establishing a cleanup standard when generic standards are deemed inadequate for a particular scenario under Ohio’s VAP is through a site-specific risk assessment.

The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 3745.11 governs the issuance of permits for air pollution sources. Specifically, the ORC mandates that the Director of Environmental Protection shall adopt rules that specify the amount of fees to be collected for the issuance of permits and for the renewal of permits. These fees are intended to cover the costs incurred by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) in administering the air pollution control program, including the review of permit applications, inspections, monitoring, and enforcement. The statute allows for different fee structures based on the type and complexity of the air pollution source, as well as the potential for emissions. For existing sources undergoing significant modifications or renewals, the fees are designed to reflect the agency’s effort in evaluating the proposed changes and ensuring continued compliance with applicable air quality standards. The intent is to ensure that the regulated entities contribute to the financial burden of managing the state’s air quality program, thereby promoting the public health and welfare by preventing and controlling air pollution. The specific fee amounts are detailed in the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC), Chapter 3745-17, which is promulgated under the authority of the ORC. These fees are subject to periodic review and adjustment to account for inflation and changes in program costs.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) employs a tiered approach to managing hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Specifically, the concept of “hazardous waste determination” is crucial. Generators of solid waste must determine if their waste is hazardous. This determination can be made by either testing the waste or by using process knowledge. If a waste exhibits any of the four characteristics of hazardous waste – ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity – it is considered hazardous. The toxicity characteristic is determined by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). If the TCLP extract from a waste contains any of the listed contaminants at or above the regulatory thresholds, the waste is deemed toxic hazardous waste. For example, if a waste leachate sample from a facility in Ohio shows a concentration of lead at 7 mg/L, and the regulatory limit for lead under the toxicity characteristic is 5 mg/L, then this waste would be classified as a toxicity characteristic hazardous waste. The generator then has specific obligations for managing this waste, including obtaining an EPA identification number, complying with accumulation time limits, using proper containers and labeling, and ensuring transportation by a permitted hazardous waste transporter to a permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facility. Failure to correctly determine the hazardous waste status can lead to significant penalties. The Ohio EPA’s hazardous waste regulations are found within the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-50 through 3745-69, which largely mirror federal RCRA regulations but may include state-specific nuances.

The question pertains to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency’s (Ohio EPA) authority to issue variances from certain air pollution control regulations. Under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 3704, the Director of Environmental Protection has the power to grant variances. Specifically, ORC 3704.03(F) allows the Director to grant a variance from any rule or standard adopted under this chapter if it is found that: (1) the applicant has demonstrated that compliance with the rule or standard would cause or is causing significant hardship, and (2) the applicant has demonstrated that the public interest in granting the variance substantially outweighs the public interest in denying the variance. The variance must also be for a limited period and require the applicant to take specific actions to achieve compliance or mitigate adverse effects. The Ohio EPA’s variance process is not an automatic exemption but requires a thorough demonstration of hardship and a balancing of public interests. The Ohio EPA’s Division of Air Pollution Control (DAPC) is responsible for administering these provisions, often involving public notice and comment periods before a final decision is made on a variance request. This process ensures that while flexibility is provided, environmental protection remains paramount.

The question probes the understanding of Ohio’s regulatory framework for managing solid waste, specifically focusing on the permitting requirements for facilities that treat, store, or dispose of solid waste. Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 3734, the primary statute governing solid waste management in Ohio, mandates that such facilities obtain a solid waste facility license from the Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). This licensing process is designed to ensure that facilities operate in a manner that protects public health and the environment. The licensing requirements are detailed in the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-27, which outlines specific standards for different types of solid waste facilities, including landfills, incinerators, and composting facilities. A facility that engages in the treatment, storage, or disposal of solid waste without the requisite license is in violation of ORC 3734.12 and is subject to enforcement actions, including penalties and injunctions. The Ohio EPA’s Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management is responsible for administering this licensing program. Other statutes, such as those pertaining to hazardous waste (ORC Chapter 3734, Division II) or water pollution control (ORC Chapter 6111), may apply to certain waste streams or activities, but for general solid waste management operations as described, the solid waste facility license is the core requirement. The concept of a “permit-by-rule” or general permit, while existing in other environmental programs in Ohio (like air pollution control or water discharge permits), is not the primary mechanism for licensing solid waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities under ORC Chapter 3734. Instead, individual facility licenses are generally required, tailored to the specific operational characteristics and waste types.

The question pertains to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency’s (Ohio EPA) authority under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, specifically concerning the permitting of new or expanded solid waste facilities. Under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 3734, the Director of Environmental Protection has the ultimate authority to issue or deny permits for such facilities. This authority is not delegable to subordinate personnel in a manner that would circumvent the Director’s final decision-making power on permit applications. While the Ohio EPA employs technical staff who review applications and make recommendations, and deputy directors may oversee divisions, the statutory responsibility for the final permit decision, particularly for new or significantly expanded facilities, rests with the Director. This ensures a high level of oversight and accountability for decisions impacting public health and the environment. Therefore, any proposed action that bypasses or inappropriately delegates the Director’s final decision-making authority on a permit application would be inconsistent with the statutory framework.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) utilizes a tiered approach to classifying hazardous waste based on its potential to cause harm. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as adopted and implemented in Ohio, waste is characterized by its hazardous properties. If a solid waste exhibits any of the four characteristics of hazardous waste – ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity – it is classified as hazardous. The toxicity characteristic is determined through the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). If the leachate from a waste sample, when tested using the TCLP, exceeds regulatory limits for specific contaminants, the waste is deemed to have the toxicity characteristic. Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-51 outlines these classifications and testing requirements. For a waste to be considered hazardous due to toxicity, it must fail the TCLP test for one or more of the listed constituents. Therefore, if a solid waste, after undergoing the TCLP test as mandated by OAC 3745-51-22, demonstrates a leachate concentration of lead exceeding 5.0 mg/L, it is classified as a hazardous waste due to the toxicity characteristic. This classification triggers specific management, treatment, and disposal requirements under Ohio EPA regulations.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) establishes rules and standards for the management of solid waste, including the permitting of facilities. Under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 3734, specifically concerning solid waste management, facilities that treat, store, or dispose of solid waste must obtain permits. The definition of “solid waste” is broad and includes discarded materials. A facility that receives, processes, and stores used tires for eventual recycling or disposal falls under the purview of these regulations. While tires themselves are a specific type of solid waste, the process of shredding and baling them, if done on-site for subsequent shipment, constitutes “processing” or “storage” of solid waste. Therefore, such a facility would require a solid waste facility license from the Ohio EPA, as mandated by ORC 3734.15. The license ensures that the facility operates in a manner that protects public health and the environment, adhering to specific design, operation, and closure requirements tailored to the type of waste handled. Failure to obtain the necessary license can result in enforcement actions.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) employs a tiered approach to assessing and managing contaminated sites, particularly under its Voluntary Action Program (VAP). The VAP, established under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 3746, allows property owners to investigate and remediate contaminated sites voluntarily, with the goal of obtaining a Covenant Not to Sue (CNS) upon successful completion. The process involves several stages, including a Phase I Property Assessment, a Phase II Property Assessment, and the development and implementation of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP). A key element in determining the appropriate remediation strategy is the establishment of risk-based standards. These standards are derived from toxicological data and consider various exposure pathways and receptor populations. For groundwater, the Generic Numerical Standards (GNS) are often utilized. These GNS represent concentrations of contaminants in groundwater that are protective of human health and the environment under specific land use scenarios. The determination of whether a site requires remediation beyond the GNS, or if a variance or a site-specific risk assessment is needed, hinges on the comparison of site-specific data to these established standards. The concept of “pathway elimination” is crucial; if a particular exposure pathway is demonstrably not complete (e.g., no potential for ingestion of contaminated groundwater due to impermeable barriers and no wells), then the standards associated with that pathway may not apply. However, the ultimate goal is to achieve a level of protection that satisfies the VAP’s objectives, often culminating in the issuance of a No Further Action (NFA) letter from the Ohio EPA, which signifies that the site has been remediated to standards that allow for its intended future use without posing an unacceptable risk. The scenario presented focuses on the regulatory framework for addressing legacy contamination, emphasizing the role of risk assessment and the achievement of protective standards for groundwater. The correct answer reflects the overarching goal of the VAP and the fundamental principle of risk management in environmental law.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) regulates solid waste management facilities through Chapter 3745-27 of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC). This chapter outlines requirements for the permitting, operation, and closure of various solid waste facilities, including construction and demolition debris (C&D) landfills. Specifically, OAC 3745-27-08 details the financial assurance requirements for these facilities. Financial assurance mechanisms are designed to ensure that funds are available for the proper closure and post-closure care of a solid waste facility, even if the owner or operator becomes insolvent. The rule specifies acceptable forms of financial assurance, which can include a letter of credit, a surety bond, a trust fund, a certificate of deposit, or an insurance policy. The amount of financial assurance required is typically based on the projected costs of closure and post-closure care, as determined by an approved closure plan. Ohio law, as codified in OAC 3745-27-08, mandates that these financial assurance instruments be established and maintained for the life of the permit and through the post-closure care period. The purpose is to protect public health and the environment by guaranteeing that necessary long-term care and monitoring will occur. The Ohio EPA reviews and approves these financial assurance plans to ensure they meet the regulatory requirements and provide adequate coverage.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) employs a tiered approach to classifying hazardous waste generators based on the quantity of hazardous waste produced per month. The three primary categories are Very Small Quantity Generators (VSQGs), Small Quantity Generators (SQGs), and Large Quantity Generators (LQGs). A VSQG is defined as a facility that generates no more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of hazardous waste per month, and no more than 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of acute hazardous waste per month. An SQG generates between 100 and 1,000 kilograms (220 to 2,200 pounds) of hazardous waste per month, and no more than 1 kilogram of acute hazardous waste per month. An LQG generates 1,000 kilograms or more of hazardous waste per month, or more than 1 kilogram of acute hazardous waste per month. In this scenario, the facility generates 150 kg of non-acute hazardous waste and 0.5 kg of acute hazardous waste per month. Since the facility generates 150 kg of non-acute hazardous waste, it exceeds the 100 kg threshold for VSQGs. However, it generates only 0.5 kg of acute hazardous waste, which is below the 1 kg threshold for LQGs. Therefore, the facility falls into the Small Quantity Generator (SQG) category. This classification dictates specific requirements for waste management, record-keeping, and emergency preparedness under Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-52. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for compliance with federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations as implemented in Ohio.

The question concerns the application of Ohio’s Hazardous Waste Management Program, specifically focusing on the requirements for treating hazardous waste to meet land disposal restrictions (LDRs) before disposal. Ohio EPA, under authority granted by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), implements these LDRs. For wastes exhibiting the characteristic of ignitability, the treatment standards generally require that the waste be treated to remove or destroy the ignitable component. One common method to achieve this is thermal treatment, such as incineration, which destroys the ignitable constituents. Alternatively, dilution can be used as a treatment method for certain ignitable wastes, specifically those that are liquid and can be diluted with a non-hazardous combustible liquid to achieve a flash point of at least 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius). This dilution method is permitted under specific conditions outlined in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-50, which often mirrors federal RCRA regulations concerning treatment standards. The key is to render the waste non-ignitable according to the established criteria. Thermal destruction is a more robust method for eliminating ignitability by oxidizing the flammable components, whereas dilution reduces the concentration of ignitable constituents to a level below the regulatory threshold for ignitability. Both are valid treatment technologies, but the question asks for the most appropriate technology for wastes exhibiting the characteristic of ignitability that also involves a reduction in the hazardous constituent’s concentration. Thermal treatment directly reduces the concentration of ignitable constituents by converting them to less hazardous substances like carbon dioxide and water. Dilution, while reducing concentration, does not destroy the hazardous constituent. Therefore, thermal treatment is the more encompassing and generally preferred method for addressing ignitability when seeking to reduce the inherent hazardous property through destruction.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) oversees the state’s hazardous waste management program, largely under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as delegated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Specifically, Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-50 establishes the standards for hazardous waste generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs). For a generator to be classified as a large quantity generator (LQG) in Ohio, they must meet certain criteria related to the amount of hazardous waste produced per month. Under RCRA regulations, which Ohio has adopted and often mirrored, an LQG is defined as a facility that generates 1,000 kilograms (kg) or more of hazardous waste, or 1 kilogram (kg) or more of acutely hazardous waste, or 100 kilograms (kg) or more of spill residue from acute hazardous waste in any single month. The question posits a scenario where a facility in Ohio generates 1,200 kg of non-acute hazardous waste in January and 950 kg in February. To determine the generator status, we examine the highest monthly generation rate. The highest rate is 1,200 kg in January. Since this amount exceeds the 1,000 kg threshold for non-acute hazardous waste, the facility qualifies as a large quantity generator for that month and, consequently, is subject to LQG requirements for the period it meets this status. The question asks about the status based on the highest monthly generation. Therefore, the facility is considered a large quantity generator.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) oversees various programs to protect the state’s air, water, and land. Under the Clean Water Act, Ohio EPA issues National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to regulate wastewater discharges. These permits set specific effluent limitations for pollutants. When a facility fails to meet these limitations, it is in violation. Ohio EPA has enforcement authority, which can include issuing notices of violation, administrative orders, and civil penalties. The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 6111 provides the statutory framework for water pollution control in Ohio, including the NPDES program and enforcement mechanisms. An administrative order issued by Ohio EPA would typically outline the violation, the required corrective actions, a timeline for compliance, and potential penalties if compliance is not achieved. This order is a formal directive to the violator.

The question pertains to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency’s (Ohio EPA) authority regarding the remediation of contaminated sites under the Voluntary Action Program (VAP). Specifically, it addresses the concept of a Covenant Not to Sue (CNS). A CNS is a legal agreement where the state agrees not to sue a volunteer for liability for existing contamination at a property, provided certain conditions are met. In Ohio, the VAP, established under Chapter 3746 of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) and administered by the Ohio EPA, allows for voluntary cleanup of contaminated properties. A key component of the VAP is the ability for a volunteer to obtain a CNS upon successful completion of a remediation under the program. This CNS is typically issued by the Ohio EPA or a Certified Environmental Professional (CEP) who has certified the completion of the remediation. The purpose of the CNS is to provide legal certainty to property owners and developers who undertake voluntary cleanups, encouraging investment in and redevelopment of contaminated sites, often referred to as “brownfields.” The CNS is contingent upon the volunteer adhering to the terms of the VAP, including the submission of a complete and accurate “No Further Action” (NFA) letter, which signifies that the property has been remediated to the applicable risk-based standards. The Ohio EPA retains oversight and can revoke a CNS if it is determined that the NFA was based on fraud, misrepresentation, or a failure to disclose material information. Therefore, the issuance of a CNS is a crucial step in the VAP process, offering protection from future liability for the volunteer.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) employs a tiered approach to hazardous waste management, primarily guided by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its state-specific implementation. When a facility generates hazardous waste, it must determine if it qualifies as a small quantity generator (SQG) or a large quantity generator (LQG) based on the monthly generation rate. For SQGs, the monthly generation limit for hazardous waste is between 100 and 1,000 kilograms. For LQGs, the monthly generation rate exceeds 1,000 kilograms. The specific regulations and compliance requirements, including manifesting, storage limits, and personnel training, differ significantly between these categories. A facility generating 1,200 kilograms of hazardous waste in a month, and consistently generating between 500 and 800 kilograms in other months, would be classified as an LQG for the month in which it exceeded the 1,000-kilogram threshold, and its subsequent compliance obligations would be dictated by LQG standards for that period, even if other months fall below that threshold. This classification is critical for determining the scope of applicable management standards under Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-52. The question probes the understanding of these generator status thresholds and their implications for regulatory compliance within Ohio.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) has established specific criteria for the management of solid waste, as detailed in the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 3734 and associated administrative rules. When a facility receives solid waste that is later determined to be hazardous waste, the generator of that waste is typically held responsible under the “cradle-to-grave” principle. However, the transporter and the receiving facility also have obligations. In this scenario, the facility that received the waste, even if unknowingly, must immediately notify the Ohio EPA and the generator. The waste must then be managed in accordance with hazardous waste regulations. If the facility itself is permitted for solid waste disposal but not hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal, it cannot continue to hold the hazardous waste. It must arrange for the proper transportation and disposal of the hazardous waste by a licensed hazardous waste transporter to a permitted hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF). The generator remains ultimately liable for the proper management and disposal of the waste they produced. The Ohio EPA will investigate the circumstances to determine compliance with all applicable statutes and rules, including potential penalties for violations. The key principle is that the generator’s responsibility extends to ensuring the waste is managed correctly, even after it leaves their direct control, and any facility receiving waste must take reasonable steps to identify its nature and manage it appropriately if it is later found to be regulated hazardous waste.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) oversees the state’s hazardous waste management program under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Ohio Revised Code Chapter 3734. When a facility generates hazardous waste, it must determine if it qualifies as a small quantity generator (SQG) or a large quantity generator (LQG) based on the amount of hazardous waste generated per month. For SQGs, the monthly generation limit is between 100 kilograms (kg) and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste, and no more than 1 kg of acute hazardous waste. LQGs generate more than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month or more than 1 kg of acute hazardous waste. The scenario describes a manufacturing facility in Ohio that generates 1,200 kg of hazardous waste per month, and specifically 1.5 kg of acute hazardous waste per month. Since the facility exceeds the 1,000 kg threshold for total hazardous waste generation and also exceeds the 1 kg threshold for acute hazardous waste generation, it is classified as a large quantity generator. This classification dictates specific requirements for storage, record-keeping, personnel training, and emergency preparedness, which are more stringent than those for SQGs. For instance, LQGs must comply with stricter accumulation time limits and manifest requirements for off-site transport. Understanding these thresholds is crucial for compliance with Ohio’s hazardous waste regulations, which are largely aligned with federal RCRA standards but may include state-specific nuances. The classification as an LQG is based on the highest threshold met, and in this case, both total hazardous waste and acute hazardous waste generation exceed LQG limits.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) employs a tiered approach to regulating hazardous waste generators, primarily under the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-52, which mirrors federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. Generators are classified based on the quantity of hazardous waste they produce per calendar month. A Very Small Quantity Generator (VSQG) is defined as a facility that produces no more than 100 kilograms (approximately 220 pounds) of hazardous waste per month, and no more than 1 kilogram of acute hazardous waste per month. Small Quantity Generators (SQGs) produce between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month, with similar limits for acute hazardous waste. Large Quantity Generators (LQGs) produce 1,000 kilograms or more of hazardous waste per month. The scenario describes a manufacturing plant in Ohio that generates 950 kilograms of non-acute hazardous waste and 0.5 kilograms of acute hazardous waste in a given month. Since the non-acute hazardous waste generation (950 kg) is less than 1,000 kg but more than 100 kg, and the acute hazardous waste generation (0.5 kg) is less than the 1 kg threshold for SQGs, this facility falls under the Small Quantity Generator classification. This classification dictates specific requirements for storage, record-keeping, reporting, and emergency preparedness, which are less stringent than those for LQGs but more rigorous than those for VSQGs. Understanding these quantity thresholds is fundamental to compliance with Ohio’s hazardous waste management program.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) categorizes solid waste facilities based on their operational characteristics and potential environmental impact. A “Construction and Demolition Debris (C&DD) Landfill” is specifically designed and permitted to accept and dispose of waste materials generated from the construction, renovation, and demolition of buildings and other structures. These materials typically include items like concrete, asphalt, brick, wood, drywall, and metals, provided they do not contain hazardous constituents. The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 3734, specifically the rules promulgated thereunder by the Ohio EPA, outlines the licensing and operational requirements for various solid waste facilities. ORC Section 3734.02(A) grants the Director of Environmental Protection the authority to adopt and enforce rules for the prevention of water pollution and the protection of public health and safety in relation to solid waste disposal. The classification of a facility as a C&DD landfill dictates the specific design standards, operating procedures, closure requirements, and post-closure care obligations that must be met. Other categories, such as municipal solid waste landfills or industrial waste landfills, have different sets of regulations due to the varied nature and potential hazards of the waste they are permitted to receive. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for compliance and for assessing the environmental management practices of a given facility.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) categorizes solid waste facilities based on their operational characteristics and potential environmental impact. The primary distinction for landfills is between construction and demolition debris (C&DD) landfills and sanitary landfills. C&DD landfills are specifically permitted to accept only waste generated from construction, alteration, repair, or demolition of any structure, including roads, bridges, and other infrastructure projects. This waste typically includes materials like concrete, bricks, asphalt, wood, drywall, and metals. Sanitary landfills, on the other hand, are designed to accept a broader range of municipal solid waste (MSW), which encompasses household waste, commercial waste, and institutional waste, excluding hazardous waste and industrial waste that requires special handling. The Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-27 outlines the regulations for solid waste facilities. Specifically, OAC 3745-27-01(A)(33) defines a “sanitary landfill” as a facility that disposes of solid wastes, excluding hazardous waste, in a manner that protects public health and the environment. OAC 3745-27-01(A)(27) defines a “construction and demolition debris landfill” as a facility that disposes of only C&DD waste. Therefore, a facility designed and permitted solely for the disposal of concrete, asphalt, and wood from building renovations would be classified as a construction and demolition debris landfill.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) oversees the regulation of solid waste management facilities under Chapter 3734 of the Ohio Revised Code and its associated rules, primarily found in the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-27. This chapter details the requirements for obtaining and maintaining a license for a sanitary landfill. A critical aspect of licensing is demonstrating financial assurance for closure and post-closure care. Ohio EPA rules mandate that a landfill owner or operator must establish a mechanism to cover these costs. One such mechanism is a surety bond, which is a financial guarantee from a third party (a surety company) that the landfill operator will fulfill their closure and post-closure obligations. The surety bond must be for a specific amount, determined by the Ohio EPA based on the landfill’s size, remaining capacity, and projected closure costs. This bond serves as a pledge of financial resources to ensure that even if the operator defaults, the state can access funds to properly close the landfill and monitor it for the required post-closure period, thereby protecting public health and the environment. The Ohio EPA’s review process for a surety bond includes verifying the surety company’s financial stability and ensuring the bond’s terms adequately cover the estimated closure and post-closure care costs as per OAC 3745-27-17.

In Ohio, the permitting process for industrial wastewater discharges is governed by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, which is delegated from the U.S. EPA. A facility seeking to discharge treated wastewater must obtain an NPDES permit. This permit establishes specific effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and reporting schedules. The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 6111, particularly sections related to water pollution control, outlines the state’s authority and procedures. Key to this is the concept of “Best Available Technology Economically Achievable” (BAT) for existing sources and “New Source Performance Standards” (NSPS) for new sources, which dictate the minimum treatment standards. If a facility’s discharge has the potential to cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards, or if it exceeds certain pollutant thresholds, the Ohio EPA may impose additional, more stringent “water quality-based effluent limitations” (WQBELs) beyond the technology-based standards. These WQBELs are derived from water quality standards established for the receiving water body, considering factors like designated uses (e.g., drinking water source, aquatic life habitat) and the assimilative capacity of the water. The determination of whether a WQBEL is necessary involves a review of the discharge’s impact on the receiving stream, often including modeling studies to predict pollutant concentrations. Therefore, a permit applicant must demonstrate that their proposed discharge will meet all applicable technology-based limits and will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards, which may necessitate WQBELs.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) categorizes solid waste facilities based on their operational characteristics and the types of waste they manage. A “construction and demolition debris (C&DD) processing facility” is specifically defined under Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Rule 3745-27-01 as a facility that receives, sorts, crushes, shreds, or otherwise processes C&DD debris for reuse or recycling. This definition distinguishes it from a disposal facility, which primarily accepts waste for landfilling. Ohio EPA regulations, particularly those found in OAC Chapter 3745-27, govern the permitting and operation of these facilities. The key differentiator for a C&DD processing facility is its focus on material recovery and reuse, rather than disposal. While such facilities may handle waste that would otherwise be disposed of, their primary function and regulatory classification hinge on the processing activities undertaken to divert materials from landfills and promote recycling. Therefore, a facility solely engaged in the crushing and sorting of C&DD debris for subsequent reuse or recycling aligns with the definition of a C&DD processing facility.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) has established specific regulations for the management and disposal of solid waste, primarily governed by Chapter 3734 of the Ohio Revised Code and associated administrative rules found in the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC). When a new solid waste facility, such as a landfill expansion or a new composting operation, is proposed, it must undergo a rigorous permitting process. This process is designed to ensure that the facility will not pose a threat to public health or the environment. A critical component of this process involves demonstrating compliance with technical standards for facility design, operation, and closure, as well as financial assurance requirements to cover eventual closure and post-closure care. The Ohio EPA reviews applications for completeness and technical adequacy, often involving public notice and comment periods to allow for stakeholder input. If the application meets all requirements, a permit is issued. Failure to comply with permit conditions or environmental laws can result in enforcement actions, including civil penalties and injunctions, as provided for under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 3745. The permitting process for solid waste facilities in Ohio is a comprehensive undertaking that requires detailed technical documentation and adherence to strict regulatory standards to safeguard environmental quality and public well-being.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) employs a tiered approach to managing hazardous waste, as primarily governed by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its state-specific implementation. When a facility generates hazardous waste, it must determine if that waste is listed or exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste. If it is, the generator must comply with specific storage, treatment, and disposal requirements. The concept of “cradle-to-grave” management, central to RCRA, mandates that responsibility for hazardous waste follows the material from its generation to its ultimate disposal. Ohio law, particularly under Chapter 3734 of the Ohio Revised Code and associated rules within the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC), outlines these responsibilities. For a generator to be exempt from certain stringent regulations, such as those pertaining to treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs), they must ensure their waste is properly managed within accumulation time limits and that any off-site shipment is to a permitted TSDF. The scenario describes a situation where a generator has managed to store waste on-site for an extended period, exceeding the typical regulatory limits for generators, and then seeks to transport it without the necessary manifest and destination facility permits. This action directly contravenes the spirit and letter of hazardous waste regulations, which require meticulous tracking and disposal at authorized facilities. The liability for improper disposal or storage remains with the generator, and failure to adhere to manifesting and permitted facility requirements constitutes a significant violation. Therefore, the most appropriate legal conclusion is that the generator remains fully liable for the waste, as their actions have bypassed the established regulatory framework designed to ensure safe management.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) oversees various programs to protect the state’s air, water, and land. One critical aspect of water pollution control is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, which is administered in Ohio under Chapter 6111 of the Ohio Revised Code. This program requires permits for any discharge of pollutants into navigable waters. Facilities that discharge wastewater must obtain an NPDES permit, which sets specific effluent limitations based on technology standards and water quality criteria. The Ohio Water Pollution Control Act, within Chapter 6111, grants the Ohio EPA the authority to issue, modify, and enforce these permits. For a facility that has ceased discharging but still has a valid NPDES permit, the requirement to maintain compliance with permit conditions, including monitoring and reporting, generally continues until the permit is formally terminated or revoked by the Ohio EPA. Termination requires a formal application process demonstrating that the discharge has ceased and will not resume, or that the facility no longer requires a permit. Simply ceasing operations without proper notification and termination procedures does not automatically relieve the facility of its obligations under the existing permit. Therefore, a facility that has ceased discharging but holds an active NPDES permit remains subject to its terms until the permit is officially terminated by the agency.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) employs a tiered approach to regulating hazardous waste generators, primarily under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as implemented in Ohio. The categorization of a generator as either a Very Small Quantity Generator (VSQG), Small Quantity Generator (SQG), or Large Quantity Generator (LQG) is determined by the amount of hazardous waste generated per month and the accumulation time limits. A VSQG generates 100 kilograms (kg) or less of hazardous waste per month, or 1 kilogram (kg) or less of acute hazardous waste per month, and stores no more than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste at any time. An SQG generates more than 100 kg but less than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month and stores no more than 6,000 kg of hazardous waste at any time. An LQG generates 1,000 kg or more of hazardous waste per month, or more than 1 kg of acute hazardous waste per month, or stores more than 6,000 kg of hazardous waste at any time. In this scenario, the facility generates 150 kg of hazardous waste per month and accumulates it for 75 days. Since 150 kg exceeds the 100 kg threshold for VSQG and the generation rate is consistent monthly, it falls into the SQG category. Furthermore, the accumulation time of 75 days is permissible for SQGs, as they are allowed to accumulate hazardous waste on-site for 180 days (or 270 days if the waste must be transported over 200 miles). Therefore, the facility is classified as a Small Quantity Generator.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) oversees the regulation of hazardous waste management under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its state-specific implementing regulations. A key aspect of this regulation is the determination of whether a waste is considered hazardous. This determination is crucial for proper handling, storage, transportation, and disposal. Ohio EPA utilizes a system of identifying hazardous wastes, which includes both listed wastes and characteristic wastes. Listed wastes are specific wastes from known sources that are deemed hazardous. Characteristic wastes, on the other hand, are wastes that exhibit one or more of four specific characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. For a waste to be considered hazardous due to toxicity in Ohio, it must exhibit a characteristic of toxicity as defined by the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-51. The most common method for determining if a solid waste exhibits the characteristic of toxicity is through the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The TCLP is a laboratory test designed to simulate the leaching that may occur when a waste is disposed of in a landfill. If the leachate from a TCLP test exceeds regulatory limits for specific contaminants, the waste is classified as toxic hazardous waste. In Ohio, the regulatory limits for toxicity are found in OAC 3745-51-24, which incorporates by reference federal regulations found at 40 CFR §261.24. These limits are for specific constituents, such as heavy metals and certain organic compounds. For example, if a waste leaches more than 5.0 mg/L of lead, it is considered to exhibit the characteristic of toxicity. This threshold is established to protect groundwater from contamination by hazardous constituents that could migrate from disposal sites. Therefore, any solid waste that, when subjected to the TCLP, yields a leachate containing any of the contaminants listed in OAC 3745-51-24 at or above the specified regulatory levels is classified as a toxic hazardous waste. The burden of proof is on the generator to demonstrate that their waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous characteristics.