2018 Ohio 3028
Oh. Ct. App. 10th Dist. Frankl...2018Background
- AWMS operated the AWMS No. 2 class II brine (wastewater) injection well in Trumbull County; small seismic events (1.7 and 2.1) occurred nearby in 2014. ODNR Oil & Gas (the division) ordered a shut-in on Sept. 3, 2014 while it evaluated seismic concerns. AWMS appealed.
- AWMS proposed a restart plan using a traffic‑light protocol (reduced volumes/pressures, monitoring, stepwise increases). The division delayed site‑specific engagement pending development of a statewide induced‑seismicity policy.
- The Oil & Gas Commission affirmed the Chief’s suspension. AWMS appealed to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which found the Chief’s order unreasonable and fashioned an entry prescribing restart conditions (reduced pressure/volume, monitoring, and an emergency cessation procedure involving two AWMS and two commission representatives).
- ODNR appealed the common pleas court’s judgment to this court. The appeals court stayed the restart entry and reviewed whether the trial court exceeded its authority or acted without evidentiary basis.
- The court held that the trial court exceeded authority only insofar as it required two commission members to act (a non‑quorum board), and that the trial court abused its discretion by drawing unsupported conclusions about the likelihood seismicity would remain microseismic under the restart plan; it otherwise affirmed the commission.
Issues
| Issue | AWMS (Plaintiff) Argument | ODNR (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the common pleas court had authority to vacate the commission order and impose a restart plan | Court may fashion any order commission should have made; it can adopt a site‑specific restart plan | Only ODNR/Chief has sole, exclusive authority over injection regulation and permit conditions; court exceeded jurisdiction | Court may make orders the commission could have made, but it exceeded authority by creating a two‑member commission oversight requirement (invalid as non‑quorum) |
| Whether the court improperly ordered the Chief to propose a restart plan | Court can direct what order should have been made and solicit proposals | Court lacked authority to require the Chief to develop an operator's plan | Ordering the Chief to propose a plan was harmless error; assignment overruled as harmless |
| Whether the trial court drew factual conclusions about seismic risk without evidentiary support | Trial court relied on AWMS experts who said restart with traffic‑light monitoring was safe | Division argued trial court disregarded Chief’s testimony that seismicity can increase/spr ead and lacked evidentiary basis to find low public risk | Court abused discretion: trial court drew unsupported inferences about likelihood seismicity would stay microseismic and improperly picked among expert opinions; third assignment sustained |
| Whether the trial court relied on evidence outside the administrative record | AWMS submitted proposed entries; court cited a USGS report | Division argued proposed entries and the USGS report were outside the certified record and inadmissible | Court’s use of proposed entries as drafting aids was permissible; use of USGS report for background/context was acceptable (or harmless) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp., 37 N.E.3d 128 (Ohio 2015) (discusses ODNR’s regulatory authority over oil and gas)
- Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Oil & Gas Comm., 985 N.E.2d 480 (Ohio 2013) (agency powers derive from statute and are limited to statutory grant)
- Simmers v. N. Royalton, 65 N.E.3d 257 (Ohio App. 2016) (standards for review of commission orders by common pleas court)
- Johnson v. Kell, 626 N.E.2d 1002 (Ohio App. 1993) (defines "unreasonable" as lacking factual foundation for administrative‑appeal review)
- Citizens Comm. to Preserve Lake Logan v. Williams, 381 N.E.2d 661 (Ohio App. 1978) (same)