Citizens Against the Landfill in Hempstead Michael McCall Wayne Knox And the City of Hempstead v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Pintail Landfill, L.L.C.
03-14-00718-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 27, 2015Background
- Pintail Landfill, LLC applied (Aug 1, 2011) for a Type V municipal solid waste (MSW) registration to operate a transfer station (C&D recycling/transfer) on a site tied to a proposed landfill. The application sought processing and short-term storage incidental to transfer.
- TCEQ staff issued five Notices of Deficiency (NODs) over several months; Pintail supplemented its application and ultimately the Executive Director approved Registration No. 40259 (authorizing up to 94 tons/day) on July 23, 2013.
- Citizens Against the Landfill in Hempstead (CALH), two individuals, and the City of Hempstead filed administrative challenges and then suits; the district court consolidated the suits and upheld the agency decision. Appellants appealed.
- Core legal disputes: whether TCEQ properly authorized the facility by registration (rather than permit), whether issuance of a registration (with no contested-case hearing) violated due process, and whether issuing more than two NODs was improper.
- TCEQ’s position: the Solid Waste Disposal Act and Chapter 330 rules authorize registration for low‑volume transfer stations (<=125 tons/day), incidental processing/storage is permitted under that registration, Rule 330.9(f) did not apply to Pintail’s application, and the agency may issue multiple NODs as needed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether TCEQ erred in authorizing Pintail by registration instead of a permit | Appellants: registration inappropriate because facility will perform processing and storage (functions they say require a permit). | TCEQ: statute and Rule 330.9 allow registration for Type V transfer stations transferring ≤125 tons/day; incidental processing/storage is inherent to transfer and may be authorized by registration. | Court upheld TCEQ: registration proper; incidental processing/storage may be authorized under §330.9(b)(3). |
| 2. Whether issuance of a registration (no contested‑case hearing) violated due process | Appellants: denial of contested‑case hearing/informal process deprived them of procedural due process and harmed property/water interests. | TCEQ: no vested property interest was shown; Legislature authorized registrations with public comment and ED response; contested‑case hearing not required by due process in these circumstances. | Court upheld TCEQ: appellants failed to show a protected property interest; procedural protections provided were adequate. |
| 3. Whether TCEQ erred by issuing more than two Notices of Deficiency | Appellants: internal policy/flowchart and an NOD sentence indicate a two‑NOD limit; more NODs violated TCEQ policy and were arbitrary. | TCEQ: no rule/statute caps NODs; NODs are routine, iterative, and assessed case‑by‑case; flowcharts/memos are nonbinding and application was eventually made technically complete. | Court upheld TCEQ: no statutory limit on NODs; agency acted reasonably and did not abuse discretion. |
| 4. Whether Rule 330.9(f) required a different outcome (material recovery/10% rule) | Appellants: Rule 330.9(f) applies to any transfer station with a material recovery operation and imposes additional requirements. | TCEQ: 330.9 has multiple independent subsections; Pintail applied under 330.9(b)(3) and ED evaluated under that subsection — 330.9(f) was not applied. | Court accepted TCEQ’s reasonable interpretation: 330.9(f) did not automatically govern Pintail’s application submitted under 330.9(b)(3). |
Key Cases Cited
- R.R. Comm’n v. Tex. Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean Water, 336 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2011) (agency statutory interpretation and deference principles)
- Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality v. Bosque River Coalition, 413 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. 2013) (review of agency action for abuse of discretion/substantial evidence principles)
- McDaniel v. Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n, 982 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998) (TNRCC/TCEQ authority to use different regulatory levels including registrations)
- Phillips Petrol. Co. v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 121 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003) (agency rule interpretation; agency construction controlling unless plainly erroneous)
- Collins v. Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n, 94 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (issuance of permits and limits of agency action; permit issuance does not itself authorize injury to property)
- City of El Paso v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 883 S.W.2d 179 (Tex. 1994) (agency abuse of discretion standard)
- Tex. Health Facilities Comm’n v. Charter Medical-Dallas, Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. 1984) (substantial‑evidence rule equated with fair and reasonable agency conduct)