Commissioners appeal EPA orders - Tuscarawas County officials vow to go it alone in landfill controversy
The Times-Reporter
BOLIVAR - Vowing not to abandon residents of the northern part of the county, Tuscarawas County commissioners are appealing decisions regarding Countywide Recycling and Disposal Facility.
The appeal involves orders issued March 28 by Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Director Chris Korleski. The agreement with Countywide calls for the landfill to pay more than $1 million in fines and follow strict orders to abate its odor issue and stop its underground fires. Countywide’s parent company, Republic Waste Services, has 60 days to submit a plan to snuff out underground fires at the landfill. The plan must be approved by the OEPA.
Countywide also must revise its odor control plan, assess the landfill’s integrity and perform weekly air quality sampling. The order also calls for capping the original 88 acres of the landfill and prohibiting any vertical expansion on that portion.
Commissioners made the announcement during a Legislative Luncheon Tuesday sponsored by the county Chamber of Commerce. The appeal has been filed with the Environmental Review Appeals Commission, said Commissioner Chris Abbuhl.
“We’re also appealing the specifics regarding the landfill’s liner,” he said. “We’re afraid that the liner has been compromised – or could be in the future – because of the underground fire. Our expert believes that the heat has diminished the life expectancy of the liner and that it could be breached in the future and pollute the aquifer. We want the EPA to take a closer look at that.”
“We don’t feel there’s a more important issue facing our citizenry,” said Commissioner Jim Seldenright.
Attorney Thomas W. Connors of the law firm of Black McCuskey Souers & Arbaugh at Dover wrote to commissioners April 16 about Korleski’s decision and whether to appeal. The letter was sent to Tuscarawas County Commissioner Kerry Metzger as chairman of the board of the Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne Joint Solid Waste Management District.
“Unfortunately, we’re at a political crossroads for the solid waste district,” Metzger said Tuesday. “The past board was more environmentally conscious. Unfortunately, there has been a change in the makeup of the board since the last election. Even though there is $4 million in interest in the district’s accounts that can be used for an appeal, the other board members will not support it, so, we’re going it alone. We’re very adamant that we are not going to abandon northern Tuscarawas County.
“The ultimate goal would be to shut down the landfill, but we knew there was a very slim chance of that. So, we’re trying to make it as safe as it can possibly be for us and our children. It will be costly, but it’s important for the quality of life of our residents in that area and for economic development. That had been a growth area of the county. Now, there’s talk of falling property values and people not wanting to be outside because of the odors from the landfill.”
Connor’s letter stated that the firm’s consultant, John Barone, said Korleski’s order “does not address leachate outbreak or probable groundwater contamination and does not clearly specify that liner issues must be addressed. In addition, it does not address effects of fire suppression on engineered components. ... The consultant believes that possible remediation measures could include excavation which could result in costs ranging near $100 million.”
The letter explains that Barone is a hydrogeologist and project manager with more than 30 years’ experience in contaminant investigation and remedial design relating to landfills and other facilities in private practice and at the U.S. EPA. Connors also stated he relied on experts from Michael Baker Corp. with expertise in liner, soil stability and groundwater contamination issues.
Although the letter states that historically it has been “difficult to overturn an EPA director’s order,” there is cause to consider an appeal.
“The more general standard for the director’s actions is whether it is reasonable and lawful,” Connors wrote. “A former member of ERAC, who I have consulted, advises that there have been times when ERAC reverses enforcement orders and that circumstances in this case are such that it presents as likely a possibility of a successful outcome as any he has seen. A successful outcome must be defined broadly to include a resolution by settlement, which may achieve some objectives but not all.”
