Summary of Citizens' Audit Findings and Recommendations Hamilton

Document Sample
Summary of Citizens' Audit Findings and Recommendations Hamilton Powered By Docstoc
					Summary of Citizens’ Audit Findings and Recommendations

Hamilton County stands at a crossroads. The status quo method of solid waste management
presents the well-traveled path, where individuals think about their garbage only long enough
to set it on the curb and municipalities rely primarily upon a single, giant, privately owned
landfill for waste disposal. The status quo has evolved over 65 years. It’s become
institutionalized by generations of decision makers who assume it to be cheapest and best for
their constituencies and who labor under a misunderstanding of the consequences.

Decisions about the Rumpke Sanitary Landfill in Colerain Township affect more than just
Hamilton County. The Hamilton County Solid Waste Management District reports that 56% of
what went into the landfill in 2009 came from outside Hamilton County. Even Rumpke’s hauling
competitors deliver waste to Colerain Township. Because of this, neighbors have seen both the
landfill and problems associated with it grow at an accelerated rate in recent years.

                                                     A 95-acre expansion, permitted in 2004,
                                                     will provide landfill space at present waste
                                                     generation rates until 2025. Rumpke
                                                     proposed another expansion of 350 acres
                                                     in 2006, which would provide capacity until
                                                     the year 2080. According to Rumpke, this
                                                     represents the ultimate expansion
                                                     possible, as interstate 275 would limit
                                                     further growth.

                                                     Then, presumably the well-traveled path
                                                     would come to an end and a solid waste
                                                     management plan that did not include the
                                                     Rumpke Sanitary Landfill in Colerain
                                                     Township would click into gear. Rumpke
                                                     would take steps to close the landfill, make
provisions for 30 years of monitoring and harvesting of landfill gas at their own expense, as
required by law, and after that, any problems resulting from landfill gas or leachate leaks would
be liabilities of the public sector.

This path represents unnecessary delay in solving the long standing problem of how to manage
our region’s solid waste. It also means unnecessary cost and risk to Hamilton County residents,
especially those in Colerain Township, who have suffered from nuisances, pollution and
mismanagement from the landfill for two generations. Dooming another two generations to
the same is irresponsible.
1|Page
Ohio Citizen Action and Colerain Township neighbor group Property Owners Want Equal Rights
(POWER) propose that Hamilton County, Rumpke and all stakeholders in the future of the
Rumpke Sanitary Landfill instead take another path. We propose working aggressively toward
the goal of Zero Waste, which would divert the maximum amount of waste possible from the
landfill, extend its capacity without expansion and therefore eliminate the perceived need to
expand at all. In addition, a Zero Waste strategy also promotes already stated goals of
reducing greenhouse gases, creating local jobs and increasing municipal income from the sale
of recyclables.

Many of the solid waste management districts which use the Rumpke Sanitary Landfill already
promote policies and programs consistent with a Zero Waste approach. Special items
collection, recycling program grants, yard waste drop off sites, online business-to-business
materials exchanges, free waste assessments and public education programs all logically lead to
integrated Zero Waste planning.

                          Several cities in the region, such as Blue Ash, Fairfield, Glendale,
                          Hamilton, Madeira, Monroe, Montgomery and Wyoming have
                          already joined the national vanguard, adopting larger recycling carts
                          and in some cases incentive systems designed to increase public
                          participation in curbside recycling. The City of Cincinnati has also laid
                          significant groundwork toward a Zero Waste approach by adopting
                          the Green Cincinnati Plan of 2008.

The plan, created to minimize the city’s contributions to climate change, included 8
recommendations from a Waste Task Team. The team suggested a cart-based curbside
recycling program, enhancement of commercial recycling, environmentally preferable
purchasing, a reuse network, enhancements to current electronics recycling programs, creating
infrastructure for food waste composting, volume-based trash fees and an incentive program
like RecycleBank. As of this writing, most of these initiatives are underway.

Halting expansion of the landfill represents a necessary first step on this new path from 20th
century waste management to 21st century resource management thinking. The region’s civic
leaders can create a myriad of programs and set goals as high as they choose, but without the
urgency and framework of an imminent landfill closure deadline, meeting maximum possible
waste diversion goals remains unlikely. The region must commit to a future without the
Rumpke landfill in Colerain Township sooner or later and the cost of making the transition
will only rise with time.




2|Page
What is a Citizens’ Audit?

The Citizens’ Audit presents information collected by Property Owners Want Equal Rights
(POWER), Ohio Citizen Action and Ohio Citizen Action Education Fund from public records,
company management and workers and from citizens themselves about pollution threats,
nuisances, site and company history, regulatory frameworks and opportunities for progress.
The recommendations in the Citizens’ Audit come from citizens, addressing issues of
importance to them and evaluating government and company performance according to their
own standards.

Research for the Citizens’ Audit includes public records requests from the Southwest Ohio
District Office of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), Northern Kentucky Solid
Waste Management Area, Butler County Solid Waste Management District, Solid Waste
Authority of Central Ohio, Hamilton County Board of Health and the Hamilton County
Department of Environmental Services (DES). Information from the websites of those sources,
plus the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Agency on Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, Rumpke, Rivers Unlimited, the City of Cincinnati Office of Environmental
Quality, Colerain Township, Waste & Recycling News, Waste Age Magazine, Secretary of the
State of Ohio, Hamilton County Auditor, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Dubuque
Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Agency, Rachel’s Hazardous Waste News (#316 and
#996) and the Greater Cincinnati Waterworks is also included. Other sources include Cincinnati
newspaper archives from the Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County, the Austin Texas
Zero Waste Strategic Plan, interviews with government and agency employees and citizen’s
own records.



Rumpke Good Neighbor Campaign Overview

Property Owners Want Equal Rights and Ohio Citizen Action launched a Good Neighbor
Campaign focused on Rumpke Consolidated Companies, Inc. on the 40 th anniversary of Earth
Day, April 22, 2010. The campaign’s goals are to:

   Stop the proposed expansion to nearly double the size of the Rumpke Sanitary Landfill in
    Colerain Township

   Promote recovery of the highest possible volume of material from our waste stream
    through recycling and waste reduction, moving our region away from dependence on
    landfills


3|Page
   Support the rights of communities to determine resource and waste management
    strategies, including where landfills are located.

Property Owners Want Equal Rights (POWER) existed for many years but incorporated as a non-
profit in 2007 to improve the quality of life and property values in Colerain Township, Ohio
through public involvement, awareness and empowerment. POWER became actively involved
in the landfill expansion issue in 1999 when Rumpke proposed the 95 acre “southern
expansion” and has worked diligently to research issues surrounding both that proposal and the
current “eastern expansion” proposal. POWER educates Colerain Township residents on the
issue via their website and email listserv and organizes them to speak out against expansion.
The group’s leaders testify at public meetings and hearings and provide interviews to the press
about Rumpke’s daily operations and plans. POWER also lobbied for a 24-hour landfill odor
complaint hotline to the Hamilton County Department of Health.




The two groups have also started a dialogue with Rumpke, meeting twice with senior staff and
also twice touring the landfill and Rumpke recycling facility in St. Bernard. At the date of this
writing, the two groups have organized the delivery of 3,833 letters, messages and children’s
drawings to Jeff Rumpke, Regional Vice President, urging him not to expand and to work with,
not against, the citizens of Colerain Township.



4|Page
Ohio Citizen Action is Ohio’s largest environmental organization with over 80,000 dues paying
members. Ohio Citizen Action supports local communities and companies in their efforts to
prevent pollution and promote environmental stewardship. Good neighbor campaigns
exemplify this cooperative approach. The model stresses direct engagement of companies to
enact their daily operations in ways that respect the community’s standards for public and
environmental health and quality of life. Good neighbor campaigns throughout the state have
led to improvements in people’s lives and in company/community relationships far beyond
what federal or state regulations would require and often in less time. Ohio Citizen Action
Education Fund is the research and education affiliate of Ohio Citizen Action.



Findings

   The Rumpke Sanitary Landfill (RSL) is practically speaking the only landfill in Hamilton
    County. Rumpke’s Bond Rd. Landfill in West Harrison, OH is the only other, but it accepts
    just 50 tons of waste per year, compared to RSL’s 1.9 million tons per year. The landfill is
    509 acres in area and approximately 350 feet deep, with 334 acres dedicated to holding
    wastes.

   Hamilton County Health Department
    records show that odor complaints
    from the landfill have risen
    consistently over the last two years.
    In 2009, 121 households complained,
    compared to 106 in 2008 and 56 in
    2007. 32% of complainants reported
    gas odors, 36% reported garbage
    odors and 32% reported combination
    odors. Complaints rose despite
    Rumpke’s odor mitigation efforts,
    which include daily cover of active
    landfilling area with fill dirt, an odor
    control misting system at the
    perimeter and a proposed thermal
    oxidizer at the gas recovery plant.

   When RSL began operations in 1945,
    Colerain Township was a sparsely
    populated, rural setting. Today
5|Page
     however, 60,144 souls call it home, with 21,929 people living within a two mile radius of the
     landfill. The landfill's expansion over the years has brought it ever closer to not only some of
     the township's older, working income neighborhoods, but also to Bevis Elementary and
     Northwest High schools. The proposed expansion would bring the landfill approximately
     3,000 feet from both schools.

    According to the Hamilton County Solid Waste Management District, 56% of the waste
     Rumpke accepted in 2009 came from outside the county (from other Ohio counties or other
     states). The revenue from this waste represents 71% of the total passed through Rumpke
     to the solid waste management district. Percentages for 2008, before the global recession,
     are even higher.

                    Top 10 Largest Landfills                        As a privately-owned landfill,
                   By tonnage received in 2008
                                                                     Rumpke decides whether or not it
                                                         2008        accepts out-of-district or out-of-
    Rank Landfill/Location      Owner/Operator       Tonnage         state waste and in what amount.
     1 Apex Regional            Republic Services  3,199,653
         Las Vegas, Nev.        Inc.
                                                                    The passage of Subtitle D of the
     2 Puente Hills             Los Angeles County 3,149,906
         Whittier, Calif.                                            federal Resource Conservation
     3 Newton County            Allied Waste         2,926,489       and Recovery Act in 1992, forced
         Landfill Partnership   Industries Inc.
         Brook, Ind.                                                 many smaller municipally owned
     4 Okeechobee               Waste Management     2,640,000       landfills across the region to close.
         Okeechobee, Fla.       Inc.                                 The new law required municipal
     5 Atlantic Waste           Waste Management     2,318,471
         Waverly, Va.           Inc.                                 solid waste landfills to observe
      6 Rumpke Sanitary         Rumpke              2,174,660        more stringent design,
        Colerain Township,      Consolidated Cos.                    construction and operation
        Ohio                    Inc.
                                                                     procedures and to provide for
     7    Pine Tree Acres      Pine Tree Acres       2,142,348       groundwater monitoring, closure
          Lenox, Mich.         Inc.
      8 El Sobrante            Waste Management 2,104,362            and post-closure care and
          Corona, Calif.       Inc.                                  corrective actions. This began a
      9 Veolia Orchard         Veolia                2,084,445
                                                                     trend toward larger, private
          Hills                Environmental
          Davis Junction, Ill. Services                              landfills, like the Rumpke Sanitary
     10 Denver Arapahoe        City and County of 1,946,126          Landfill. By volume of waste
          Disposal Site        Denver
          Aurora, Colo.                                              accepted annually, the landfill is
    SOURCE: Waste & Recycling News via state environmental           the sixth largest in the U.S.
    agencies, staff research.
    NOTE: Some totals are estimated or from previous years.         A portion of tipping fees collected
                                                                     at the landfill comprise the entire
                                                                     $2.1 million budget of the

6|Page
    Hamilton County Solid Waste Management District. The District does not pursue funding
    utilized by other waste management districts, such as waste generation fees or grants. This
    fact conflicts with the district’s mission to provide “ethical environmental leadership to
    equitably promote the public good through innovative and responsible strategies leading to
    the management of all waste as a resource that leads to a society that generates zero
    waste.”

   Hamilton County sends waste to 15 different regional landfills, yet the Rumpke Sanitary
    Landfill accepts approximately 4 times as much waste from the district as the other landfills
    combined.

   Hamilton County Solid Waste
    Management District
    estimates adequate capacity
    at the landfill until 2025,
    assuming that both waste
    generation rates and the
    current percentage of out-of-
    district and out-of-state waste
    accepted remain constant.
    The district estimates
    adequate regional capacity
    until 2021.

    Rumpke already leads the
    recycling market in the region.
                                           Waste Shed Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
    The $6 million investment in
    their materials recycling              (Hamilton County Solid Waste Management Plan)

    facility in St. Bernard will soon be followed by similar investment in other Rumpke recycling
    facilities in the region, according to the company. Rumpke is well positioned to benefit from
    increased regional recycling and has been quoted as saying “Recycling is our future.”
    However, landfilling waste is still far more lucrative for them than recycling, due in part to
    the stability of waste generation rates and their ability to control flow from out of the
    district vs. the volatility of recycling markets.

   The city of Montgomery adopted both larger recycling carts and the RecycleBank incentive
    system in 2008, as the City of Cincinnati plans to do in late 2010. In just the first year,
    Montgomery saw participation in its curbside recycling program grow by 39%. The city of
    Cincinnati estimates the recycling rate to nearly double in its first year.

7|Page
   Recycling and other programs that divert waste from landfills serve the public’s economic
    interest. For example, the City of Cincinnati Office of Environmental Quality estimates the
    average value of 1 ton of recyclables is $75, yet the city pays $75/ton to dump this valuable
    resource into the landfill. Additionally, a study by the Institute for Local Self Reliance found
    that 1 job was created for every 10,000 tons of waste landfilled, but 10 jobs were created
    for the same amount of waste recycled. Factor in repair/reuse jobs and recycling-based
    manufacturers and the figures rise dramatically.



                 Job Creation: Reuse and Recycling Vs. Disposal

                                                                  Jobs per
                   Type of Operation
                                                                 10,000 TPY
                   Product Reuse
                   Computer Reuse                                     296
                   Textile Reclamation                                 85
                   Misc. Durables Reuse                                62
                   Wooden Pallet Repair                                28
                   Recycling-based
                                                                       25
                   Manufacturers
                   Paper Mills                                         18
                   Glass Product Manufacturers                         26
                   Plastic Product Manufacturers                       93
                   Conventional Materials
                                                                       10
                   Recovery Facilities
                   Composting                                           4
                   Landfill and Incineration                            1

        TPY = tons per year
        Note: Figures are based on interviews with select facilities around the country.
        Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Washington, DC, 1997.


8|Page
   Rumpke estimates closure and post-closure costs for the landfill at $21,721,276 (2010). This
    is up from the year 2000 closure estimate of $13,080,689 - a 40% increase in a decade,
    which will only continue to rise over time.

   Closing the landfill sooner, rather than later, and aggressively transitioning to a Zero Waste
    approach will significantly minimize regional contributions to climate change. The U.S. EPA
    considers solid waste reduction to be the single most effective method of reducing
    greenhouse gas production. RSL is permitted by Ohio EPA to release 94,382,000 pounds of
    methane to air each year. This amount is in addition to methane sold by the gas recovery
    plant, which is the largest of its kind in the world.

   All landfills eventually leak. The U.S. EPA published in the Federal Register in 1988 “First,
    even the best liner and leachate collection system will ultimately fail due to natural
    deterioration, and recent improvements in MSWLF (municipal solid waste landfill)
    containment technologies suggest that releases may be delayed by many decades at some
    landfills.” This assertion suggests that the post-closure monitoring period of 30 years, for
    which Rumpke is responsible, inadequately protects public health from inevitable leaks of
    leachate into groundwater. Liner systems can only increase the chances that leaks will
    occur later rather than sooner, thus externalizing the cost of leaks to the people whose
    groundwater is contaminated, future owners of the landfill and/or the public.


What is Rumpke Consolidated Companies, Inc. and what does it do?

Rumpke Consolidated Companies, Inc. is private, family-owned and operated business,
headquartered on Hughes Rd. in Colerain Township, a suburb of Cincinnati, OH. The business
has diversified tremendously, since brothers William F. and Bernard Rumpke founded it in 1932
and is comprised of 20 separate affiliated companies.

Today William F.’s son, William J. Rumpke Sr., operates the business, which includes 9 landfills,
6 transfer stations, recycling, portable restrooms and hydraulics divisions, a management
services company and a ballpark complex. Rumpke runs its own trucks on trash and recycling
collection routes throughout its service area, which includes most of Ohio and parts of
southeastern Indiana, northern Kentucky and West Virginia.

Rumpke owns over 1,118 acres in Colerain Township under the names of 9 different companies.
Two of the company’s principal leaders live in the township.

The company currently ranks as the 15th largest solid waste firm in the nation, according to
Waste Age Magazine, which also lists it as the 4th largest privately owned solid waste firm.
Waste Age further reports Rumpke’s 2009 revenue as $396 million, down from $407 million in
2008.
9|Page
Rumpke Sanitary Landfill (RSL) History
1945-1995

The Colerain landfill was founded in
1945, following an injunction demanding
closure of the Rumpke operation in
Carthage on W. 71st street, due to
nuisance issues. Only then did the
Rumpke brothers begin dumping on their
family farm, Wildebrook, near a private
recreational facility called Handle Bar
Ranch. Handle Bar Ranch owners Percy
and Anna Gay Ritter were among the
dump’s earliest and most ardent critics.

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s,
neighbors complained about nuisance
odors, smoke, truck traffic, garbage and industrial waste spilled on their roadways and leaks
into nearby Banklick Creek. A Hamilton County prosecutor moved to close the dump through a
nuisance abatement action in 1954 and later that same year, Common Pleas Court Judge
Carson Hoy ordered it closed, stating “It seems utterly unfair to me that the people of the
county should expect the people surrounding Rumpke’s property to put up with nuisance simply
because the proper disposal of the garbage would be more expensive.” (Cincinnati Post 5-6-
54). After several appeals, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed Hoy’s ruling in 1956.

In 1960, Hamilton County Health Commissioner Dr. J. Edwin Reed issued an order banning
private dumps in the county, effective January 31, 1961. New municipal incinerators were
touted as better alternatives to open dumping and the county was counting on Cincinnati
building a 500 ton per day incinerator. However, once homeowners recognized the cost to burn
trash was greater than landfilling, the incinerator bond issue failed and trash continued to flow
to Colerain Township.

In 1968, Rumpke was fined $500, the maximum sentence at the time, for polluting Banklick
Creek. County Sanitation Supervisor George Bailey presented the rationale for keeping the
landfill open, despite the complaints and violation: no other place for the garbage and industrial
waste to go.

Also during this time Rumpke faced a $3 million damage lawsuit from neighbors seeking to
close the dump, a suit filed by the Ohio Department of Health to “cease and desist” polluting
the creek and a court order to stop accepting industrial waste. The citizen lawsuit would later
10 | P a g e
be dropped so the 22 plaintiffs might join the state’s case, which was dismissed in U.S. District
Court in 1971. Cincinnati Water Works director Charles Bolton warned that pollution in
Banklick Creek would contaminate a newly developed well field that would supply water to
Cincinnati residents. The contamination resulted from liquid industrial wastes contained in a
109 acre open lagoon, flooding the creek during heavy rains.

                                                    In January 1970, Rumpke installed a partially
                                                    open-air pipeline to drain the lagoon into a
                                                    trunk line paid for by Struble Rd. residents to
                                                    eliminate the problem of septic tank odors in
                                                    their homes. The trunk line hooked into
                                                    Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) sewers,
                                                    but MSD refused to accept waste from the
                                                    lagoon until it was “clear of chemicals”
                                                    (Cincinnati Enquirer, 5-23-70). Rumpke’s
                                                    Struble Rd. neighbors began noticing
                                                    increased odors in their homes in February
                                                    and blamed Rumpke’s use of their trunk line.
                                                    Eventually the Ohio Water Pollution control
                                                    board ordered Rumpke to build a permanent
                                                    pumping system and MSD built new sewers.

In 1972, William J. Rumpke Sr. and Thomas Rumpke took over the dump’s operation from their
fathers. They implemented changes including providing daily earth cover, three new lagoons to
replace the 109 million gallon “lake” of industrial waste, shredding and compacting waste with
heavy machines, litter control fences and perhaps most significantly, hiring a public relations
company. Even after these attempts to bring the landfill into better compliance with state and
federal regulations and to address the charges of its critics, conflict between the company, its
neighbors and regulators persisted. That same year, the state filed a $5 million pollution lawsuit
against the company which led to a court approved consent decree for cleanup.

The late 1980s and early 1990s saw the formation of Colerain Citizens Against Pollution, who
filed an $80 million lawsuit against Hamilton County, claiming that the county failed to enforce
zoning laws by allowing Rumpke to expand from 63 to 234 acres in 1961. The suit also sought a
$950,000 fine from Rumpke and immediate closure of the landfill. The case cited a February
1987 Ohio EPA report indicating that as many as 82,000 people getting drinking water from the
Bolton Water Treatment Plant could be affected by contamination from the landfill. Rumpke
offered six of the families living closest to the landfill $1.2 million to withdraw from the suit,


11 | P a g e
which was later augmented by $108,500 from Hamilton County, but the other 22 families later
lost their case and the landfill remained open.

In 1986, Getty Synthetic Fuel Inc. announced plans to build a landfill-to-pipeline gas recovery
plant at the landfill. The $5 million facility harvested landfill gas, refined the methane and sold it
to Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company as home heating fuel. A second gas recovery plant was
built by Rumpke and Getty in 1995.



Rumpke Sanitary Landfill (RSL) History 1996-Present

                                       The year 1996 was clearly the company’s worst year ever.
                                      A 30-acre “trash slide” on March 9 resulted in tremendous
                                      releases of landfill gas and odors and closed the landfill for
                                      two days. The slide occurred in part because Rumpke piled
                                      trash 70 feet higher than permitted and at a steeper than
                                      usual slope. They had dug a nearly vertical wall near the toe
                                      of the slope that would eventually fail, which created
                                      instability in the mass of garbage. Four fires followed that
                                      year, as Rumpke’s efforts to rebuild and repair the slope
                                      dragged on.

By late August, County Health Commissioner Tim Ingram said they had reached the half-way
point, but he warned that failure to bring the landfill back into compliance with health and
environmental regulations before the winter rains might result in revocation of Rumpke’s
operating license. There were also questions raised about the company’s financial solvency
after they missed paying taxes, fees and penalties to state, county and local agencies. The
company was forced to pay a $1 million fine and hire a chief operating officer and an
environmental compliance officer to address deficiencies in company operations.

                                                                          By December, Ohio EPA
                                                                          Director Donald
                                                                          Schregardus questioned
                                                                          Rumpke’s “reliability,
                                                                          competence and
                                                                          expertise”, citing their
                                                                          long-standing lack of
                                                                          compliance with
                                                                          environmental laws and

12 | P a g e
noting they had “violated court and administrative orders.” (Cincinnati Post, December 10,
1996) This lack of competence also applied to five other sites and facilities they owned and
nearly stopped Rumpke’s purchase of the Bond Rd. landfill in Harrison, IN and its sale of a
medical waste incinerator in Cincinnati. However, because of the county’s lack of initiative to
find another way, both sales went through and again Rumpke escaped closure with their license
and their flagship property intact.

In the late 1990s, the ELDA landfill in Winton Place closed. It had been accepting 7,000 to
11,000 tons of trash per week from the City of Cincinnati and other parts of the county, which
was now to go to Colerain Township. The RSL also began accepting more waste at this time, as
smaller, older landfills that were unable to comply with new federal regulations closed.

In 1999 Rumpke applied for a zoning change to allow 95 acres of land it owned to be used for
landfilling waste and for various buildings. The township planning and zoning commission
denied the request and Rumpke responded by suing the township, stating its denial of the
requested zoning change was unconstitutional, arbitrary and unreasonable. The company
further claimed that by denying the requested zoning change, the township was in effect taking
their land without just compensation. After reviewing its options, the township decided that
the cost of a legal battle and potential damages it might have to pay Rumpke were not in the
interest of the citizens and it signed a consent decree in 2000. In 2004, Rumpke received its
permit to expand from Ohio EPA and began preparing the site in 2005.

In 2004 Rumpke detected and reported to
Ohio EPA an ammonia “seep” into Banklick
Creek. Ammonia is an indicator of the
presence of leachate and in this case was
detected at 830 parts per million. Normal
background levels of ammonia in streams is
1 part per million. According to a July 2004
Ohio EPA fact sheet, “An analysis of the
leachate from the seep determined it to be a
product of waste left in place after the 1996
landfill slide. This area of the landfill is
currently undergoing groundwater corrective
measures and assessment monitoring.
Because of the landfill slide, this area of the
landfill does not have liner beneath it and is
more vulnerable to leachate influence than
lined portions of the landfill.”
13 | P a g e
                                                      The leachate migrated from the landfill via
                                                     groundwater through a previously unknown
                                                     pathway, down a gravel drain located
                                                     beneath the sedimentation pond.
                                                     Investigators also noticed a distinct leachate
                                                     odor at the seep. As part of its remediation
                                                     plan, Rumpke had to build a 450 foot
                                                     interceptor trench and containment wall
                                                     between the seep and the creek and increase
                                                     the frequency of its monitoring.

                                                Rumpke again saw findings, fines and orders
                                                from Ohio EPA in 2005, this time regarding
                                                the illegal acceptance of 1,980 pounds of
                                                chromium from Clean Harbors and 554
                                                pounds of methyl ethyl ketone from General
                                                Polymers. Rumpke attempted to deny the
                                                chromium they accepted was technically
                                                hazardous waste, indicating that it was below
                                                the 5 micrograms per liter regulatory limit to
                                                be considered hazardous. However, Ohio EPA
tested of some of the same waste sent to Rumpke retained by Clean Harbors and found it to be
6.34 micrograms per liter. Rumpke was required to pay a fine, notify its commercial customers
what types of waste are acceptable and improve its hazardous waste prevention and detection
program, but the hazardous waste they accepted was never removed from the landfill.

Within a year after its victory over Colerain Township Planning and Zoning Commission for the
southern expansion, Rumpke pressed on, applying in March 2006 for another zoning change.
This time the expansion was to be 350 acres to the east, a move toward the Pottinger
subdivision that would close down Hughes Rd. between Bank and Struble. Of the proposed
expansion, 291 acres would be active landfill space, essentially doubling the area used to
contain waste. The zoning commission voted once more to deny the request. At a September
public hearing organized by the Colerain Township Trustees, 400 people turned out to learn
more and be heard. POWER presented a petition against the expansion with 400 signatures.
After weighing public opinion, the Trustees voted to uphold the zoning commission’s denial.

Rumpke once more sued the township for “taking” their land, but amended their lawsuit a
short time later to include a claim that the landfill is a public utility, and therefore not subject to
local zoning laws. In March 2009, Judge Ralph Winkler ruled in Rumpke’s favor and as of the
14 | P a g e
time of this writing, an appeal is pending. If Rumpke succeeds in its public utility claim, the
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio will not regulate hauling and disposal rates, as it does with
other utilities.

In 2007, Rumpke and GSF Energy (successor to Getty Synthetic Fuels) built a third gas recovery
plant, making the complex at the landfill the largest of its kind in the world. By 2008, they
started to see a reduction in the quantity of gas coming from the north end of the landfill,
which they attributed to too much condensed water in the wells. Accordingly, the decision was
made to add dewatering pumps and to re-drill certain wells to increase the flow of gas. By June
2009 the project was completed and the pumps were turned on. According to a February 2010
Rumpke document titled Historical Information of Events Relative to Elevated Temperatures for
W-135 and the Affected Area:

        “GSF first noted a rise in wellhead temperatures in the north end of RSL (Rumpke
        Sanitary Landfill) almost immediately after turning on the pumps. This was not
        unexpected because many of those wells had water in the borehole that restricts the
        flow of LFG (landfill gas). In general, when the water level in a given well is lowered
        sufficiently to expose some of the slot lines in the casing, LFG flow increases from the
        base of well where typically gas temperatures are higher than at the top of the well. This
        results in an increase in well head (sic) temperature.”

On August 31, 2009, Rumpke reported to various oversight agencies temperatures above the
safe operating level of 149 degrees Fahrenheit and lower than optimal methane levels - under
50%- in well W-135. While there was no smoke or flame, a reaction 100 feet underground with
temperatures this high was
considered “fire” by
regulators. By March 2010,
Ohio EPA, Rumpke, Hamilton
County Department of
Environmental Services, U.S.
EPA, Hamilton County Public
Health Department and
Colerain Township Fire
Department & Trustees had
formed a task force and
drafted a response plan.
Subsequent monitoring of 18
different locations in the
affected area found
15 | P a g e
temperatures as high as 200 degrees Fahrenheit and also elevated carbon monoxide levels. In
March 2010, Rumpke received a $98,000 fine for violating the Clean Air Act with emissions from
the fire. Despite repeated efforts to be included at the table, neither POWER nor any other
citizen group was represented.

The garbage odors that typically came from the landfill had changed to a more chemical, gas-
like odor. Odor complaints rose dramatically after the fire began, with 58 complaints logged
over five days in March. At an April 1st public meeting about the fire, 175 people came to hear
the various agencies report on the situation and express their anger and frustration at yet
another accident at the landfill. They learned that approximately 11 acres were affected by the
fire and that “abnormal settlement” (Ohio EPA presentation, April 1, 2010) was occurring in an
area called Phase V, which had been filled between 1998 and 2002. Rumpke documents
indicated the rate of settlement was approximately 1 foot per week .

Despite reviewing waste profiles from the area, no one knew what was burning or how it
started. Regulators took air samples looking for elevated levels of carbon monoxide, hydrogen
sulfide, volatile organic compounds and explosive gases and tested leachate and wells. When a
neighbor asked for a worst-case-scenario, U.S. EPA representative Paul Reusch said, “This is the
worst-case-scenario.” With a fire happening where no one could get at it, in the presence of
explosive gases and near to the “grandfathered” area of the landfill where the oldest waste was
buried before hazardous or solid waste laws were passed, many did not believe him.

Rumpke installed a temporary cover over the area by the end of May to help keep odors down.
Unfortunately, the trench excavation necessary to install the temporary cover led to worse
odors in the community all through May and June. As of this writing, the fire still burns and the
cause is still unknown.




16 | P a g e
Between April and November, 2009 Rumpke also reported several accidents or “non-
compliances” with their National Pollution Elimination Discharge (Clean Water Act) water
permit including:

   12,000 gallons of sewage spilled from a broken sewer line

   150 gallons of leachate spilled , due to pump failure

   60 gallons of leachate spilled

   300 gallons of leachate spilled to a drainage ditch

On March 18, 2010, Rumpke was fined $98,000 by Ohio EPA for violating the Clean Air Act,
related to the fire. In June, OEPA sent a notice of violation of the Clean Air Act, again related to
the fire. Specifically, this violation pertained to the odor event in March, which was found to be
the result of odor control equipment failure.



Rumpke neighbor survey

On June 5,6, 29 and July 22, Ohio Citizen Action staff, volunteers and POWER members
conducted door-to-door surveys of people living in communities closest to the landfill.
Residents described problems resulting from their proximity to the landfill and reported how
long they have lived in their homes. Many of
them provided contact information to stay
informed and agreed to put up yard signs
supportive of the Rumpke good neighbor
campaign. Below are the results of the
survey:

159 people responded to the survey

114 people provided contact information to
stay informed

88 people agreed to post signs in their yards

139 people reported experiencing odors
from the landfill, with 73 reporting odors at
least weekly. Odors were mostly described
                                                     Rumpke neighbor’s chimney, anchored to prevent
as “trash” or “garbage”, but some described             further slipping or collapse from blasting

17 | P a g e
odors as smelling of “fire”, “gas”, “chemicals” or “natural gas”. Many reported that odors are
worse in summer.

7 people reported sewage odors, some of which are coming through basement slabs or drains.

37 people reported that blasting was a nuisance, with 13 reporting at least weekly occurrences.
Some homeowners reported damage to their homes they believe to be related to the blasting.



Neighbor Testimonials

“I moved to Colerain Township when I was only 2 years old. As I child I loved the country
atmosphere and knew one day I wanted my own home in Colerain. In 1979 that dream came
true. My husband and I purchased a home just off Crest Road. Yes, we knew the landfill
existed on Hughes Road. I called the landfill to ask about how much longer they would be
operating. I was told that they had about another 3-5 years capacity. Wanting to make sure, I
contacted Hamilton County Zoning to inquire about the zoning surrounding the landfill. I was
told it was the AA Residential, which only allowed for single family homes on acre+ lots. I felt
secure that the largest investment I would make in my life was protected.

                                             What I would learn over the next 27 years would
                                             be beyond belief. There was one zone change
                                             from AA Residential to Heavy Industrial. This
                                             equaled more landfill. Then there was the
                                             landslide at Rumpke with smoke, ash, and smell
                                             that went on way too long. Then another zone
                                             change and Rumpke grew again. Now they were
                                             found to have polluted Banklick Creek with
                                             ammonia, still there was another zone change.
Today we have an underground fire at the landfill and Rumpke is asking for yet another zone
change on over 300 acres.

I didn’t move near a landfill…IT MOVED NEAR ME! If you travel Hughes Road, look closely and
you will see remnants of a chain link fence laced with plastic slats. That was installed to hide
the landfill. Now the looming garbage mound hides that very fence.

Three years ago I left the home and township I loved. It is time to stop the pattern of
desecration before more families move away from Colerain Township.” – KAREN STEVENSON



18 | P a g e
“My problem started on March 17th when my basement backed
up with sewage. The smell was like no other backup. RotoRooter
came out to my house and the guy said he hadn’t smelled a
backup like that before but couldn't figure out what it was. So
they cleaned out my pipes and left. On March the 19th I had
another backup. At this point I called RotoRooter again and they
came out to examine my pipes with a camera to see if it was a
tree root but could not find any reason why it was backing up. On
Saturday morning my mom and dad came down to help me clean
out my basement for the 2nd time and it backed up again. At this
point they told me to call Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD), so I did. They came out and found
out that there was a blockage in the sewer that caused my backup. After doing some
investigation they said Rumpke was the cause. The liquid they were pouring down the lines is
what caused the blockage.

Since then, MSD has been out a few times cleaning my basement because of the odor that
remains down in my basement. The 3rd time they were out, they removed my carpet but the
smell still remains in my basement. The smell comes up through a drain in my basement which
makes my basement smell like sewage. They are blaming Rumpke for this and I am unable to
put my basement back to the way it was until they can figure out how to remove the smell.

I bought this house with a partial finished basement and now I do not have the use of it
anymore. I have to go down there and do my laundry and I dread it because it smells on a daily
basis. When I had approached Rumpke when this first started, they of course blamed MSD and
said they didn’t cause it.

I do feel that the expansion of the landfill would intensify the smell in my house and around my
yard. If the smell already exists, can you imagine what it will be like after a couple of more
hundred acres of trash is added?” - TRISH LANNING Struble Rd. resident and Rumpke neighbor



Landfills and health

Municipal solid waste landfills may not accept materials that are “corrosive, flammable,
reactive, explosive, toxic or otherwise hazardous “, according to federal regulations. However,
many materials acceptable in municipal solid waste landfills would be considered dangerous to
the average person. Even typical household trash contains items like pesticides, herbicides,
fertilizers, paint, shoe polish, cleaning products, liquid plumber, solvents, pharmaceuticals and
batteries, all of which can be toxic to living organisms. Furthermore, Rumpke regularly accepts

19 | P a g e
industrial waste, provided it is solid, including sludge, contaminated dirt/soil, “empty” drums
(which may contain residues), asbestos, animal carcasses and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
waste below a concentration of 50 parts per million.

The constituent chemicals from hazardous household and industrial wastes found in landfill gas
can include acrylonitrile, benzene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-cis dichloroethylene,
dichloromethane, carbonyl sulfide, ethyl-benzene, hexane, methyl ethyl ketone,
tetrachloroethylene, toluene, trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, sulfides, carbon monoxide, and
xylenes. If inhaled, these chemicals can result in respiratory irritation, headaches, organ
damage (eye, liver, kidney and heart), neurological damage, reproductive dysfunction
(miscarriage, abnormal sperm), developmental disabilities (birth defects, precocious puberty)
and in high doses, even cancer and death. (Source: Agency on Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry and U.S EPA)

When these wastes combine with rainwater and each other into leachate, they form another
public health risk through their potential to leak into streams and groundwater and affect
drinking water supplies. A 1990 study by civil engineers named Bonaparte and Gross found that
even state-of-the-art high density polyethylene (HDPE ) liners like those used at the RSL can be
expected to eventually leak at the rate of about 20 gallons per acre per day.




20 | P a g e
The leakage is caused by pinholes made during manufacture, failed seams between sheets of
liner and even by certain chemicals passing right through. A University of Wisconsin study from
1991 showed that diluted solvents such as xylenes, trichloroethylene, methyl chloride and
toluene penetrate HDPE in one to thirteen days. Time-related liner failures like “stress
cracking” or “brittle fracture” are also possible. A leachate leak to groundwater near the landfill
could affect 132,000 people whose drinking water is supplied by the Bolton Water Treatment
Plant.

Health problems from fine particles in the air are an often overlooked threat from landfills, but
are just as serious as airborne chemicals or water pollution. Rumpke's Title V air permit allows
them to release up to 66,580 pounds of fine particles per year. Of that amount, 96% are
particles smaller than 10 microns. It is these smaller particles that arguably pose the greatest
threat to health, as they are able to penetrate more deeply into the lungs and aggravate
existing respiratory problems such as asthma. Fine particle pollution also contributes to
cardiovascular conditions such as heart disease. Elderly people and children are considered to
be most at risk from fine particle pollution.



Zero Waste Programs

The Zero Waste approach aims to send zero waste, or as close to zero as possible, to landfills or
incinerators, by recovering material and reprocessing it so that it can be reintroduced into the
economic system. The goal is not only to improve public and environmental health by phasing
out landfills and incinerators, but to improve the efficiency and stability of our economies. The
concept, sometimes known as “landfill free”, models itself on nature, where there is no waste,
because every output is also an input for another process in a perfect, closed loop. It is about a
shift in thinking from how to dispose of solid waste to how to manage our resources to avoid
wasting them.

Zero Waste can be practiced at the individual, corporate and community level, each one
complementing and facilitating the others and leading toward a societal shift toward global
sustainability. For the purpose of this audit, only policies and programs at the community level
will be explored.

No community has yet achieved Zero Waste, but many have made great strides, recovering 75%
or more of their waste stream. Because accomplishing Zero Waste requires rethinking and
redesigning the foundations of our economy, it can only be done on a societal scale, after a
critical mass of individuals, businesses and communities have made the shift. For that reason,


21 | P a g e
the communities that have adopted the Zero Waste approach have set intermediate goals and
timelines that are within their own power to accomplish.

Zero Waste programs are implemented at the community level through a combination of public
education, policy, and changes in manufacturing. There is no one way to work toward the goal
and each community must find its own path.

Case Study: Austin, Texas

After deciding to work toward Zero Waste in 2005, the city of Austin, Texas engaged a
consultant to prepare a Zero Waste Strategic Plan, which was completed after a year-long fact
finding and public consultation process in 2008. Austin presents an interesting model for
Greater Cincinnati's examination, because unlike some other Zero Waste cities like San
Francisco, CA or Nantucket, MA, landfill space is relatively
plentiful and tipping fees relatively cheap. Like our region, most
of their landfills are privately owned and therefore not subject
to municipal limits on out-of-district or out-of-state waste. Also
like us, they had put recommendations from a climate
protection plan and other recycling and resource recovery
programs into motion before recognizing how a Zero Waste
approach can complement and accelerate progress toward
those programs' goals.

The consultant began by studying Austin's solid waste management systems and what aspects
of it were in the city's control. Next, he created an inventory of the materials (waste) generated
in the area and existing infrastructure to reuse, repair, recycle and/or compost the materials.
This process highlighted opportunities for improvements and market development for
recovered materials.

Policy and program options discussed with the public and other stakeholders were organized
into the following categories:

       Upstream – Actively advocate for legislation and programs that will incentivize or
        require manufacturers to take back their products and packaging, also known as
        Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

       Downstream- Reduce, reuse, recycle and compost all materials that are discarded for
        their highest and best use

       Green Business, Green Buildings and Jobs – Reintegrate post-use materials into the local
        economy by supporting green, sustainable and Zero Waste businesses. Given the
22 | P a g e
        opportunity, resources and incentives to do so, entrepreneurs will create new green
        collar jobs.

       Residuals management and Regional Coordination – Stop or regulate the flow of wastes
        from outside the area into landfills in the Austin area as the region reduces reliance
        upon them

The intention was not to adopt all options together, especially since some of them actually
conflict with one another, but to create a list to shape the way forward and identify priorities.
Further categorization of the options into those which required little, some or much political
capital and resources also provided structure to the plan.

Next, the consultant analyzed the potential for job creation from recovering and diverting
resources. The total waste landfilled in a year was broken down into twelve categories and the
tons per year total for each category. Factoring in different equations for collection/sorting
jobs, processing jobs and remanufacturing jobs, the consultant determined that Austin could
generate 1,819 jobs from diverting all its waste from landfills.



Case Study: Dubuque, IA

Dubuque also presents an interesting model for our area to study. While a much smaller city,
Dubuque has similar values and culture to us and similarly low landfill tipping fees. The primary
difference is that Dubuque’s landfill is municipally owned, therefore waste diversion will have a
commensurate impact on landfill capacity.

                               Like Austin, they set a goal – 50% waste diversion in five years -
                              and engaged a consultant to study the most practical path to
                              reach it. Having enacted a volume-based trash fee in 2002, the city
                              had already provided incentive to recycle among residents. The
                              consultant helped to identify areas particularly ripe for
                              improvement, including business recycling and construction and
                              demolition debris recycling.

                              The recommendations took the form of a “road map” comprised
of both institutional and technological options. The options were selected based on 11 criteria
including cost, diversion potential, acceptability, viability and more. Dubuque’s plan
prominently features building a Resource Recovery Park on the site of their existing landfill.



23 | P a g e
The vision for the Resource Recovery Park is that of a centralized waste diversion engine. The
park would include a recycling sorting facility, reuse center, large compost facility, improved
household hazardous waste facility, construction and demolition debris recovery facility and
would serve as an incubator for future recycling based manufacturing.



Resource Recovery Parks – a 21st century alternative to landfills

Resource Recovery Parks (RRP) provide a focal point for Zero Waste job creation and benefits to
both the participating businesses and the public.

Participating businesses, including small entrepreneurs, can pool physical, financial, personnel,
energy and service-related resources to facilitate start up and operation of their individual
concerns. By co-locating a variety of materials recovery businesses in one place, a RRP can help
transform one company’s waste into another’s feedstock. Examples of businesses that might
locate in a RRP include:

       Salvage, repair, restoration or refinishing shops for furniture, appliances, antiques, art or
        electronics

       Collection and processing for electronics, computers and household hazardous waste

       Collection, and remanufacturing facilities for tires and latex paint

       Collection and processing services for recyclable materials including paper, glass, plastic,
        metal (including scrap metal) and textiles

       Collection and processing services for yard waste, food scraps, food contaminated
        paper, wood, soils and other putrescibles

       Collection and processing of construction and demolition debris including scrap lumber,
        doors, windows, plumbing fixtures, ceramics, concrete, asphalt, roofing materials, bricks
        and mixed demolition debris

       Estate organization services

       Goodwill Industries and other non-profit resale stores

       Retail resale stores including consignment stores for valuable items

       Green design and building professionals like building supply stores, LEED architects,
        landscapers and interior designers
24 | P a g e
The public will also benefit from bringing material to the RRP instead of setting it out to be sent
to the landfill. Public benefits include:

        Minimization of wastes requiring payment for disposal

        Recovered value from the sale of valuable, but unwanted items

        Convenient “one-stop” option for purchase of lower-cost reused, repaired or recycled
         items



Other municipalities that have pledged Zero Waste

Community               Zero Waste pledge                   Recycling rate at pledge date      Update, 2010
Nantucket, MA           In 1999                             42% (3)                            92% (15)
San Francisco, CA       In 2002, 75% by 2010, zero          62% (4)                            72% (4)
                        waste by 2020 (4)
Boulder, CO             In 2005, 50% by 2010 and            30% (6)                            50%
                        Zero “or darn near” by                                                 Residential/20%
                        2025 (7)                                                               Commercial (8)
Oakland, CA             In March 2006, 75% by               55% (5)                            66% (16)
                        2010 and 90% by 2020 (5)
Dubuque, IA             In 2009, 50% by 2014                40%                                40%
Los Angeles, CA         Adopted in 2008, the goals          62% (1)                            As of March, 2009,
                        are 75% diversion by 2013,                                             65% (2)
                        zero waste by 2025 (1)

Seattle, WA             In 2007, 60% by 2012, 70%           48.2% (10)                         51% (11)
                        by 2025 (9)
Austin ,TX              In 2009, pledged 75% by             30% (17)                           39% (17)
                        2020 and 90% by 2040
Fresno, CA              75% by 2012, Zero Waste             29% (12)                           71% (12)
                        by 2025 (14)
    1-   http://www.zerowaste.lacity.org/files/info/fact_sheet/2009Feb2SWIRPFactSheet.pdf

    2-   http://www.ci.la.ca.us/san/solid_resources/recycling/index.htm

    3-   http://www.wasteoptions.com/nantucket.htm & http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/priorities/munirate.pdf

    4-   http://www.sfenvironment.org/our_programs/program_info.html?ssi=3

    5-   http://www.oaklandpw.com/AssetFactory.aspx?did=2123

    6-   http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Environmental%20Affairs/Waste%20Reduction/r-zero_waste_final_5-02-
         06.pdf

    7-   http://www.bouldercounty.org/sustain/pdf/Zero_Waste_Res_2005-138.pdf

    8-   Phone conversation with Cynthia Ashley of Eco-Cycle, 9/10/10

25 | P a g e
    9-   http://www.cityofseattle.net/council/issues/zerowaste.htm

    10- http://www.cityofseattle.org/util/groups/public/@spu/@usm/documents/webcontent/spu01_005874.pdf

    11- http://www.djc.com/news/en/12021391.html

    12- Phone and email correspondence with Kate Bailey of Eco-Cycle

    13- http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/sws/zerowaste.htm

    14- http://lakecountyil.gov/swalco/Documents/Fresno,%20CA%20-
        %20Zero%20Waste%20Strategic%20Action%20Plan.pdf

    15- http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091016/NEWS11/910169981

    16- Email correspondence with Mark Gagliardi, City of Oakland Public Works Agency

    17- Conversation with Robert Gedert, Solid Waste Service Director, City of Austin




Recommendations

   We recommend that decision makers at Rumpke respect the authority of Colerain
    Township’s government and citizens by opting not to expand the landfill. This would include
    dropping expansion-related lawsuits against Colerain Township and withdrawing the claim
    the landfill is a public utility and therefore exempt from local zoning laws.

   We recommend that Rumpke commit to and work with the community toward a future
    characterized by maximum possible diversion of waste from landfills. This may include but
    not be limited to exploration of the feasibility of a public-private partnership to build one or
    more Resource Recovery Parks. This will not only serve the public's interests, but will also
    serve Rumpke's interests by securing the company’s position as a regional recycling leader
    and provider of green jobs.

   We recommend that the Hamilton County Solid Waste Management District immediately
    seek to diversify its funding stream to resolve the conflict between its mission to move the
    county toward zero waste and the fact that its budget is entirely derived from landfill
    tipping fees.

   We recommend that the Hamilton County Solid Waste Management District, City of
    Cincinnati and other municipalities and solid waste management districts dependent upon
    the landfill in Colerain set zero waste goals and deadlines and make public pledges to
    implement programs and policies to meet those goals. In particular, we recommend that
    volume-based trash fees be implemented everywhere, to provide incentive for individual
    participation in recycling efforts and to raise funds for further programs to divert waste
    from landfills.


26 | P a g e
Appendix A: Landfill chronology
DATE           Acreage    Total                                                                                    Source

               Added     Acreage

                                   Anna Gay and husband Percy Ritter move to their 30 acre farm on
1940
                                   Hughes Road. Percy later builds “Handle Bar Ranch” on 8 acres.

1945                       80      First load of garbage dumped at the landfill.                                   1

1947            132       212                                                                                      1

                                   Residents, including the owners of Handlebar Ranch, object to landfill and a
                                   judge orders it closed; hearings are scheduled in 1950. Hearings and court
1949-54
                                   fight drag on until 1954 when judge again orders landfill closed by January
                                   1, 1955.

                                   Banklick farmers lose battle to declare dump a nuisance; “Who ruined our        15
1950                               Water supply?” signs allege landfill seepage kills fish in Banklick creek and
                                   water is unfit for livestock

1954             70       282                                                                                      1

                                   Bernard & William Rumpke indicted on tax fraud charges; ordered to serve        14
1955-56
                                   1 year in prison

1955-57          17       299                                                                                      1

1958             15       314                                                                                      1

1960            100       414                                                                                      1

                                   Hamilton County Municipal Court Judge fines Rumpke for violating the            20
                                   Clean Stream Act – Banklick Creek and said “pollution of the creek is a
1968
                                   tragedy and he is “greatly concerned as to the safety and health of citizens
                                   in that community”

                                   State of Ohio files suit against Rumpke for polluting Banklick Creek; suit      21
1969
                                   later dismissed

1970                               20 neighbors file $3MM lawsuit against Rumpke                                   24

                                   State of Ohio files $5MM lawsuit against Rumpke for pollution leading to        24
1972
                                   court ordered consent decree for cleanup

1976                               Fire

1983                               Explosion

                                   Rumpke proposes expansion; citizens object; Rumpke withdrew proposal in
1985
                                   1987


27 | P a g e
                             st
1986                        1 Gas Plant built                                                              4

                            Residents file suit to close landfill, seeking $1MM in penalties for Rumpke    25
1987                        violations and $80MM damages from county for illegally allowing landfill to
                            expand in violation of zoning laws

                            Landfill bursts into flames burning 1.5 acres; investigators blame             23
1993                        spontaneous combustion; but neither Colerain Twp Fire Dept nor Rumpke
                            continued to investigate since no one was hurt and nothing was damaged

                             nd
1995                        2 Gas Plant built                                                              4

1995                        Landfill reaches 1075 feet above sea level                                     1

January                     A construction worker at the landfill suffers second and third degree burns    12
1996                        over 60% of his upper torso when methane gas ignited inside a building

                            “Largest Trash Landslide in Ohio history” per OEPA; landslide, resulting in    10, 11
March                       several fires from lighting and combustion of trash and gases and 35 acres
1996                        of exposed garbage; the slide was caused by exceeding waste elevation
                            disposal limits by 70 ft; $1,000,000 fine

                            Two workers taken to hospital after breathing methane gas; health officials    13
March 13,
                            caution residents to stay indoors, turn on air conditioners or furnaces and
1996
                            use air cleaners if they have them

                            Rumpke reported owes thousands of dollars in taxes and fees, plus              17
June 1996                   penalties to state, county and local agencies; residents are paying $6-
                            7/month

                                                          th
                            Landfill on fire again for the 4 time in 1996; health commissioner blames      26
Aug 1996
                            spontaneous combustion of exposed garbage

Sept 1996                   Fire & slide brought under control

                Southern                                                                                   5
                Expansion   Rumpke applies for rezoning from Residential to Heavy Industrial (73 Acres)
Nov 1999
                            and Light Industrial (9 acres) for the Southern Expansion.
                Proposed

1990-99                     Landfill continues acquisition of residential property

                            Trustees deny rezoning for Southern Expansion (82 acres) (7/11/00 BOT          2
July 2000
                            minutes)

July                        Rumpke sues Colerain Township contesting the constitutionality of zoning       5
24,2000                     and claiming damages. Suit voluntarily dismissed and later refilled.

Nov 9,                      Rumpke Sues Colerain Township (Case#A0007121) after zoning for                 5
2000                        Southern Expansion is denied, alleging violations of the Constitution of the
                            State of Ohio




 28 | P a g e
                                                                                                                 5
Nov 2000                          Lawsuit re-filed & settled via Consent decree (11/15/2000 Case#A-007121)


                                                                                                                 9
                                  Ohio EPA issues Notice of Violation for Ammonia leak into Banklick Creek;
July 2004
                                  ammonia detected as high as 830 parts per million (normal levels < 1 ppm)


Dec 2004                          Ohio EPA approves final Permits for Southern Expansion

2005               95       509   Work begins on Southern expansion                                              1

Sept 2005                         Consent decree for Southern Expansion revised to include missing parcels       5


                 Eastern          291 Acres proposed to be rezoned from Residential and Office                   1
March
                Expansion
2006
                Proposed          to Heavy Industrial to build new landfill; Total Acreage 350

                                  Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission endorses 291 acre Eastern
May 2006
                                  Expansion

                                  Rezoning for Eastern Expansion Denied by Colerain Township Zoning
July 2006
                                  Commission

                                  After 3 public hearings in Sept, Oct., and Nov., the Colerain Township Board   31
Sept-Nov
                                  of Trustees votes to uphold the Zoning Commission recommendation to
                                  deny rezoning of 350 acres from Residential and Planned office to Heavy
2006
                                  and Light Industrial use.

                                  Ohio EPA fines Rumpke $9,879 for acceptance of 1,980 lbs. of hazardous         27
Dec 2006                          waste containing chromium and methyl ethyl ketone in July 2005 and
                                  September 2005.

March                             Rumpke Sues Colerain Township
2006

April 2007                        Rumpke amends lawsuit claiming unconstitutionality of Colerain zoning and      7
                                  public utility status

2007                              Montauk Energy Capital is acquired for $101.8 million by Blue Wolf Energy
                                  Holdings and Montauk is now a subsidiary of Hoskens Consolidated
                                  Investments (HCI) a South African investment holding company.

                                   rd
June 2007                         3 Gas Plant starts up. Owned and operated by Montauk Energy Capital            4
                                  and their subsidiary GSF. The $10 Million plant will process about 6 Million
                                  cubic feet of gas daily. Plans for two additional gas plants mentioned.

2007                              95 Acre Southern Expansion starts to receive garbage

Nov -Dec.                         In November, Rumpke purchases 30+ acres on Hughes and Bank Roads               18
2007                              from the estate of Anna Gay Ritter, owner of HandleBar Ranch, and then
                                  demolishes the ranch in December.



 29 | P a g e
Oct 2008                                       Judge Nadel rules that State of Ohio violated the “single subject rule” by      29
                                               including definition of public utility in amended HB 562.

March                                          Colerain Township Appeals decision of Common Pleas court which did not          28
2009                                           allow Colerain Township as an interested and necessary party in the case
                                               challenging the “single subject rule” in House Bill 562. Appeal denied by
                                               Judges Sundermann, Hendon and Cunningham in September 2009.

March                                          Judge Winkler rules that Rumpke is a public utility not subject to Colerain     7
2009                                           Township zoning

April 2009                                     Colerain Township appeals Winkler decision on public utility                    8

April –                                        Rumpke reports water quality violations to Ohio EPA including: 12,000
November                                       gallons of sewage spilled from a broken sewer line; 150 gallons of leachate
2009                                           spilled , due to pump failure; 60 gallons of leachate spilled and 300 gallons
                                               of leachate spilled to a drainage ditch

Aug. 13,                                       Gas wells exceed temperature limits. Underground Fire Begins; reported to       3
2009                                           Ohio EPA 8/31/09

Feb. 22,                                       Hamilton County Court of Appeals hears Colerain Township Appeal of Judge
2010                                           Winkler decision on public utility – Decision pending

March 18,                                      OEPA issues Findings/Orders/Action Plan related to air violations from the      3
2010                                           fire. Rumpke fined $98,000.

April 1,                                       Ohio EPA Hosts Public Meeting about the underground fire.                       3
2010

April                                          Township files ERAC Appeal                                                      6
16,2010

June 3,                                        Rumpke receives a Notice of Violation of their Title V air permit due to a      30
2010                                           high number of odor complaints. The agency received 58 odor complaints
                                               from March 1-6, 2010. The odors were due to the underground fire which
                                               prevented waste gases from being harvested by the methane recovery
                                               plant and due to a breakdown of the utility flare and enclosed combustor
                                               which should destroy waste gases and led to gas leaking into the
                                               environment.




 Chronology Sources:

      1.     Enquirer Article June 11, 2006
      2.     Colerain Township Meeting minutes
      3.     Ohio EPA notices, Findings & Orders 3/18/.2010
      4.     Cincinnati Post 6/12/2007 & Montauk website (gas plant info)
      5.     Lawsuit Case # A-007121
      6.     April 16, 2010 Colerain Township ERAC appeal
      7.     Lawsuit Case #A0703073
      8.     Lawsuit Case #C 0900223 Colerain Township Appeal

 30 | P a g e
    9.    Ohio EPA factsheet on Seep July 2004
    10.    Source: OEPA New Release 9/25/97;
    11.   Enquirer 10/15/98 “Mt Rumpke exceeded limit by 70 Feet
    12.   Enquirer march 10, 1996, Slide on trash hill closes Rumpke Site
    13.   Enquirer March 13, 1996, Two ill after breathing fumes at Rumpke Landslide
    14.   Enquirer Jan. 1956 Rumpke Brothers Sent to Prison
    15.   Enquirer Jan 1950 Anti Dump War enters new phase
    16.   June 1950 Health Officials Set hearing on Rumpke Dump
    17.   Enquirer June 1996 Rumpke financial troubles run deep
    18.   Hamilton County auditor website – parcel #510-0130-0030-00; 0019-00; 0021-00; 0020-00; 0047-00; 0010-00; total of
          30 acres
    19.   Enquirer, May 1949 Close Dump
    20.   Enquirer Nov 1968 Rumpke Fined for Pollution of Creek
    21.   Enquirer Dec 1969 Will Court Test dislodge Rumpke Operation
    22.   Oct 2003, Piles of Rumpke Money
    23.   Cincinnati Post Nov 1993 Landfill bursts into flames
    24.   Cincinnati Post Dec 1996 Rumpke a mountain of trouble
    25.   Cincinnati Post Dec 1987 landfill showdown tests county
                                                                   th
    26.   Cincinnati Post August 1996 Rumpke Site on Fire Again; 4 this Year
    27.   Ohio EPA Consent Order for Hazardous Waste Violations 12/5/2006
    28.   Appeal # C081097 & #C081119
    29.   Court of Common Pleas ruling 10/3/08
    30.   Odor complaints from neighbors of the Rumpke Sanitary Landfill in Colerain Township in March 2010 prompted an
          investigation by Hamilton County Department of Environmental Services and a notice of violation letter dated June 3,
          2010.
    31.   Colerain Township website Board of Trustees meeting minutes 9/5/06, 10/2/06, 11/9/06.
    32.   Rumpke pollution incident reports and 2010 water permit application




31 | P a g e
Appendix B: 2009 Tipping Fee Receipts (Source: Hamilton County Solid Waste Management District)




32 | P a g e
Appendix C : Landfill Waste Restrictions

Excerpt from March 2006 letter from Rumpke to OEPA, responding to 2005 hazardous waste violation




33 | P a g e
Appendix D: Zero Waste Heirarchy (Source: Oakland, CA Zero Waste Strategic Plan)




34 | P a g e
Appendix E: Analysis of Title V (air) permit for Emissions Unit P902 Note: “Fugitive” emissions are
escaping from the landfill itself. “Stack” emissions are gases captured but not sold by the gas plants.




35 | P a g e

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:17
posted:6/27/2011
language:English
pages:35