Girard gets 2nd chance to appeal Landfill Ruling

Girard gets state appeal

By JENNIFER KOVACS Tribune Chronicle
jkovacs@tribune-chronicle.com

GIRARD — The city has been given another shot to go up against the state, which has argued Girard took too much time to respond to a ruling that a proposed landfill would not have to be built according to new, stricter guidelines.

Law Director Mark Standohar said the city couldn’t possibly have met its 30-day deadline because it never was informed the Environmental Protection Agency made that ruling.

‘‘While very disappointed that it was not brought to my attention earlier, I’m going to do whatever I can to fight the good fight and battle the appeal,’’ Standohar said.

Now Standohar has been given until March 7 to file his response to the Environmental Review Appeals Commission (ERAC) to argue why an appeal by the city should be heard, while Attorney General Marc Dann’s office is stating that by law, the commission must dismiss Girard’s appeal.

The issue stems from events unfolding over a period of about eight months, of which Standohar said he was not notified.

In April 2006, Total Waste Logistics (TWL) requested the EPA make a decision on whether its proposed construction and demolition debris landfill would be governed by old regulations or newer restrictions that went into effect in December 2005.

Because TWL filed its application to build the landfill behind the Creekside Golf Dome off U.S. Route 422 prior to those new laws being implemented, the EPA ruled in December 2006 that, if approved, the landfill would not have to meet those new guidelines.

The landfill application has continued to be found incomplete by the Girard Board of Health.

On Dec. 21, 2006, a public notification was published in the Tribune Chronicle of the EPA’s decision — something Standohar said he and other city officials never saw. But, he added, he wasn’t looking for it because the city was never notified that TWL had asked for an EPA ruling on the issue.

‘‘At no time was I informed or consulted regarding any pending or issued EPA decision involving the landfill,’’ he said.

And when a notice was eventually mailed by the EPA, Standohar said it was sent to the Trumbull County Board of Health instead of Girard’s own board. By the time the error was discovered, it was Jan. 22 when the law director heard of the decision.

‘‘We contacted ERAC at that time, explaining the scenario that had taken place,’’ Standohar said.

But by law a response to that decision had to be filed by the city within 30 days from that notification being published. Standohar said the expiration date was Jan. 19, ‘‘three days before I’m even first notified of this situation.’’

The city sent its response to ERAC, contesting the decision. But the attorney general’s office then filed its motion to dismiss that appeal.

‘‘If a party fails to file within the 30-day period, then the commission will dismiss the appeal on the ground that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal,’’ the motion reads.

The filing further outlines that the EPA followed procedure by making and publicizing the notification and that the health board failed to meet its requirement to contest it by not submitting an appeal until Jan. 24.

But now that Standohar has until March 7, he said he’s going to do his best to convince the appeals commission to hear why Girard’s 30-day period for response should have rather gone into effect when the city actually knew of the decision.

‘‘I’m going to have to try to pull it out of the fire,’’ he said.

Standohar said his argument is based on his belief the Girard health board should have been the main point of notification.

‘‘The Girard Board of Health was absolutely an essential party to receive actual notice of this EPA decision due to the fact that state law delegates much of the EPA director’s authority to the local health district. If the board does not receive this directive, how can they then carry out their duties to properly regulate and administer the landfill situation?’’ he said.