Roberta II Fires Back

By Editor | January 6, 2026 |

Roberta II Fires Back

Company says relocation would be “unreasonably burdensome”

By Shane Gilreath
SCN Contributing Editor
[email protected]

The proposed Roberta II landfill proposal continues to face intense scrutiny after the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) issued a detailed Letter of Deficiency outlining significant problems with the project’s Aquatic Resource Alteration Permit (ARAP) application last month. In response, Roberta II, through consulting engineers Fisher & Arnold and its representative George Hyfantis, who has four decades of experience in the field and has served as a governor’s appointment on state boards, has formally answered the state’s concerns. Whether those answers are sufficient for TDEC or local oppositions remains to be seen.
TDEC’s December letter, which was addressed to Jim Eyre of Ackerman & Company, identified shortcomings that required correction before the permit review process could even begin. The ARAP application, which had been filed in November, just one day after TDEC officials faced more than 400 concerned residents in Oneida, acknowledged substantial environmental impacts the project would undertake, including more than 1,500 feet of stream disturbance, over an acre of wetlands and ponds, and the relocation of 642 linear feet of stream to accommodate landfill construction along Bear Creek. Many of these proposals have drawn heavy objections from locals, including opposition from beyond Scott County. Residents who reside in Kentucky counties downstream of the project attended a public forum in Whitley City last month – and another is schedule for Pulaski County this week, after our press deadline – while the National Park Service has also formally raised concerns that contamination could affect the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area and the broader Cumberland River system. In conjunction with those objections, TDEC questioned nearly every technical and procedural assumption underlying Roberta II’s permit request.
In its response, Roberta II questioned relatively minor administrative issues, such as an undated application form and the absence of a secondary contact, though Roberta II says those technicalities have been corrected in a revised application. More consequential, however, is its defense of site selection and alternatives, an area where TDEC has signaled serious doubt.
TDEC questioned why, on what it believed to be a 700-acre site, the landfill footprint could not avoid streams and wetlands altogether. Roberta II countered that only 403 acres are under a binding purchase agreement, with just 325 acres contiguous, and argued that there are “no practicable alternatives,” either onsite or offsite. Roberta leaned heavily on the fact that the location was previously permitted by TDEC’s Division of Solid Waste Management in 2010 – a controversial permit that has been legally challenged by lawyers for both the Scott-McCreary Environmental Coalition (SMEC) and local organization Cumberland Clear – and received an ARAP in 2012, asserting that relocating the landfill would be unreasonably burdensome, costly, and risky.
In the letter, Hyfantis claimed that even if an alternative site were developed for Roberta II, the current site would eventually also be developed as part of a larger, long-term landfill plan, calling it effectively “kicking the can down the road.” He also contends that other potential landfill cells on the property would require even larger, more environmentally damaging footprints due to topography, ignoring local objections that would prefer no landfill at all.
Perhaps the most ambitious element of the Roberta response is the project’s framing as an environmental and economic necessity. While the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)has acknowledged that landfills are currently necessary as part of an integrated solid waste management system, but only for residual waste that cannot be reduced, reused, recycled, or recovered. Landfilling sits at the bottom of the EPA’s waste hierarchy, behind source reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, and energy recovery, and it should not be confused with the EPA describing landfills as a preferred solution. Such a claim would be inaccurate. Instead, EPA policy emphasizes minimizing landfilling and strictly regulating it to protect environmental and public health.
Roberta, on the other hand, emphasizes plans for a materials recovery facility and positions the development as a statewide solution to Tennessee’s waste crisis. According to the response, what is now being coined as an “Ecology Park” would create more than 100 construction jobs, roughly 50 permanent positions, generate millions in host fees, and transform Scott County into a regional recycling hub. This, however, is not entirely what Knox Horner, the developer who has become synonymous with the project, told SCN in May, when he cited the creation of merely 25 jobs (CDL drivers, heavy equipment operators, and office staff) as part of a constructive impact for Scott County. Horner did, however, suggest a future technically advanced Recycling Center and an interactive Learning Center for school-aged children that would promote the benefits of recycling. For those students, Horner envisioned recycling competitions in city and county schools and the establishment of Environmental Science scholarships.
According to Roberta, delays or denial of the permit by TDEC would result in “significant adverse environmental consequences” for the state as a whole, perhaps based partly on the belief that relocating the project would not be cost effective for Roberta II.
Despite the response, many of TDEC’s most pointed concerns remained largely unresolved or only partly addressed. In their December letter, TDEC challenged Roberta II’s proposal to use French drains to fill streams while claiming no net loss of hydrology, a practice long viewed with suspicion within environmental and waste management industry. Roberta II maintains that the drain system would preserve down-gradient flow and should be classified as a Tier 5 impact, not the more severe Tier 6 classification suggested by TDEC.
For interested parties, even a Tier 5 environmental impact rating under TDEC’s ARAP program would mean a severe, permanent alteration to a stream where the natural channel is removed or buried, with Roberta claiming that the subsurface hydrology would continue, often through pipes or, in this case, French drains. It is considered less severe than Tier 6, which represents total loss of stream function. However,Tier 5 impacts remain controversial because buried or piped streams typically lose biological and ecological function, leaving regulators to doubt the long-term reliability of such systems beneath a landfill.
A process of compensatory mitigation is another issue all together. In previous correspondence, TDEC largely rejected Roberta’s proposed Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) plan and directed the company toward purchasing stream credits instead. Although stream credits, too, are contentious, Roberta II responded that no such credits are currently available in the relevant watersheds in or around Bear Creek, pledging to continue pursuing PRM until credits emerge. That stance will inevitably meet local objections and may prove to prolong the already contentious review process.
To negate concerns, Roberta II leaned heavily on the project’s history, noting that ARAP was once approved and only lapsed due to missed renewal deadlines following the death of a member. Thought controversy still swirls around the project, what remains clear is that Roberta II is no longer dealing solely with permit revisions. Recent weeks have shown federal scrutiny, potential legal challenges from SMEC and Cumberland Clear, an effort by Roberta II to force a public relations campaign in local media outlets, and sustained public outrage across multiple states suggest the project faces obstacles far beyond paperwork. TDEC’s Letter of Deficiency and the company’s response mark not a resolution, but the opening of a much larger – and potentially longer – fight over the future of waste management and community trust in and around Scott County.