Landfill files response to TDEC as Questions of Conflicts Loom

By Editor | March 10, 2026 |

Landfill files response to TDEC as Questions of Conflicts Loom

By Shane Gilreath
SCN Contributing Editor
[email protected]

Months of wrangling continued last week as organizers press the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) for the permit that would allow the advancement of the controversial Roberta II landfill project near the Tennessee–Kentucky border, despite persistent and organized opposition from residents in both Scott County and neighboring McCreary County, Kentucky. The latest exchange involved a detailed response by Roberta II to TDEC’s second “Letter of Deficiency,” which raised numerous technical and environmental questions about the proposed landfill. Many of those concerns have already been expressed by citizens and organizations alike, including representatives of the Scott-McCreary Environmental Coalition (SMEC) who continue to seek a resolution and who, like the citizen-based Cumberland Clear, have hired legal counsel on the issue. The Roberta response – submitted entirely through consulting engineers Fisher & Arnold – attempts to address fears about wetlands mitigation credits, stream impacts, and engineering designs tied to the landfill’s environmental impact. However, the filing has also intensified scrutiny of the role played by George Hyfantis, Jr, who both signed the response on behalf of Roberta while currently serving on the Tennessee Underground Storage Tanks and Solid Waste Disposal Control Board, a state regulatory body appointed by Governor Bill Lee that helps promulgate rules governing solid waste management in the state and hears appeals related to permitting and enforcement actions under Tennessee’s Solid Waste Disposal Act.
In a series of deficiency letters, TDEC has identified seemingly major issues with Roberta II that the department said required clarification before permitting could move forward – a hope that most locals balk against. Among those issues were an expired wetlands mitigation credit reservation letter, questions about how stream impacts should be classified under Tennessee’s stream mitigation guidelines, and requests for updated water-quality monitoring data and revised environmental impact documentation. One of the most complex disputes involves the landfill’s proposed use of a reinforced “French drain” system, a design that would carry natural streams beneath the landfill itself. While so-called French drains are not banned in the state, TDEC generally frowns upon using French drains to replace natural streams because they eliminate many of the ecological functions that streams provide. In looking at such designs, it’s important to realize that a natural stream does more than carry water. It supports aquatic habitats, filters pollutants, stabilizes soil, and interacts with groundwater and surrounding vegetation. When a stream is routed through a buried pipe or gravel trench, those natural processes largely disappear, even if water continues to flow, inevitably showing impacts on their surroundings.
TDEC also followed an “avoidance first” permitting framework under its ARAP program. Developers must first avoid harming streams (if possible), then minimize impacts, and only mitigate damage when impacts cannot be prevented. Regulators often view piping a stream through a French drain as failing that avoidance if the project could be redesigned to protect the waterway, which is preferred. One of the questions facing Roberta has been their inability – or unwillingness – to look for better solutions, which hinges largely on the landfilling permit they hold – for roughly 24 acres of the much larger plat of land in question.
For TDEC and opponents of Roberta and French drains, there are equally contentious concerns over groundwater changes, long-term maintenance, and the risk that engineered drainage systems could eventually fail or alter water quality throughout Scott and McCreary County.
On occasion, like systems have failed leaving significant impacts. The Dan River Coal Ash Spill in North Carolina serves as an example of the dangers associated with buried drainage infrastructure beneath waste storage facilities. In February 2014, a stormwater drainage pipe running beneath a coal-ash impoundment owned by Duke Energy collapsed, releasing an estimated 39,000 tons of coal ash and roughly 27 million gallons of contaminated wastewater into the Dan River. The spill spread toxic ash containing heavy metals such as arsenic and selenium for miles downstream, prompting federal criminal charges and a massive environmental cleanup effort. While the failed pipe in that case was not technically a French drain, it served a similar function, conveying water beneath a large waste containment structure. Critics of the proposed drainage system beneath the Roberta II landfill could cite comparative risks, with both systems routing water through buried pipes under massive waste loads – if the system fails or degrades over time, it could create a pathway for contamination into surrounding waterways for both Tennessee and Kentucky.
Engineers for the landfill project argue their reinforced design, however, is structurally capable of withstanding the pressure of the waste above it, despite opponents concerns that once such systems are buried beneath decades of landfill operations, inspection and repair become difficult, making any potential failure far more dangerous. According to engineering calculations submitted by Roberta, their system would rely on a thick-walled 12-inch perforated high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe buried beneath landfill waste that could reach depths of 100 feet. Engineers estimated the maximum pressure on the pipe at approximately 52 pounds per square inch (psi)and argued that the pipe’s rated strength of roughly 1,600 psi provides a substantial margin of safety against crushing, buckling, or deflection. In layman’s terms, the landfill’s engineers contend that the perforated pipe and surrounding gravel trench would allow groundwater and natural streams to flow and continue moving beneath the landfill without coming into contact with waste, preserving the hydrologic connection to nearby Bear Creek – which has already showed signs of pollution, according to comments made by McCreary County Water Superintendent Stephen Whitaker at a Whitley City townhall – while also protecting the structural stability of the landfill itself. TDEC, however, questioned whether the design would require additional mitigation, requesting further analysis of alternative approaches – a challenge to Roberta’s claim that no practical alternative exists.
In its response, Roberta II argued that while other landfill locations might exist within the hundreds of acres of the project area, such options have effectively closed to them by local governments. Scott County, as well as the Towns of Oneida and Winfield have invoked Tennessee’s “Jackson Law,” a state statute that allows municipalities to block privately owned landfills within one mile of their borders. According to Roberta, any attempt to relocate the landfill would require new approvals from those municipalities – approvals that local leaders have already indicated they would not grant. Developers further argued that moving the landfill would force them to repeat years of environmental studies and engineering work, which Roberta said had already cost more than $1 million as part of their attempt to recertify the project’s existing solid waste permit and ARAP.
While such disputes continue, the political context surrounding the project has become increasingly contentious. While local officials might have rallied to oppose Roberta, the aforementioned Hyfantis, who authored the recent correspondences, continues to serve on the Tennessee Underground Storage Tanks and Solid Waste Disposal Control Board (until September 30, 2026). Members of that board are appointed by the governor, and the board’s responsibilities include interpreting regulations governing landfill development across the state. Hyfantis, who is no stranger to the project or the waste industry, has spent more than four decades working in waste management, including previous leadership roles overseeing landfill programs and consulting on solid waste engineering projects throughout the Southeast. Nevertheless, opponents of the Roberta II landfill argue that his simultaneous involvement with both the project and a state regulatory board raises questions about the appearance of conflicts of interest.
Those concerns have already bled into the political arena. Local activists and regional environmental advocates have already referred to the landfill as the “Bill Lee Dump,” pointing to the governor’s role in appointing members of the state boards. The names of candidates, such as US Senator Marsha Blackburn, a leading candidate for Tennessee Governor, whose camp has yet to comment, are also bandied about. Critics argue that the overlap between waste industry consultants and state boards, like that on which Hyfantis serves – sometimes deeply ingrained in politics – contribute to a general perception that rural Appalachia is targeted without adequate public input or general government concern.
Legal documents for Trans-Rail Waste Services, a company seeking to establish the rail-transfer station in Winfield, list Hyfantis as providing engineering support for that proposed project as well. That same documents lists Knox Horner, the controversial face of the Roberta II project, as its proposed Manager – broadly connecting Hyfantis and Horner, and through Hyfantis’ state board appointment, Governor Bill Lee. The transfer station in question – already controversial among locals – would allow waste to be shipped by rail to Scott County, within a football field’s length of Winfield Elementary.
As opponents continue to fight the Roberta project, including arguments of conflicts, TDEC officials continue to review the latest round of responses submitted by Roberta. As they have in the past, they may request additional data, revisions, or site inspections before determining whether the project can move forward. Until that decision is made, Roberta II remains deadlocked in uncertainty, assuring an on-going permitting battle that increasingly questions transparency, political influence, and the future of waste management in Tennessee.