Casella has racked up multiple violations at the solid waste facilities it operates, not only in New Hampshire but in the other northeastern states as well. This is only one of the reasons why so many people oppose Casella’s plan to build a new mega-dump in Dalton.
In a nutshell, the public does not trust that once Casella has been granted permits to build its solid waste facilities, it is committed to operating these facilities safely and within the rules established by state environmental regulators.
There are a lot of good examples of why the public should be wary of Casella’s commitment to safe operation. Just last spring there was a 154,000-gallon leachate spill at Casella’s NCES facility in Bethlehem.
The causes and the impacts of this spill are apparently still under investigation by NH’s Department of Environmental Services (DES). But two things are especially noteworthy. First, it took two days for Casella to even recognize that the spill had occurred. Second, Casella has reportedly not tested the contaminated ground for PFAS. It is not curious enough, despite the potential health effects of PFAS contamination, and seems to have made the choice not to test because it is not required to test under its DES operating permit.
Another cautionary tale is that Casella has been battling with DES over the DES finding that it overfilled its Bethlehem dump. For the past nine months, Casella has denied, defied and delayed coming to terms with DES’s finding. It used legal tactics in its appeal of the DES finding that in polite circles people would call unsavory. Casella brought a nuisance suit against the DES Commissioner and challenged the impartiality of the hearing officer, essentially on the grounds that the hearing officer worked for the state and was therefore biased.
On November 23, Casella filed a notice to withdraw its appeal, effectively admitting that the DES finding was correct. As of December 1, it appears that no explanation was given for this action.
So the question is, why did Casella withdraw its appeal? We don’t yet know, but one possible explanation is that for months Casella believed that DES’s finding was incorrect and only very recently did it access information that it was wrong. That explanation is possible but seems unlikely.
Another possible explanation is that Casella tried to bully DES into changing (or otherwise not acting on) its finding and only backed down when it was clear this strategy was not working. Given that Casella has a well-deserved reputation as a litigious company, this explanation seems plausible.
No matter what the explanation, the concern remains that Casella’s operating history and its behavior over the years, and especially over the last year concerning its NCES landfill, suggest that Casella is unfit to own or operate another landfill in New Hampshire.
Unless and until Casella demonstrates through its actions that it is willing to abide fully by state statutes and rules, and to stop using unsavory legal tactics, it should not even be considered for any other permits for solid waste facilities.
(Roger Doucette lives in Whitefield.)