Violation response

Advanced Disposal Services denies responsibility for odors once again in its response to the Aug. 31, 2018 violation notice issued by the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality.

Read the response

The MDEQ issued the violation notice on Aug. 31, 2018 for odors detected by MDEQ staff on Aug. 23.  The company the dump hired to monitor odors, RK & Associates, did not detect significant odors on Aug. 23.

Advanced Disposal claims they have done more than enough to remedy odors.

The response says: “The data illustrates that ADS has corrected the original source of the odor complaints — deficiencies in the infrastructure of the landfill gas collection and control system. This has left incidental odors from waste disposal operations and composting as the remaining potential sources for any detectable odors. In addition to the improvement in landfill gas collection efficiency, Arbor Hills Landfill has also aggressively implemented measures to mitigate odors associated with waste disposal operations as well as its compost operation.”

Advanced also questioned the MDEQ’s standards.

“Rule 901, in turn, generally prohibits the emission of an air contaminant in quantities that cause, among other things, an”unreasonable interference with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property.” This standard essentially restates the common law definition of “nuisance” and, therefore, must be considered in light of Michigan case law elucidating that concept. A nuisance is a non-trespassory invasion of another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land. See Adkins v. Thomas Solvent Co., 440 Mich. 293, 302 (1992). A defendant is not subject to liability in nuisance
unless the plaintiff proves each of the following elements:
1. the other has property rights and privileges in respect to the use or enjoyment interfered with;
2. the invasion results insignificant harm;
3. the actor’s conduct is the legal cause of the invasion; and
4. the invasion is either (i) intentional and unreasonable, or (ii) unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules governing liability for negligent, reckless, or ultrahazardous conduct.

“To properly establish a Rule 901 violation, there must be showing not only of ‘significant harm’ resulting from the odor but also a showing that ADS acted unreasonably in its operation of the landfill. Further, under Michigan common law, an actionable nuisance exists only to the extent that defendant’s conduct was “unreasonable” in light of apublic-policy assessment of the conduct’s overall value to society. See Adams v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., 237 Mich. App. 51, 67 (1999). Accordingly, any intrusion of odors into residential areas must be balanced against the degree to which the Arbor Hills landfill is socially valuable.”