Wilbros Stay Hearing Called “Victory” By Stephens Co. Attorney

Stephens County Attorney Brian Ranck called a hearing on the Wilbros’ matter with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division Friday a major victory for the community.

On Friday, a Fulton County Superior Court Judge heard Wilbros’ motion for a stay on the EPD’s administrative order revoking Wilbros’ solid waste and wastewater discharge permits while Wilbros appeals the order and a ruling by an administrative law judge upholding the order.

In Friday’s hearing, Ranck said the judge granted Wilbros just enough of a stay to allow the Rose Lane facility to continue to take Coats & Clark wastewater and wastewater from the office bathrooms at Wilbros and just enough influent to keep bacteria in Wilbros’ wastewater ponds alive while Fulton County Superior Court hears Wilbros’ appeal.

Fulton County Superior Court said it will hear that appeal in 90 days and then have 30 days to rule on it.

Furthermore, Ranck said that in return, Wilbros is not allowed to accept any new waste for its compost operation while the appeal is being heard.

According to Ranck, that means no more waste to the compost piles and no more new raw materials to the hill.

Ranck said Wilbros is allowed continue to turn the piles and do work as long as needed to actually produce the compost for what is out there now, but that is it.

In January 2014, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division issued an administrative order against Wilbros, revoking its solid waste and wastewater discharge permits and calling on the facility to begin closure proceedings.

A state administrative law judge upheld that order last month.

Wilbros, the business at the center of a years-long odor controversy in Stephens County, is appealing the case to Fulton County Superior Court, which is the county where the administrative law judge heard the case.

The business argued that among other things, the administrative law judge’s decision was unlawful because EPD’s enforcement cannot be upheld where the agency is found to have proven only a minority of the violations alleged and the judge wrongly concluded that the EPD’s issuance of the administrative order satisfied due process and procedural requirements.