Council tables Tanners Creek cut‑fill permit after environmental concerns; applicant to return in 30 days

Mayor Kelly Millan and members of the Lawrenceburg City Council on Sept. 15 declined to approve a cut‑fill permit for work at the former Tanners Creek ash site and voted to table the request for 30 days so the city and the project team can answer outstanding technical and public‑safety questions. Developers seeking to close a fly‑ash pond told the council they want to use on‑site borrow material and install a geosynthetic cap, but council members and local environmental representatives said the proposal raised unresolved risks to the local aquifer and to businesses and residents downstream.

The request was introduced by James Kalenda, who identified himself as representing the owner and development team. "We're in front of you tonight, in hopes that the Tanner Creek project can move forward with the cut fill permit," Kalenda said. He and consultant Eric Lang asked the council for clarity so they could proceed with covering exposed geosynthetic liner and completing the landfill closure. Kalenda said the project team has submitted a letter from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) approving use of on‑site borrow and that IDEM comments submitted two months earlier had been addressed.

Why it matters: Council members, the mayor and a representative who identified themselves as the region's environmental oversight party said the project could affect groundwater and generate airborne fly ash unless more design information and mitigations are provided. One council member said the proposed pond — described by the applicant as about 25 acres — "raises a ton of follow‑up questions and follow‑up concerns" because of its proximity to the aquifer and prior incidents of loose fly ash clouds.

During the discussion, an environmental representative for AEP (the site's legal environmental representative) told the council there were outstanding items in the permitting submittal and reported a same‑day incident in which a fly‑ash cloud was observed and required an immediate response. The applicant acknowledged the incident, said the work was shut down and said the team had taken steps to address it.

Council members pressed for alternatives and additional information. "One of the things we'd be interested in seeing when you come back … would be an alternate design that would be a no‑fill design," a council member said, referencing a capping approach that would avoid major earthmoving over the aquifer. Another council member asked whether replacing removed material and refilling the pond would allay concerns; staff and councillors said the technical questions and monitoring data would remain relevant regardless of fill source.

City staff explained some permitting context: if the council allows the project team to obtain site‑approved fill from an area that drains naturally, the repair and closure could proceed by staff review under the city’s grading/permit rules and IDEM requirements, without returning to the council for a separate grading/cut‑fill approval. The applicant said that, if denied use of on‑site borrow, hauling in off‑site fill would significantly increase truck traffic on U.S. Route 50 and add project cost.

Several technical details were discussed on the record: the project team said a geosynthetic liner was deployed on roughly 35 acres and that the liner had been ordered in 2018 and kept covered on site; the team also said there are about 30 perimeter monitoring wells sampled twice a year and that monitoring reports are available on IDEM’s website. The applicant said IDEM had approved the proposed borrow area and that prior IDEM comments had been addressed. AEP’s representative said the proposed permit package still lacked required information and flagged the need for more answers before a council vote.

Next steps and formal action: The council voted to table the permit request for 30 days and asked the applicant and staff to schedule an in‑person technical meeting after Oct. 7 so the applicant can respond to a written set of questions from staff and council. The applicant and staff agreed to prepare for that meeting; the applicant warned that delay could risk damage to the exposed liner and slow or halt the closure work if the matter is not resolved quickly.

Discussion versus decision: Council members repeatedly framed their remarks as requests for more information rather than as an absolute rejection. The formal action recorded at the meeting was a motion to table the request for 30 days; no permit was approved or denied and no technical conditions were adopted at the meeting.

Public and institutional context: Council members and the applicant repeatedly referenced IDEM and recent federal rule changes affecting fly ash management. The council directed staff to collect written technical questions and to convene a follow‑up meeting with the applicant and their consultants so those questions can be answered before council reconsideration.