As promised, I am sharing the response I received today to my queries (see beneath the fold), from Bryan Harrington of the ANR:
I am covering for John Akielaszek while he is on vacation. I do not regulate AgriMark/Cabot, but I will answer your questions as best I can.
1. We are not requiring Cabot to build the treatment plant for the reasons stated in the Response Summary. I can’t answer the second half of this question.
2. The water quality evaluation was received on February 25, 2010. I have not reviewed the evaluation.
3. The indirect discharge permit contains stream sampling requirements. AgriMark/Cabot has just applied for renewal of their permit, so a determination of compliance with Water Quality Standards will be made during the renewal review. Samples are analyzed by an independent lab. To my knowledge, no biological sampling has been requested.
4. The Wastewater Management Division has not done any independent analysis of water quality related to the Cabot permit, but other ANR entities (such as the Water Quality Division) may have data from the watersheds in the Cabot area.
To which I responded with the following additional queries:
I do not see anywhere in the amended permit any reference to the wastewater treatment plant that was promised. Can you tell me on what page I should be looking?
There is one additional thing I’d like to know. Nowhere in the list of chemical substances for which the wastewater is to be tested, is there any mention of toluene, benzene or any other toxic substances which concerned local citizens have alleged may be found in it. In fact, the description of the “polished permeate” in the document does not seem to include solvents or other industrial agents that might find their way into the wastewater through routine cleaning operations. Has the state done any testing for these toxic substances or is it just taking Agri-Mark’s own analysis at face-value?
_____________________________________________
ANR Gives Agri-Mark/Cabot the Green Flag to Disperse more Effluent
As if to illustrate the shape of things to come, should the Governor’s CFC recommendations be adopted by the legislature, the Agency of Natural Resources has announced its decision permitting Agri-Mark/Cabot to expand its wasterwater dispersement operations in northeast Vermont. You may recall that, last fall, a good many concerned citizens in the region attempted to dissuade the ANR from issuing the expanded permit, due to the fact that Cabot has never fulfilled its original commitment to build a wastewater treatment facility near the plant, and because there was evidence that the effluent being distributed on land and into manure pits was not in fact simply whey (as the original permit had assumed); but rather, a cocktail of dairy waste and chemicals, some of which were potentially hazardous to the exposed watershed.
Despite concerns raised by local petitioners, who had little in the way of resources to pursue these issues themselves, ANR does not appear to be presenting chemical analysis of the effluent; nor has it taken any position with regard to the wastewater plant that Cabot never built, despite that having been a condition of the initial permit.
This has particular relevance as we contemplate what permit review and enforcement in Vermont might look like, should the Governor get his wish to consolidate and “simplify” the process under the sole authority of the troubled Agency of Natural Resources.
As soon as notification appeared in my e-mail this morning, I read the decision and sent a quick reply posing the following questions with regard to the decision:
1) Is Agri-Mark/Cabot going to be required to build the wastewater treatment facility that they originally agreed to build before the discharge program began some years ago? It was supposed to include “…evaluation of all chemical analysis of effluent.” What specifically did the chemical analysis reveal and who certified it?2) I see that a Water Quality Evaluation was due March 31, 2010. Was that evaluation made, and what were the results?
3) Did the Secretary request biological and receiving stream data and was it in compliance with Vermont Water Quality Standards? Who certified the data?
4) Did the ANR itself do any independent analysis of water quality in the surrounding watershed?
Mid-afternoon, I received this response:
I believe John Akielaszek is the only person who can respond to your questions. He just started vacation and will be back April 27. If you have additional questions, you may want to e-mail him directly at john.akielaszek@state.vt.us
I sent my questions to Mr. Akielaszek and received an automatic response that he is on his annual leave and that I could contact Bryan Harrington “with Indirect Discharge queries.” I have forwarded my questions now to him. I’ll let you know when someone finally gives me some answers.
All of this go-round to get answers to a total of…let’s see seven fairly basic questions.? Four require a simple “yes” or “no” answer;” two require the name of an entity or individual. Only two require any data; and that should be a matter of public record. My point is that, if an important decision that has seen its share of controversy is released; and the only person in the entire ANR who is able to answer questions about it is on an extended holiday when it is released; what does that say about the Agency’s ability to function even within the limits of its current responsibility?
When the Agency of Natural Resources changed its mission from protecting natural resources to decimating them, their name was generic enough that they didn’t even have to change it!
How cool is that?!
Too bad the Challenges for Chump Change program threatens to put the safety of all of Vermont’s land and waterways into their hands.
Since when does ANR write the statutes of Vermont? If the law requires that ANR require Cabot to install a waste water treatment facility, why has ANR not enforced that requirement? It is not an administrative function to determine whether to enforce or not to enforce when a violation of the law is clear. Why has the Attorney General of Vermont not brought charges against Cabot? Who, by name, is responsible? The Governor is. The Commissioner is. The Attorney General is. The administration of Vermont ANR is negligent, incompetent and/or corrupted.
The government of Vermont is unacceptably sloppy. It does not enforce its statutes regarding conflict of interest. ANR doesn’t enforce its own rules. Several years ago, it became evident that Natural Resources was not enforcing the statutes regarding the taking of game with dogs on posted property despite the fact that the statutes state clearly that the pursuit of game by any means, whether successful or not, is “taking.” I have a letter from the then Fish and Game Commissioner stating that, unfortunately, there is no law prohibiting trespassing by hunting dogs. The dogs did it! They unchained themselves, collected together at the mom and pop store in East Berkshire, put on their radio collars and came to my neighborhood to chase coyote, on their own.
What does count in Vermont? One dog hunting telephone caller told me that he had three or four hundred acres and that the sixty-seven that I own was insignificant. Do you count in Vermont? How much do you own?
It seems ANR is more of a political agency than an administrative agency. It is time for Vermont agencies to practice some democratic administration.
ANR is an administrative disgrace to Vermont. My apologies to the qualified technical staff of the agency.
But what do I know? I don’t own a bank.
There are a lot more questions that you should ask, Sue.
witchcat
Stay tuned…