Toxic Donations coming to Vermont (Updated)

Wasted (0.00 / 0)

Its so uplifting to know that the state gets to be Massachusetts dumping ground! Wonder if any other states want to start "donating" their waste to us.  

---

by: mistermix @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 14:36:36 PM UTC

Cheap too (0.00 / 0)

We are state with the landfill that gave the lowest bid too!

---

by: BP @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:10:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This really has the appearance of impropriety. (0.00 / 0)

Thank you for bringing this connection to light!

---

by: Sue Prent @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 15:42:54 PM UTC

DiDomenico claims the Agency of Natural Resources can't do anything (0.00 / 0)

But is that true? I mean, even if they can't prevent IWS from bringing certain types of material to the facility, can't the state REQUIRE monitoring be put in place before it can be dumped?  

There HAVE to be regulations that can be called upon to ensure that dioxins do not get into our ground water.

Something smells very fishy about this whole affair.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:30:19 PM UTC

The above is a slight misrepresentation of the situation (0.00 / 0)

Just to be fair to the FP, the FP actually did a pretty good job of explaining more than this diary did.  For example, it pointed out that there is a difference between a dioxin contaminated soil on the surface where it people come in contact with it (and presumably where it could erode into streams, etc), and a dioxin contaminated soil that is in a lined landfill.  The article also points out that tests have been conducted to determine if the dioxin will leach -- they tested with acid to determine if it would leach.  Given the above, the EPA determined that a landfill with a impermeable liner would be sufficient.  The article also points out that the state (in the form of the Solid Waste Program) has not yet approved dumping it into the Morestown site, although the SWP's ability to prevent it may very well be hampered by federal regulations.

Overall, while there are definitely questions I'd like to ask about it all, I also don't know enough of the science to disagree with the EPA's position.  I agree that it sounds wrong -- how could something being removed during a Superfund cleanup not be hazardous waste -- but I also see that there might well be legitimacy  in saying that putting it in a properly constructed landfill is an appropriate treatment.  While there have been quite a few misuses of science data, sometimes people are too willing to get upset about issues that have a appearance of being wrong, without fully understanding the underlying science.  I don't know what side this falls on and I ask that before people get totally bent out of shape about this, that something more than the BFP be the source of the science information.

---

by: vtleslie @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 19:51:51 PM UTC

keep it local! (4.00 / 2)

Isn't there a local MA landfill that could take the "substance"? Quite apart from saving a thousand truck round trips (hardly environmentally friendly or economically sound), it would seem fair that the "problem" not cross state lines if possible. And if it turns out that MA environmental laws are stricter than those in VT, and the substance is being exported chiefly as a NIMBY exercise, it that make for  an interesting story...  

---

by: thingwarbler @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 20:42:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The impression (4.00 / 1)

I got was of a less than aggressive regulatory posture here in Vermont.The State has not yet approved the dumping but does admit that it can't stop it unless the Federal EPA reclassifies the soil as "waste".

At the state, DiDomenico said if the EPA's non-hazardous classification stands, the Moretown landfill will receive approval to take the soil.
Free Press

I made a clarification regarding the leachate testing.The question is whether leachate might be tested for dioxins at the Moretown location. It is noted that lined landfills don't ordinarily test for dioxins.The leachate is collected and taken to Vermont sewage-treatment plants.

---

by: BP @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 20:54:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am still intrigued by the donations angle. (4.00 / 1)

Would anyone care to disabuse us of the impression that this might be quid pro quo?

---

by: Sue Prent @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 21:33:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Got to wonder (4.00 / 2)

regardless of anything else why South Hadley Landfill felt the need to fork over a chunk of money to re-elect Douglas.  

---

by: BP @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 21:56:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jim = Toxic Waste (4.00 / 1)

Toxic Waste = Jobs

Now I understand the original slogan.  And it only took 8 years!

---

by: reelvermonter @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 00:39:06 AM UTC

And who said? (4.00 / 1)

Vermont isn't business friendly?

---

by: Undamned Yankee @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:32:59 AM UTC

Well now (0.00 / 0)

looks like Douglas can protect the environment when he chooses.As Odum notes in his update at the top you have to wonder if Douglas will have to return his campaign loot.

Vermont officials say the dioxin-laced soil is hazardous waste, and ineligible for dumping at the Interstate Waste Services landfill in Moretown.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says the soil is a hazardous "substance" - but not a more toxic hazardous "waste."

http://www.thesunchronicle.com...

---

by: BP @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 10:40:06 AM UTC