MLI was slated to receive the dioxin-contaminated soil from a superfund
site in Massachusetts early last week; the state balked at the EPA's
determination that the soil was not considered "hazardous waste,"
because the concentration level of the hazardous material, dioxin, was
not high enough to deem the soil "hazardous waste."
Brown said that ANR is required to notify the landfill host town and
copy the municipality on all correspondence as a part of the Act 250
permit.
ANR representatives called their failure to notify the select board a
"mix-up" and that the case happened very quickly and apologized for
failing to notify the town's select board beforehand, according to
Brown.
"The landfill cannot take hazardous waste; it's against the Act 250
permit," she continued.
Moretown resident Ben Sanders was present during the public comment
period to suggest that the town officials should join in an effort to
forge a connection between the state and the individual towns to "make
sure the town has an opportunity for public hearings and that the town
and public have an opportunity to express concerns and ask questions,"
he said.
"Had it not been for a reporter at the Free Press, no
one would have known about this; luckily we had a sharp person at ANR
who asked the right questions and made a wise decision or it all could
have happened without knowing about it," Sanders continued.
Select board member John Hoogenboom said that he "has faith in the ANR;
obviously they had difficulty getting information, but I can't imagine
that they would just rubber stamp something like this."
Sanders said he wanted to ensure that the "local and state process
include notification of neighbors, town select board and anyone else
that needed to know."
Brown said that the host town agreement between with the landfill is due
to expire in August of 2011 and it is "time to start working on it
again."
Sanders continued, "To truck from a Massachusetts superfund site to
Vermont is incredible that they'd even try to do that; hopefully, we
won't even see something like this come our way."
In May 2009, the EPA ordered a reassessment of the chemical and its
potential human health risks by completing a draft of Preliminary
Remediation Goals (PRGs).
According to the EPA, PRG's "serve as a target to use during the initial
development, analysis and selection of cleanup alternatives. These
goals should both be protective of human health and the environment and
comply with all applicable relevant and appropriate regulations."
The EPA began taking public comments on the issue via their website on
January 7 but extended the deadline to April 2010 to allow additional
time for consideration.
{loadnavigation}
