Vermonters for a Clean Environment, Inc.
www.vce.org
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070510/OPINION02/705100313/1037/OPINION02
Letter to the editor
Industrial waste by another name
May 10, 2007
You can dress up your pig in a suit and call it a gentleman, but it's still a pig. You can take your
industrial waste and call it tailings, but that doesn't make it so.
For years Omya has tried to call its industrial waste "tailings," in order to avail itself of the benefits, but such benefits keep getting denied. Tailings are unprocessed mine waste, at the time. Run it through a factory, and it becomes product or waste, industrial waste.
Stop playing Omya's word game and call the stuff what it is: industrial waste.
BILL ROSS
Danby
------------------------
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060509/NEWS/605090311/1037/OPINION02
Letter to the editor
May 9, 2006
Garage is Omya's cat's paw in Danby
When I first heard about it, I knew immediately what it was all about. Danby town government wants to build a new town garage. The claim was made that they need a new place to store salt and sand; six miles away from the town center, up in the mountains, not on the way to anywhere, totally unsecure from vandals, uphill from rare protected wetlands, in an area where everyone relies on groundwater with no public water supply — this is the chosen location? Why?
First of all, trucking all that material up into the mountains and then trucking it out again would greatly increase truck traffic, but maybe that is the point. And what turns salt storage into a whole new town garage? Certainly not need. There is no need for a new salt storage shed, and there is no need for a new town garage — all so-called reasons so far presented do not even make it to the level of specious. Perhaps building a new town garage would be more fun than cleaning up their present site. Solving the safety problems with the transfer station does not require a new town garage.
So what is this all about? It's all about Omya.
First thing to understand about Danby is that it is divided into two parts, them and us. Us ("those people up in the valley") is the residents of the valley, Danby Four Corners to Tinmouth, and them is the town government, openly hostile to us ("you people…"). So putting a town garage and salt storage up here would be a thumb in the eye to us, and that is one reason that makes sense. Danby's town budget has doubled in recent years, out of proportion to other towns in the area, so it is obvious that they like to spend money and here is the potential for a half-million-dollar (at least) project to be paid for by Danby's 885 taxpayers.
They have been trying to inflict Omya's new strip mine on us for over 10 years. The recently elected selectman promised to make the new town garage plaything his top priority and has already hired an engineer to plan it. No public process, no citizen input. At the May 4 Select Board meeting, he said that "there is a lot of work to do on this and most can be done off the agenda." Thirteen years ago, when he was road commissioner, he started widening and rebuilding a road that Omya wanted to use for heavy hauling when they opened their new strip mine in Danby; no matter that this road is residential, with houses a mere 20 feet from the road, it was all about what Omya wanted.
The land for this new town garage? Adjacent to Omya's planned mine, donated by Omya with deed restriction limiting its use to town garage only. The new selectman? Works for the marble quarry in Danby which is owned by Omya. Any conflict of interest there?
So what's the plan? You only have to look back four years to the pump test done by Omya that caused wells and springs to go dry for a mile around.
Omya claimed no responsibility for this, making the claim "it was the drought." No matter that damaged residents spent more than $6,000 and endured incredible hardship because of the loss of water.
This, then, is the true purpose of a new town garage, to prepare and industrialize the area so that Omya can come back and claim that since the area is already degraded, their mine can go in and hardly be noticed with its further degradation.
WILLIAM ROSS
Danby
----------
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060425/NEWS/604250358/1022/EDUCATION05
Times Argus letter to the editor
April 25, 2006
Douglas' loyalty is to corporations
A recent plea for the governor to get the ANR to "… start enforcing…" the state's pollution laws is falling on deaf ears; the governor actually calls state agencies and asks them to "ease up," "back off," and not push enforcement of laws and regulations against his corporate friends.
Malfeasance is too nice a term to use for this fascist, corrupt excuse for a governor whose one loyalty is to corporations. As far as he's concerned, the citizens are just an obstacle, an inconvenience and he has no interest in hearing from them or about their plight.
Once again, Omya gets a free pass from the governor to commit flagrant violations of its permits and we see yet again, where the health and safety of the citizens stands in the governor's priorities.
William Ross
Danby
-------------------
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060418/NEWS/604180315/1037
Rutland Herald letter to the editor
April 18, 2006
OMYA accuser's facts wrong
I am concerned that recent inaccurate allegations about air pollution from the OMYA plant in Florence (letters 4/9/06) may cause concern in the community. I'd like to set the record straight.
The Department of Environ-mental Conservation has conducted tests to determine the make-up of gases coming out of the stacks at the OMYA plant (This was done to try and identify the source of odors). The tests identified a number of combustion byproducts typical of what you would expect from a furnace burning #2 fuel oil including benzene, toluene, xylene and 1,3, butadiene. While we expected to find them, we have ordered further testing to determine the exact amounts and concentrations of these chemicals.
Additional testing is under way to determine the source of odors and measure the quantities of any chemicals that might be associated with those odors.
To date there has been no determination that the plant is violating its permit conditions, if that changes further action will be taken.
JEFFREY WENNBERG,
Commissioner,
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation,
Waterbury
----------
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060329/NEWS/603290315/1037
Rutland Herald Letter to the Editor
March 29, 2006
Omya emitting carcinogens
Omya Inc., a multinational mining company with a large processing plant in Florence, has been violating its air pollution permit for the last three years. Despite repeated efforts by residents living near the plant and other concerned citizens to get the state of Vermont to enforce its own permits, Omya continues to send noxious odors and potentially dangerous chemicals into the atmosphere in Rutland County.
What does Omya's permit violation — ongoing since 2002 — actually mean? According to tests Omya finally ran — under pressure from neighbors and Vermont Law School — the plant emits benzene, toluene, 1,3-butadiene, styrene, xylene, and other toxics. Many of these are known carcinogens and neurotoxins, but Vermont regulators continue to stand by while Florence residents continue to be exposed to these chemicals with every breath they take.
It is high time for Governor Douglas to get Vermont's Agency of Natural resources to start enforcing the state's own air pollution permits.
DENIS RYDJESKI
(Political chairman,
Vermont Sierra Club)
Springfield
-----------------
Rutland Herald Lettter to the Editor
November 17, 2005
The expedient environmentalist
Is Governor Douglas always an environmentalist?
We commend Vermont's leaders for standing together to oppose International Paper's test tire burn in Ticonderoga, N.Y. Governor Douglas, the Attorney General's Office, the Agency of Natural Resources staff and our congressional delegation are all working to protect public health and the environment from the threat of increased pollution.
And we are heartened that Governor Douglas understands the need to protect our state from unnecessary air and water pollution.
However, it seems important to point out the governor does not always stand for environmental protection. When the air pollution comes from New York, Governor Douglas appears to have no difficulty doing the right thing by just saying no.
But at the same time, Governor Douglas has allowed businesses in Vermont to pollute. For example, a profitable company that operates in Vermont has been polluting the air for at least three years, in violation of its air pollution permit. Governor Douglas, the Attorney General's Office, and the Agency of Natural Resources are all fully aware that the air in Florence is being polluted by Omya Inc. Yet no action has been taken to enforce this multinational corporation's air pollution permit and stop threatening the health of Vermonters.
Protecting public health and the environment requires consistent application and enforcement of our laws. Does Governor Douglas care enough about our health to do the right thing all the time? Or is Governor Douglas only an environmentalist when it is politically expedient?
ANNETTE SMITH
(Executive director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)
Danby
----------------
Rutland Herald Letter to the Editor
Critique of Omya yielded results
June 21, 2005
I want to thank state Sen. Hull Maynard for his letter to the Herald on June 8. It gives me an opportunity to reply to his comments about Annette Smith and Vermonters for a Clean Environment.
As you might recall, Senator Maynard takes Annette to task for repeating "old criticisms" about Omya and the lack of responsibility by our state agencies when it comes to how they balance Omya's needs and the health of neighbors living around their noxious operations in Florence. Mr. Maynard should be asking the people there if anything has changed. Until things do, the criticisms will continue to resonate.
Senator Maynard doesn't approve of Annette's bringing up these very legitimate issues "at just the moment in history when a startling alliance has been formed between Omya and Conservation Law Foundation." Still I think that he kind of likes Annette, as he goes on to praise her "consummate investigative and journalistic skills." Right on! However, having been imbedded deep in this controversy for several years, I feel compelled to point out that had it not been for Annette's tenacious activity, this "moment in history" likely never would have happened. Without VCE's outing of the nature of Omya's operations, no meaningful action would have been taken by anyone, ever, to remediate the situation.
Now Omya is in a real pickle. They are faced with rising concern in the Statehouse and the specter of litigation at the state and federal level. Things look real bad. Trying to buy our love with Green Up day T-shirts for the kids just won't do it anymore. No wonder they are ready to party up with CLF Ventures. VCE has been an ongoing participant in these issues since 2001, and we sincerely hope for progress.
However, I can't help but be a little skeptical about this new moment in history because of how Omya behaved during the months of mediations between VCE, Omya, the Solid Waste Division, ANR, and the Vermont Law School, where Omya slow-walked that group into a wall of nothing. The stalling is useless, and if the owners and management cared about the future of their employees, they would get serious about cleaning up the operation. They have been making a good profit for years here. They can afford to change. Why can't they show some concern and respect? That's all we are asking for.
MICHAEL FANNIN
(President, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)
Tinmouth
--------
Rutland Herald Letter to the Editor
Among support of Omya decision
June 8, 2005
Regarding Annette Smith's letter to the editor: I take great pleasure in finding my position as senator mentioned among the many supporters of Omya.
At the same time I am disappointed at Annette's repetition of old criticisms at just the moment in history when a startling alliance has been formed between Omya and Conservation Law Foundation.
Instead of 90 percent of that letter raking over old complaints, it might have been more productive for Annette to use her consummate investigative and journalistic skills to highlight this new development. Just paying a one sentence tribute to this new alliance, she misses an opportunity to become more a part of the solution then remaining mostly a part of the problem.
Sen. HULL MAYNARD
Shrewsbury
------------
Rutland Herald Letter to the Editor
Don't overlook needs of neighbors
May 10, 2005
It is not too difficult to imagine a Vermont where the state says to a company that is polluting, "Stop. Clean up your mess. Be a better neighbor." In fact, that is what most Vermonters expect. Imagine a Vermont where the state finding (twice in two years) that a multinational corporation's dumping activities pose a potential threat to public health and the environment would be greeted with concerns for the neighborhood that has hosted the offending operation for more than two decades.
Instead, state officials who found Omya's waste in need of oversight have said they will do nothing to stop the ongoing dumping while the permitting process proceeds. And the Rutland Herald's editorial (May 4) expresses concern for Omya and its jobs and investments. The brief mention of the neighbors is in the context of their complaints, not concerns for them or their health.
The message Omya is sending to our elected officials is "poor us, people are picking on us," with some apparent success. Our legislators do not want to be seen as "anti-business" and are supposed to see only the jobs, not the millions of tons of contaminated waste dumped in old quarries full of groundwater.
Turning a blind eye to the very real pollution problems at Omya's site in Florence — both air and water, along with noise — does not make Vermont pro-business. But it does make our state anti-environment.
It is not a pretty picture. Omya's site is a mess and needs to be cleaned up. Saying so does not mean we are anti-business or that we are demonizing Omya. Omya has support from the Douglas administration, the Rutland county Senate delegation, the representative from Pittsford, and a host of business interests. But have Omya's supporters had the courtesy to meet with the residents of Florence to hear their concerns and make sure they get addressed? More than 50 families get their drinking water from the public water supply located downhill from Omya's nearby waste piles.
I invite Omya's supporters to embrace the possibility that Omya can do better. Omya can be more environmentally responsible, a better employer, and a better neighbor. There is no shame in admitting that this multinational corporation has problems and that it needs to pay whatever is necessary to clean up. That's why we spent months last year and paid to participate in mediated sessions with the state, Vermont Law School and Omya, trying to find answers. And that's why we support the latest attempt by CLF to find solutions.
For too long, Omya's neighbors and the communities in which it operates have borne the impacts and expense of Omya's operations. Maybe next time, the Rutland Herald editorial will acknowledge the importance of healthy communities and citizens who have the courage to speak up and protect themselves and their families from problems that, it turns out, are totally legitimate.
ANNETTE SMITH
(Executive director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)
Danby
--------------
Rutland Herald letter to the editor
Direct knowledge about OMYA
February 27, 2005
I would like to respond to Kevin Bradley's letter on Feb. 14, 2005, in which he says people who criticize OMYA are too lazy to check the facts.
First, let me state that I believe Vermont needs more industry with higher paying jobs. However, these companies shouldn't come into a community and disrupt it. OMYA is such a company. We live less than a mile from the OMYA plant in Florence, not in Proctor does Mr. Bradley. I wonder if he or the public is aware that OMYA applied for an Act 250 exemption to make a sludge pile from the waste left over after their process in complete.
OMYA claims this is earthen material because it comes from the ground; therefore, they don't need an exception to put it back in the ground. The fact is this waste is full of biocides and other chemicals after their process is complete. Look up biocide in the dictionary and it says "a chemical that destroys life by poisoning."
The pile they want will cover 32 acres and be 80 feet high. They need to pile the waste because they already filled up an old quarry with this sludge. One wonders where they are getting rid of their waste now.
One reason they haven't got the exemption (and they are still trying) is because some test wells onsite showed contamination. OMYA agreed to test some wells in the area. We had ours tested last spring and still haven't got the results. OMYA not hiding anything? The question begs to be asked — would you want a 32-acre sludge pile 80 feet high less than a mile from your well?
My biggest complaint is the steady noise from the plant. Seven days a week, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, there is a constant humming from OMYA. We can't enjoy a barbecue on our deck because all we can hear is the hum from OMYA. We can't open a window on hot summer nights because of the constant noise from OMYA. I have been calling them since 1989 and complaining against the noise. Believe me, Mr. Bradley, the people who live next to OMYA are well aware of the facts and we didn't get our facts fed to us by OMYA at their open house in their Middlebury quarry last October. OMYA is insensitive to its neighbors concerns.
Steve Rosato
Florence
----------
Rutland Herald letter to the editor
Let's support Vermont business
February 14, 2005
I'm tired of reading the rhetoric and outrageous accusations made by people who are too lazy to find the facts, or too extreme to care about the facts. I am, of course, referring to the recent letter to the editor signed by Brennan Michaels of Salisbury. Who are the Vermonters you supposedly represent? Are they natives? Are you?
As a third-generation native Vermonter, I'm too busy earning a living to sit on the green in Brandon counting Omya trucks. I chose to stay here in Vermont and raise my family. This choice was made possible because of the well-paying jobs that businesses like Omya, Velco, IBM, and others offer.
These companies support our economy in more ways than most realize. Their employees frequent other local businesses, grocery stores, mortgage companies, gas stations, lunch spots, insurance companies, and the list goes on.
No, I've never had the opportunity to fly over the Middlebury quarry; probably never will. But, I did take time to fact-find at Omya's Middlebury quarry open house last October along with lots of other Vermont residents and tourists. On a tour of the quarry, I saw exactly what they do there and talked to many Omya employees and subcontractors. I was impressed by Omya's operations and the fact they were so willing to discuss their operations. Omya isn't hiding anything.
The critics of Omya are quick to use blanket statements, based on generalizations. I for one think the burden of proof should be on those who are quick to judge, not on a company who provides so many, with so much.
I would like to see more of the people in Vermont who support business and economic development represented in the news. Let's be Vermonters for Vermont businesses for a change.
KEVIN M. BRADLEY
Proctor
----------
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050209/NEWS/502090336/1037/OPINION02
Omya pollutes state environment
February 9, 2005
To Gov. James Douglas:
I am sickened when I hear Jim Reddy of Omya threaten to move his $180 million to Alabama because the environmental laws in that state are less strict than Vermont. Vermont's environment is literally the lifeblood of its residents, not a thing to use as a threat or tamper with or play with as in a game of chess. So the next time Jim Reddy threatens to leave this state, please tell him that would be fine with us.
Omya's essence in Vermont has been to hurt the environment. Have you ever flown over the huge gaping hole that is Omya's strip mine in East Middlebury? Have you ever seen the unbelievably huge waste pile at the Florence plant site that we now know contains dangerous chemicals? Have you ever talked with the residents of Florence about the air pollution from Omya's plant or their constant worries about their drinking water? Have you ever sat on the Brandon green and counted the Omya trucks go by?
This is a multinational corporation that has and is completely disregarding Vermont laws. Can you explain to me why the state of Vermont has not forced this company to comply with state laws as it does with all its residents? I have enclosed a letter to the attorney general in case you have not had the chance to read it. Many Vermont residents have been sending this letter to Attorney General Sorrel.
People come to visit this state and to live here because we do care about the environment. Please do not let Omya use Vermont as a pawn in their profit game. Our environment truly is our lifeblood and we count on you to keep it healthy.
BRENNAN MICHAELS
---------
Rutland Herald, Letter to the editor
Wennberg has failed to protect Vermonters
December 5, 2004
Christopher Kilian says in his commentary about water pollution published in the Nov. 7 edition of the Sunday Rutland Herald and Times Argus that Vermonters should be scared by Commissioner Jeffrey Wennberg's response to the recent ruling requiring compliance with the Clean Water Act.
I have to agree with him, especially after spending two years watching Wennberg's Department of Environmental Conservation fail to address Omya's water and air pollution in Florence, Vt., and fail to protect the health of residents and the environment.
I am weary of hearing excuses from DEC about why the state cannot stop Omya's chemically contaminated waste from being dumped into groundwater and why the residents of Florence continue to have to breathe fumes emanating from Omya's processing plant.
Omya, Vermont Law School's Environmental Law Clinic and Vermonters for a Clean Environment became so frustrated with DEC's ineptness that we entered into mediation with the state in June rather than continue with the bizarre process that DEC set up for reconsidering the reconsideration of an exemption. But mediation has apparently failed.
Two years after the residents of Florence learned that for more than two decades Omya has been dumping chemically contaminated waste into fractured bedrock quarries full of groundwater, Omya's neighbors are no closer to assurance that their water and air are safe. Commissioner Wennberg is protecting the polluter, not the environment or public health.
Christopher Kilian asks if Commissioner Wennberg is up to the task he has been charged with. The residents of Florence have waited patiently for two years for answers. Time is up, Commissioner.
Annette Smith
Executive director
Vermonters for a Clean Environment
Danby
--------
Rutland Herald, Letter to the editor
Transportation absurdities
November 23, 2004
A few years ago, Rutland claimed its 15 seconds of fame when the multi-modal parking garage was honored with a "Fleecing of America Award," duly reported on the evening news. In comparison, however, it appears that the planned railyard relocation project has the potential to provide material for a major motion picture.
What got me thinking about this was driving by Rutland's admittedly attractive train station today at noon, and seeing the closed sign in the window, with the notice that no services are available the station, no one is on duty, and tickets can only be obtained by calling Amtrak's 800 number. So what Rutland has done is build a non-functional railroad station next to a completely serviceable parking garage, which for whatever reasons was never really used, then build a new parking garage several blocks away, then encourage the bus operator to move the nearby bus terminal to a more distant location at the new parking garage, and then make plans to demolish the old parking garage. I can only wonder if, in a final act of absurdity, the railroad tracks will now be relocated from the non-functional railroad station to the south side of the city as part of the planned railyard relocation project. Rutland could have achieved the same result by simply building a Mel Brooks-style false front train station out of plywood for a few thousand dollars.
As far as the rail yard relocation goes, the thinking seems to be "If you build it, they will come." With the recent announcement by Omya that they will not be pursuing their Danby operation, "if you build it they will go" might be more accurate. When this project was first dreamed up, a figure of $20 million was being kicked around, but it seems to have somehow grown to $100 million. In my opinion, it doesn't matter if the funding would be local or federal. My suggestion? Spend $1 million to staff the train station for the next 20 years, and use the remaining $99 million to improve every road in Rutland County.
LARY FUSCO
Brandon
-------------------
Sunday Rutland HeraldTimes Argus
Danby is in the shadow of environmental activism
October 10, 2004
Omya won't be opening a new marble quarry in Danby. Vermonters for a Clean Environment has established the gold standard for environmental activism blending personal fortunes, neighborhood pride and brilliant public relations capitalizing on the Internet. Are there implications for economic development in Vermont?
Privately held Omya says that it can take a longer view than publicly held companies. Whoever owns the land, such untapped natural resources will retain their value as long as there are markets for them. Omya or its successor could simply wait until a yet unborn generation or two populate that area before trying again.
A helpful deterrent to future quarry proposals could be extensive second-home development surrounding that property. Towns could welcome new tax revenues surpassing increased costs of municipal services. And second-home owners would augment and preserve quarry opponents' natural constituency.
But what about jobs for typical Vermonters? With "around 5,600 employees in some 100 locations in 30 countries," Omya is about as significant in the global economy as IBM's Essex Junction plant. Would such a plant be built in today's Vermont?
Vermonters for a Clean Environment's exemplary success, known worldwide via the Internet and major media coverage that influential part-time residents can obtain, will eclipse Act 250 as Vermont's perceived resistance to economic development. For every Danby, there is another Vermont town hoping for revived prosperity, but living in the shadow of environmental activism.
Where is their place in the Vermont sun? Who will be Vermonters for a Prosperous Economy?
Howard Fairman
Vernon
--------------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to the editor
June 14, 2004
Environmental record is weak
I scratched my head in wonder as I read Agency of Natural Resources Secretary Elizabeth McLain's glowing analysis of Governor Douglas' leadership on environmental issues.
Is this the same Agency that has so mismanaged Omya's waste case that all the parties are screaming in frustration?
The Douglas administration promised and is claiming credit for efficiency and good process on environmental issues. So why did Secretary McLain remand a reconsideration of an exemption request back to Commissioner Wennberg to reconsider for the second time? And when she called it a "declaratory ruling" process, was she aware that the Agency never promulgated rules for the so-called process, and so the parties are having to make them up as we go along?
Rather than allowing the Solid Waste Division within the Department of Environmental Conservation to do its job regulating and enforcing the disposal of contaminated waste, Secretary McLain has created a real nightmare for Omya and everyone concerned about the safety of the water and air in Florence.
No, we are not seeing decisive action and effective environmental leadership. The Douglas administration is not doing a good job protecting public health and the environment. We are not impressed with the secretary's politically-motivated words about what a wonderful job the governor is doing when, after two years, this administration has not taken the steps required by law to assure that people -- the water they drink and the air they breathe -- are safe from pollution.
We have seen political expediency as the primary motivation for Governor Douglas' environmental initiatives. What we are not seeing is the political will to take decisive actions when required. Instead what we see from this administration is paralysis. The secretary's rosy words do not make up for her failures or the failures of Governor Douglas.
Annette Smith
(Executive director
Vermonters for a Clean Environment)
Danby
---------
http://www.rutlandherald.com/04/Letters/Story/83128.html
Rutland Herald Letters to the editor
May 5, 2004
Solid waste fees should be fair
Omya generates about 100,000 tons of waste annually from its calcium carbonate processing operation in Florence. Vermont's Environmental Commissioner Jeff Wennberg recently ruled that the disposal of this waste must be regulated as solid waste under Vermont law, because some of the chemicals it contains have been detected in test wells located near the deposited waste. If his decision stands, Omya will have to comply with the Vermont solid waste rules, like other solid waste generators.
There are various fees and taxes associated with the solid waste program. They are used both to pay for the administration of the program and also to encourage the reduction of solid waste required to be landfilled. Special legislation has been introduced that would greatly reduce the fees and taxes applicable to Omya's solid waste. According to a recent letter from Representative Flory to the Rutland Herald, Omya's fees and taxes under the proposed legislation would be $25,000 per year, or 25 cents per ton.
By comparison, according to Rutland County Solid Waste District figures, the member towns of the district paid $23.97 per ton in fees and taxes to dispose of their 37,000 tons of solid waste in 2003, or nearly $900,000. By taxing Omya's solid waste at approximately a rate of 1 percent of that applied to other solid waste generators, there appears to be little incentive for Omya to reduce the amount of waste it generates. This undermines the very laudable goal of Vermont's solid waste law, which is to reduce Vermont's overall generation of solid waste. I urge the Legislature to establish fees and taxes on Omya's solid waste, consistent with the intent of Vermont's solid waste law.
ERNEST J. BROD
Florence
----------
http://www.rutlandherald.com/04/Letters/Story/82359.html
Rutland Herald letter to editor
April 20, 2004
Better use for city land
As long as our elected and business leaders are willing to engage in grand schemes on which to spend taxpayer dollars, such as the Rutland railyard relocation, with an estimated price tag of at least $100 million, may we play future fantasy, too, and think about other big ideas for that site and money that might offer more benefit to the region?
The 77-acre trapezoid-shaped parcel bounded to the south by Route 4 West, to the west by the Otter Creek, to the east by the railroad tracks and to the north by Park Street is envisioned by some as the ideal spot for an expanded railyard with new industrial sites.
Take a walk on the site and you will find that it contains some beautiful wetlands and acres of farmland. The current proposal for the railyard site involves filling in at least 17 acres of wetlands to create an industrial zone.
While there are benefits to the area in moving the railyard, the primary beneficiary would be Omya. Newspaper articles about the railyard relocation and expansion project say clearly: "Moving the rail would allow freight transport - principally Omya tankers at the moment - to expand."
Omya expects politicians to change the rules just for them and wants taxpayers to fund another $20 million to enable the private corporation's expansion of ore extraction from Middlebury. Is it really in the public interest to enable Omya's expansion by building a huge railyard in Rutland?
What else might be done with the proposed railyard site that would offer more benefits to the people of the region?
The obvious approach is to build on what is already there - the production of food and the existence of natural areas that serve an important water purification function.
The site could be turned into a Rutland version of Burlington's Intervale Foundation's gardens, which produced 6 percent of Burlington's fresh produce in 2003. The natural areas could serve as a community nature trail with education about the important functions of wetlands. Similar to the plans for the Intervale, surrounding businesses might develop ways to share resources and eliminate or use waste products.
People are becoming more concerned about where food comes from and about our planet's health. Rutland can bulldoze and fill and industrialize, or look to the future and plan for local food production and maintaining ecological balance. We have time to make smart choices about our future and about the future of an important large parcel of land in the heart of Rutland.
ANNETTE SMITH
(Executive director,
Vermonters for a Clean Environment)
Danby
----------
Rutland Herald Letter to the editor
Thursday, April 1, 2004
Determining fees for Omya
In response to the letter to the editor in last week's paper, I need to clear up what appears to be some incorrect information.
The House Ways and Means Committee was discussing their "fee bill" and, because there was a section that would impact Omya, the chairman of the committee asked me to provide information to the committee. I attended and testified at the committee's request, not at Omya's request.
The issue they were dealing with was not whether Omya should be granted a permit for their tailings pile. Their issue was simply what should Omya pay under the fee structure if a permit were issued. The merits of the project itself are in the hands of the Agency of Natural Resources, which is dealing with Omya's permit.
Prior to 2003, mineral wastes were thought to be exempt from having to obtain a solid waste permit. However, a preliminary decision has been reached that appears to require Omya to obtain a solid waste permit for their tailing pile. Because this would be a new process which would include not only Omya but all of our granite and slate companies among others, it was necessary to evaluate the fee structure.
The fees, taxes, surcharges and tipping fees charged for landfills and other solid wastes are based on tonnage. These fees are intended to offset the costs to the state for the monitoring and processing that the state does for these systems. In Omya's case, if the normal fee structure was used, that fee would be over $2.3 million per year. Clearly this is far more than the state would expend for any monitoring. The proposal the House Ways and Means Committee was considering was to have the charges apply to the non-mineral portion of the tailings. This approach would have amounted to approximately $25,000 per year, which appears to be much closer to the intended offset.
Unfortunately, the discussion of the opponents was primarily focused on objections to the project itself and the concerns raised over impacts the project may have. These are concerns that are being addressed through the permitting process and not appropriate in a discussion of the amount of "tipping fees" Omya should be charged if they, in fact, ultimately obtain a permit.
The statement was also made by the opponents to the Omya project that there was currently no way for residents of Florence to find out if their water was safe "because Omya pays for the tests." This is blatantly incorrect. The town of Pittsford has the water tested by an independent lab, and it is paid for by the water users.
The merits of the Omya project, and the conditions to protect the safety of the residents in Florence, are currently being addressed through the permitting arm of the Agency of Natural Resources.
I continue to work to assist the people and the businesses in our communities to strike a balance that satisfies our need for a safe environment and good-paying jobs.
Rep. MARGARET K. FLORY
Pittsford
----------
Rutland Herald Letter to Editor
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Flory serving OMYA's interests
Since October 2002, residents in Florence who are neighbors of OMYA have been distressed by OMYA's plans to construct a 32-acre, 80-foot-high tailings dumpsite. It will contain 30 million pounds of chemicals, mostly toxic. This proposed dumpsite is to be located on a hill composed of fractured bedrock with direct access to groundwater. The hill is above the Florence water supply and the Otter Creek.
A group of neighbors have banded together to form Residents Concerned about OMYA. We have received valuable and critical assistance from Vermonters for a Clean Environment, the Vermont Law School, Toxics Action Center, and others. Through efforts that have consumed a great deal of time and expense, we have been fighting this proposal through local zoning, Act 250, and the Agency of Natural Resources, Solid Waste Division.
We want to ensure that this toxic material is put into a lined landfill. At one point Commissioner Wennberg of ANR rendered a judgment against OMYA. This long battle, at the moment of seeming victory, has been utterly subverted by Pittsford's own representative, Peg Flory. She accompanied OMYA to the House Ways and Means Committee to introduce legislation that would eliminate or severely reduce OMYA's solid waste taxes and fees. OMYA wants to be exempted from the very taxes and fees meant to reduce the amount of waste they produce. Taxes are levied by the ton and provide an incentive for recycling or transforming the material from toxic to benign. OMYA generates 100,000 tons of waste per year - every ounce of which is tainted by toxic chemicals. OMYA is the largest user of pesticides in the entire state. Recycling could become an attractive alternative if the presently required fees are maintained. There is no reason to change the tax structure other than to favor OMYA's profits above the health of the community and the environment. Further, the law is designed to assure that the polluter pays the costs of their impacts.
Ms. Flory lives in a section of Pittsford with a different water source than that of Florence, which seems to render her indifferent to our plight. In fact, Ms. Flory gives every appearance of being OMYA's paid lobbyist rather than a representative of her constituents. I urge all residents of Pittsford to help us in our time of need and remove Peg Flory from her seat in the Vermont House of Representatives.
BEVERLY PETERSON
Florence
-------------------
Rutland Herald
Wednesday, December 31, 2003
Letter to the editor
Omya seeking 'right' answers
In the article about Omya continuing to keep the residents of Danby in limbo for the foreseeable future, Omya President Jim Reddy says some disturbing things about our water; even worse are the things between the lines.
The hydrogeological study is done, the readings have been taken, the data are there and aren't going to change - we hope. So why keep this a secret? What is there to hide? Because it is going to take another year to get "the right answer?"
It is clear that there are already answers, but they are the "wrong" ones - for Omya. It is also clear that the "right answer" has already been determined by Omya - that Omya's pumping did not cause my spring to dry up 10 days later, did not cause wells, ponds and springs to dry up for a country mile around. They just need another year to remanufacture the study to support Reddy's claim that it was the drought, and only the drought that took our water, the indefensible conclusion he has been declaring for a year.
I've done my own water study from inside the zone of depletion, watching those karst aquifer siphons slowly fill back up one by one; seeing my spring fill back up - but my pond stays dry. Why? Because Omya's drilling rearranged some water veins; the water may still be there, but it is going somewhere else.
The damage has already begun. It is very likely that the data will show other locations which - like my pond - haven't come back. Omya's past drilling has already dried up springs.
Every day of secrecy that goes by casts more doubt on the credibility and validity of a report that already has answers that are indefensible and/or wrong. Keeping the secret is indefensible.
BILL ROSS
Danby
----------------
Rutland Herald
December 4, 2003
Guarding against Omya waste
Contrary to the claim of Omya's president, Jim Reddy, that the state's toxicologists and scientists said the company's waste material is safe, the state's toxicologist in Vermont's Department of Health never said that.
What Dr. Bill Bress said was that if the chemicals are evenly distributed and if the chemicals remain the same and do not change, then the tailings meet EPA soil screening standards.
VCE commented using Omya's own submissions to show that the chemicals are not evenly distributed. We also showed that Omya changes the chemicals it uses. Therefore, the tailings do not meet EPA soil-screening standards according to the criteria established by Dr. Bress. It is a big jump from "if this and if that, then EPA soil-screening standards are met" to "it is safe."
In addition to tall oil that exceeds standards in groundwater on Omya's property, as indicated in the Rutland Herald's article, "Omya told it needs permit for 'dump'", Commissioner Wennberg also found amounts of acetone in groundwater samples on Omya's site that exceeded groundwater enforcement and preventative action standards.
According to the fact sheet on acetone from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, "health effects from long-term exposures are known mostly from animal studies. Kidney, liver, and nerve damage, increased birth defects, and lowered ability to reproduce (males only) occurred in animals exposed long-term. It is not known if people would have these same effects."
VCE has recommended to Omya that they invest in phytoremediation, a process that can remove the chemicals from the waste, which is more than 50 percent calcium carbonate. Technologies now exist to clean and recycle waste material for use rather than piling it in a dump that will pose a threat to current residents and future generations.
We are grateful to Commissioner Wennberg and the many people who participated in the year-long process that resulted in this decision to protect groundwater and public health.
We can fight about a lot of things, but we can agree that water is a human right that needs to be protected and conserved for all life and should not be contaminated or wasted.
ANNETTE SMITH
(Executive director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)
Danby
---------------
Rutland Herald, Letter to editor
Nov. 29, 2003
Newspaper’s ad-to-news ratio is out of balance
Most days I read the Rutland Herald while walking from the newspaper tube to the barn. The content has become so weak that it is easy to skim the entire paper while walking 800 feet. If there’s an article I want to read, I sit down on a hay bale and read through it before milking while the cows are munching their hay. Often there’s a newspaper insert, some sort of advertising on which I put my milk pail while I’m changing out of my barn boots.
Sundays are another matter. Deconstructing the paper takes the entire walk to the barn. I’m lucky if some of the shiny ads don’t fall on the ground as I pull them out from between each section. After assembling all the advertising inserts, I leaf through them to try to find the Parade Magazine, the Sunday Magazine and the comics. It seems to have become even more of a puzzle lately and it takes a lot more time to unravel. I always notice that by weight, the newspaper inserts weigh about twice as much as the entire rest of the paper.
Recently, I noticed the article about the proposed tire burn at the Ticonderoga paper plant. I wonder how many tires will have to be burned to produce all those newspaper inserts. And the shiny ones — the ones that slip out of my hands as I try to deposit them in the garbage can I keep outside my house as I come in from the barn — contain calcium carbonate produced by, among others, OMYA.
I wonder how many trucks, how much dynamite, how much water, how many biocides and other chemicals, how much oil, how much pure white Vermont marble is consumed to produce all that shiny paper; and how much waste (that contains chemicals) and how much more hazardous air pollution is deposited in Pittsford to make something that goes from my garbage can into a Vermont landfill.
I understand that newspapers need advertising. But as a reader of the only local daily paper around, I need stronger content in the news coverage and less junk to throw away — especially when it is produced by polluting industries that fail to recognize that the bottom line isn’t just about their dollars. It’s about our health and a sustainable society. We are tired of seeing our air and water polluted and our resources wasted so corporations can pay their executives higher salaries while threatening their workforce with closure if the big chiefs don’t get everything they want.
Annette Smith
Danby
----------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to the editor
Saturday, Nov. 8, 2003
Mine tailings are not exempt
In his response to my commentary (Oct. 29), OMYA Inc. President Jim Reddy alleges that, as the former commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, I helped create an exemption to Vermont’s solid waste rules that OMYA is now seeking. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As originally drafted in 1987, the rules did include a narrow exception for “earth materials,” but what we had in mind were tree stumps, rocks, and similar, benign materials, not processed mining waste containing toxic chemicals. At no time during my tenure did the state authorize the kind of dumping of mine tailings that OMYA has been doing for the past two decades.
Mr. Reddy may think this waste is "safe," but he isn’t the one living next to the mine and drinking the groundwater underneath the waste pile. Vermont’s environmental laws are designed to prevent contamination before it happens, not wait until people get sick.
Whatever happened 15 years ago is irrelevant to the question of what should be done now. On that score the law is absolutely clear: This waste must be placed in a certified solid waste facility and properly monitored and managed.
PATRICK A. PARENTEAU
South Royalton
-----------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to the editor
November 5, 2003
Is limestone renewable?
In the recent self-promotion advertising insert by a mining company in the Herald newspaper, there is a statement that limestone is a renewable material.
Is there now any reason to believe anything else they say?
WILLIAM ROSS
Danby
------------
http://www.rutlandherald.com/Letters/Article/72681.html
Letter to the editor
October 6, 2003
Florence site poses danger
The 32-acre dump site proposed by OMYA Corp. in Florence has the future potential for more problems than this area deserves. Everyone who lives in and around this planned waste dump had better wake and smell the roses.
The long-term effects health-wise and decline in property values are a distinct possibility. If this corporation is the good neighbor it professes to be, let me say the following.
Good neighbors do not create mountainous dump sites with their unknown potential for future problems. Once this artificial waste area has reached its capacity, what then?
In their words, this site has a life span of 10 years for this plant's residue.
Now to address the problem of making any more of it. This land is the only home we will ever have. If its water and air are compromised, what good is the land? Our children and grandchildren should not suffer because of the mistakes and negligence of their forbears.
Now if the project turns out to be doable, let it be done with every safeguard. The future will depend on how well the present stewards do their jobs.
Lastly, the OMYA Corp. is not the enemy. They have a serious problem to solve. The residents of the area must work and be part of the solution. Rational thinking and respect for the rights of all concerned parties is absolutely essential.
Thus, when the history books describe this period in future years, they will reflect and show by example that we did things right.
JOHN J. REARDON SR.
Brandon
------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to the editor
Monday, August 18, 2003
Don’t thank polluters
It is encouraging to hear that teenagers are learning to become firefighters. That Omya is sponsoring this training does not surprise me. Omya underwrites many community enterprises.
Using large quantities of water, oil and pesticides, Omya makes billions of dollars by grinding our beautiful Vermont mountains into white dust. Once gone, this resource will never be recovered. Omya will be able to poison our water here in Florence, unless we are able to stop them.
Omya’s blasting has broken windows, damaged furnace walls, and shaken foundations of neighbors’ houses.
If one has billions of dollars and gives away even one million dollars, it would be the equivalent of me on my income giving $5 to charity. Do they really “deserve a heartfelt thank-you from us all”?
BEVERLY PETERSON
Florence
-----------
Rutland Herald
Letter to the editor
Thursday, 8/14/03
Congratulations to firefighters
I recently had the opportunity to attend graduation ceremonies for the firefighters’ cadet training which was held at the Fire and Police Academy in Pittsford.
A group of 47 teenagers, both male and female, attended this week-long program to learn about firefighting and the responsibilities involved in this form of community service.
OMYA Industries was the corporate sponsor of this week. What a great dedication to the Rutland area and the state of Vermont this company has provided. They make products that we use daily in our lives: everything from ingredients in toothpaste and antacid tablets to insulation for our homes and businesses. They deserve a heartfelt thank-you from us all.
I would also like to acknowledge the volunteer fire departments who provide these young men and women the gear required to participate in this training..
These future firefighters are a wonderful example of how teenagers can and do things that are such positive influences in our communities. Congratulations to everyone involved.
LINDA F. WEEDEN
Rutland
---------
Rutland Herald
Letter to the editor
June 16, 2003
Clean water issue here
Carolyn Crowley Meub is concerned with the lack of clean drinking water in developing countries. Does she know what is happening just 11 miles north of Rutland?
In tiny Florence we are facing the problem of safe drinking water. However, technology is threatening our water.
OMYA has plans to construct a 32-acre, 80-foot high tailings dump site near and above the Florence municipal well. This is a 10-year project. When completed it will contain 15,000 tons of chemicals! That’s right, 30 million pounds of chemicals.
Many people who live around this site get their water from wells and springs. What will happen to these sources when chemicals begin leaching into the ground?
What chemicals? Pesticides, petroleum by-products and other pollutants. So far OMYA doesn’t want to line this landfill.
Carolyn Crowley Meub knows clean drinking water is precious. So do the residents of Florence.
We in the United States are blessed with resources that many in the world cannot even imagine. Shouldn’t we be protecting these resources from corporate greed?
BEV PETERSON
Florence
----------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to editor
March 19, 2003
Don’t buy OMYA’s fantasy
Dear Governor Douglas:
When I heard you on the radio (Jan. 21), I was appalled to hear you reading directly from the Jim Reddy cue card in response to the OMYA question.
The sales pitch on this cue card is the same one used in all their operations. Here are the real numbers on the Danby strip mine fantasy — there is no “plan.”
* The mining crew would be transferred from another location, so no new jobs there.
* The “plant expansion” has already taken place, internally, doubling their capacity; any new construction would be further automation to eliminate a number of jobs in the filter maintenance and loading operations. No new jobs there.
* The trucking jobs would be transferred from those lost to the Middlebury rail spur.
* Their other subcontractor and peripheral services would see no change from the new strip mine in Danby because they would not be involved in it.
* The threat to move their investment (to Canada, Alabama, etc.) is the same pitch they use worldwide. This threat was used in Canada (“Give us everything we want or we’ll move out.”), as it was being used here.
* They routinely misrepresent employment numbers, as they did last year in their attempt to buy the Deane Davis award. They promised “hundreds” of jobs at their Vingrau, France, mine, but the end result was one job.
* The Danby strip mine would destroy at least a dozen existing jobs in the local rural economy in addition to destroying local water supplies — this has already begun with their groundwater depletion tests during last summer’s drought. The “protected” fens and wetlands below the strip mine site would also be destroyed in the massive dewatering of the mine.
Reddy suggested that his “economic development strip mine” would result in around 100 new jobs; he obviously thinks you are gullible enough to believe this. My cows have deposited a large amount of economic development potential ready for strip-mining. How about methane development? This would be real economic development.
WILLIAM ROSS
Danby
--------------------
The Ottawa Citizen
Letter to editor
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
Truth is a victim of the OMYA furore
Richard Bowen says the OMYA fuss is based on concern about 3.65 cm of water taken from a reservoir regularly drawn down 1.5 metres.
Re: A Walkerton waiting to happen, Feb. 18 and Perth will pay for OMYA deal, group warns, Feb. 20.
The truth behind the issue of taking water from the Tay River is being buried by sensational headlines.
I visit the shore of Christie Lake, part of the Tay system, almost every day in the summer to go swimming with the kids. I have witnessed the decking of the cottagers' docks floating because the water has risen. This is an irony that is lost on opponents of the water-taking permit. Why does the water rise even during a dry summer? It rises to push more water down the Tay and into the Rideau Canal. Where does all this water come from? From a reservoir called Bob's Lake.
A recent Citizen article reported that Bruce Reid, of the Ottawa Valley Conservation Authority, had recommended that his board of directors vote to endorse the province's decision to allow the original water-taking permit. Why would he do that if the vocal opponents of the permit are right? Why would he endorse another Walkerton? He wouldn't. The people trying to link Walkerton to the Tay issue are playing fast and loose with the truth.
In fact, the water-taking will hardly affect the flow of the Tay. Fisheries and Oceans Canada estimates that it will reduce the level of Bob's Lake by 3.65 centimetres over the course of one year. That's right, all this fuss is over about 3.65 cm of water from a reservoir that is regularly drawn down 1..5 metres.
The opponents quote large and scary-sounding numbers such as 4.5 million litres per day, but they never mention the same quantity as a percentage of river flow. That would be between one and five per cent, depending on the season. Perhaps now people can understand what Mr. Reid meant when he said, "The scientific information is sound for this permit ..."
I agree that ad hoc ministerial decisions and permit-granting in the absence of any federal or provincial planning for water use are wrong. But it is also wrong to conceal the truth to try to make an environmental point, no matter how noble one's motives.
Richard Bowen
Perth
--------------------
The Ottawa Citizen
Letter to editor
February 22, 2003
OMYA should pay fee for consumption of Tay River water
I have no idea whether OMYA's extraction of 4.5 million litres per day of water from the Tay River risks harming the environment. But I am sure that the water should not be made available free of charge to this company.
Access to large quantities of water is a significant commercial benefit for which companies should be prepared to pay a consumption fee. Such a fee would legitimately enhance provincial coffers but also represent an incentive for the company to use this valuable resource efficiently.
Roger Wilson,
Ottawa
----------------------
The Ottawa Citizen
Thursday, February 20, 2003
Minister's meddling an abuse of power
Re: Who's in charge here? Feb. 16.
Environment Minister Chris Stockwell's decision to overrule a tribunal decision on OMYA Canada's extraction of water from the Tay River is deplorable and alarming. The minister should reverse his decision immediately.
It is a misuse of ministerial power to overrule the provincial Environmental Review Tribunal's decision. While it is not beyond ministerial authority to do so, it ought to be.
If Mr. Stockwell felt so strongly about this issue, he had an opportunity to make a submission to the tribunal like everyone else. Overruling the decision reeks of corporate meddling in a legitimate process.
All citizens, including ministers of the Crown and OMYA Canada employees, must abide by the decisions of authoritative public bodies. Ontarians should not have to tolerate what looks like an abuse of power.
Colin Henein,
Ottawa
--------------
The Ottawa Citizen
Thursday, February 20, 2003
Allowing water withdrawal is justified
Re: A Walkerton waiting to happen, Feb. 18.
This Citizen article is nothing more than yellow journalism. It is unprofessional and void of fact. Even your chronology is selective and incomplete.
To link the water withdrawals by OMYA from the Tay River to Walkerton is fallacious, scurrilous and utter tripe. One has nothing to do with the other. Walkerton resulted from an unethical, untruthful, pitiful man who altered records and lied about the purity of water that he was charged with protecting. His unforgivable actions resulted in deaths in his own community.
The fact that OMYA is owned by foreign interests has nothing to do with whether it should be permitted to draw water from the Tay River. Should we not allow General Motors or the Ford Motor Company to access water associated with their Canadian operations? OMYA (Canada) Inc. is a legitimate business, incorporated under the laws of Canada and should be able to do business within the same rules as any other corporation in Ontario.
An application was made for permission to withdraw water from the Tay River by the company; a decision was rendered regarding that withdrawal by the environment ministry; that decision was challenged; a review process took place; a decision was rendered by the Environmental Review Tribunal; OMYA appealed that decision to Environment Minister Chris Stockwell; and after reviewing the facts, he gave his decision. I am in agreement with Mr. Stockwell.
I am an interested party in the Tay River dispute. I am a long-time cottage owner on Christie Lake and also a trained environmental professional. I support the government in this most recent decision. Based on the facts, it is the right thing to do.
Peter M. Higgins,
Kanata
--------------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to editor
February 12, 2003
House member from OMYA
After reading “House choice surprise to some” (Jan. 31), I was surprised. There isn’t even a hint in the article that David Sunderland was probably tapped by Governor Douglas because Sunderland is employed by OMYA. There are a lot of issues on the burner with OMYA in this part of the state, and how convenient for Governor Douglas to choose Sunderland at this crucial time. In the case of Mr. Sunderland, a House seat could become a lobbying position. Is this a possible conflict of interest?
At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam, I’m surprised that more voters aren’t concerned and vocal about the protocol of filling a vacated state Senate or House seat. Protocol calls for the governor to tap someone forwarded by a caucus or choose someone himself, sans caucus. Who doesn’t want to get a pal or crony into office? With only 40 or 50 people (I’m “guess-timating”) voting at a caucus, it’s pretty darn easy. To my way of thinking, if the governor picks someone without a caucus, an elected seat becomes a political plum.
A different route for filling a vacancy might be to go back to the primary election — if one took place — and the next highest vote-getter would fill the vacancy. An even better system would be instant runoff voting for all elections and offices. Who could question motives then?
As an active voter, I want to be represented by a person who has campaigned and whose stances have been publicized.
BETH BARRA
Rutland
--------------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to editor
February 12, 2003
Tapping handy campaign money
In these frigid, uncertain times, it is heartening to know that Rutland Town’s newly arrived and appointed state representative, OMYA engineer Sunderland, can count on the Good Fairy dropping his hoped-for $25,000 campaign chest in his lap when needed (Rutland Herald, Jan. 31) and that, by appointing him, our governor equally enjoys the warm and fuzzy security of assured campaign monies resulting from dwelling in OMYA’s encompassing green-lined pocket.
ANN ROTHMAN
Danby
------------------
Rutland Herald
Letters for Friday, Jan. 31, 2003
How to buy a legislative seat
Can Rutland Town's legislative seat be bought?
That's a question raised by Gov. Jim Douglas's recent appointment of an unknown newcomer as Rutland Town's representative to the Vermont House.
The governor passed over two local folks to appoint David Sunderland to represent the town he has lived in for just over a year. In a letter sent to Rutland Town Republicans, Mr. Sunderland promised, if appointed, to raise $25,000 to defend his newly acquired seat in the 2004 elections. With that glitter of gold in their eyes, eager Republicans embraced Mr. Sunderland as one of their three candidates for town representative. Ironically, most of those voting had not met Sunderland - or even heard of him - until he threw his pricey hat into the ring.
Brushing aside any notion that he lacked experience to represent his new town, Sunderland, who has apparently never held elected office, was quoted by the Rutland Herald of Jan. 28 as saying, "This is really a decision based on the future, not on someone's past." Small wonder he wants voters to ignore his past contributions to the town. He hasn't any.
By contrast, Lori Mesli has done much for our community. Lori's name went to the governor, too. She is a small business owner - her Peanut Gallery provides much needed child care to the area and jobs for our youth. But kids are not just a business for her - she is a staunch advocate for them and for their needs.
Lori is and has been a loyal, but not lockstep, Republican. She is past president of a local Rotary Club, has run for and held local office, helped Bill Meub in his recent campaign, and has actively served as justice of the peace. Lori thinks for herself. Is that why she was passed over? Is it because she does not work for a high-profile, foreign corporation like OMYA? Or is it because she did not pledge to spend an obscene amount of money on the next campaign?
Governor Douglas has done a disservice to Rutland Town with his new appointment. In two years voters will have a chance to correct that error. Then we can send the message that Rutland Town's seat in the Legislature is not for sale.
MARY C. ASHCROFT
North Clarendon
-----------------
Burlington Free Press
Letter to the Editor
January 29, 2003
Profits vs. people
"OMYA symbolizes Vermont fight over jobs, the environment" (Free Press, Dec. 23) misses the point of the strong opposition to OMYA's expansion plans. OMYA is not in business to create jobs. Indeed, like all businesses, it is constantly seeking ways to reduce costs and provide fewer jobs. It is in business to create profits -- for its Swiss owner. And the environment is not the only loser in OMYA's expansion plans; it is whole communities whose lives will be disrupted, whose property values will decline, whose local road maintenance and other costs will increase.
OMYA would very much like to have the public and regulators see this controversy as "jobs vs. the environment." But it is profits vs. people and communities. Some business expansion plans, like OMYA's, just cost local communities way too much for the few jobs they do provide and the incremental money they spend locally. A full accounting of costs vs. benefits would show that.
DON CARLSON
Wallingford
------------------
Rutland Herald
Saturday, January 18, 2003
Railyard meant to aid OMYA
It is understandable that Vermont’s environmental organizations have gotten on board the proposed rail improvements for the western corridor. It is the sort of project that Vermonters for a Clean Environment would like to be supporting. We can all agree that rail improvements in this part of Vermont are in the region’s best interests.
But the devil is in the details, and those details are still being glossed over by David O’Brien and Tom Donahue in their commentary “Rail project good for economy” (Rutland Herald, Jan. 8, 2003). For instance, is it true that the railyard relocation proposal calls for filling in 18 acres of wetlands?
O’Brien and Donahue say, “We hope that the opportunity to divert truck traffic off local roads and onto rail is a benefit that we can all appreciate. This project is not at all focused on one industry or company, but rather the development of the Rutland region and the entire Route 7 corridor of Vermont.”
I beg to differ. The size of the railyard relocation project is focused on meeting the expansion desires of one company, OMYA, which accounts for the majority of rail traffic in Rutland. In February 2001, OMYA produced a graph called “OMYA Rail Business Trend Projection, 2001-2010,” showing the number of OMYA rail cars at 130 in 2001, increasing to 270 by 2010, with congestion occurring in 2003.
A Feb. 28, 2001, Rutland Herald article, “New railyard may be six years away,” says “Kenneth Enzor, director of logistics and distribution for OMYA, said, ‘That’s too late.’ Enzor said that if OMYA, a marble processing company based in Florence, continued to grow as projected, it would have more business than the railyard could handle in three years.”
The question remains: Where is OMYA going to get the raw materials to fuel the growth projections? Those of us who live in the Danby Four Corners valley have been led by OMYA to believe that it intends to get that raw material here. If so, then we would like to see the transportation plan that supports the movement of that raw material to OMYA’s plant in Florence, where it will be turned into product to be shipped out by rail from the relocated and expanded Rutland railyard. Planning the details must be a part of this process.
If the raw material is not coming from Danby, then where will OMYA get it, and what is that transportation plan?
Approaching this project “piecemeal” may serve OMYA’s process of business development, which does not involve sound planning in cooperation with the communities affected. However, allowing OMYA to piecemeal its expansion in the absence of detailed planning does not serve our region or our economy well.
ANNETTE SMITH
(Vermonters for a Clean Environment)
Danby
---------------
Burlington Free Press
Thursday, January 09, 2003
Letters to the editor
Important point
Matt Sutkoski made a very important point in the article "OMYA symbolizes fight over jobs, the environment" (Free Press, Dec. 23) by not saying that it was jobs vs. the environment.
The article correctly states that Vermont manufacturing jobs decreased from 47,600 in 1997 to 46,100 in 2001, which is a 3 percent drop. Over the same period on the same basis from the same source (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics), national manufacturing employment decreased 9.2 percent, which is three times the Vermont rate. The reality is that manufacturing jobs are moving from the United States to overseas locations.
Even more impressive is the fact that Vermont manufacturing jobs from 1992 to 2001 increased 6 percent, whereas the U.S. national numbers for manufacturing jobs show over the same period that U.S. manufacturing employment declined 6 percent. It is difficult to argue that environmental laws have had a negative impact on Vermont manufacturing employment.
What may be needed is a plan to promote the increase in the many high paying non-manufacturing businesses that are environmentally friendly. We should also promote industries that don't increase jobs on the one hand and then cause even more unemployment in other industries.
DICK SMITH
Manchester Village
-----------------------
Burlington Free Press
Tuesday, January 07, 2003
Letters to the Editor
OMYA's true cost
Jobs or the environment? ("OMYA symbolizes Vermont fight over jobs, the environment," Free Press, Dec. 23). What a phony question, without any fact, information or support -- unless you count the future jobs to be created cleaning up after the damage is done.
I want to see that formula, that secret equation that states how many jobs will magically appear when we further degrade the environment and pollute the air and water.
Real world cost accounting will quickly reveal the true costs and benefits. Environmental degradation transfers costs and burdens from business to the taxpayers. This is not economic development.
Economic development is a serious activity that requires responsible professional efforts aimed at understanding the real world; turning it into a cult religion with phony slogans and unfounded dogma serves only the evil private agenda of greed and power.
BILL ROSS
Danby
------------------
Ottawa Citizen -- Letter to the Editor
OMYA should have to pay for study of Tay watershed
Douglas Overhill
The Ottawa Citizen
Tuesday, January 07, 2003
Re: Critics of OMYA's request for water should cite facts, Dec. 11.
Letter-writer Wayne Steele suggests that decisions on OMYA's water demands be left to the experts, or experts representing all residents along the Tay River near Perth.
The average flow in the Tay is not well documented, and since the life of a mine can be 30 years or more, flow records for a similar length of time should be examined. Such records do not exist. We do know that destruction of the natural habitat has caused excessive spring flows that occasionally caused flooding, and summer flows are extremely low. Furthermore, to judge from coliform counts above Perth, the Tay River above Perth is already polluted. Consequently, any water taken from the Tay, however small, will increase deterioration of an already marginal water quality.
A hydrological study of the Tay watershed is imperative. It is possible that storage of the excess water in the spring with release in the summer months would benefit everyone, even to offering OMYA more water than they currently request.
Why should the people along the Tay be expected to pay for such a study? OMYA is making the request for more water, so OMYA should be prepared to find a solution beneficial to all.
As OMYA wishes to use our common natural heritage, it is up to the company to find the solution that accommodates all. OMYA has the money and will profit from this so they should undertake the steps and modifications that are required.
Douglas Overhill,
Perth
--------------------------
Burlington Free Press
Letter to the Editor
January 6, 2003
The Real Story
Facts in response to the superficial article (Dec. 23) regarding OMYA, jobs and the environment:
Jobs: OMYA claims it employs "over 300 people." Vermont's DET reports the actual number is 100 to 200. There is no evidence that OMYA's expansion will create jobs or tax benefits.
Economic development: The Danby Four Corners valley has a vital rural agricultural economy -- dairy farms, sheep farm, horseback riding stable, home-based businesses, and an educational facility for at-risk students. This economy has tremendous value. Jobs already here are in jeopardy due to OMYA.
Environmental degradation: Without any permits required, OMYA pumped millions of gallons of water out of our aquifer during drought. Springs dried up. Some residents spent thousands of dollars to have water. OMYA denied any responsibility.
Poor planning: OMYA admits it does not have a plan to develop the Danby mine.
Leadership failure: No elected official has had the courage to speak out about OMYA. This amounts to tacit approval for the company's business tactics, which universally involve spending money on litigation, public relations and lobbying, rather than working with the communities impacted or taking responsibility for the extensive damage caused.
OMYA needs to change the way it does business. Vermont's leaders need to put Vermonters and small businesses ahead of corporations proposing projects out of scale for our state.
ANNETTE SMITH
Danby
Annette Smith is executive director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, Inc.
--------------------
Rutland Herald
Letters for Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2002
OMYA’s use of chemicals
There is more than meets the eye in the OMYA story. The tailings piles which OMYA wants to extend to over 30 acres will be contaminated with by-products mentioned ever so briefly in the article. One of these is toluene. The neighbors are right to wonder about whether these by-products are safe. Their private wells are downhill from the operation, and private drinking water sources are not regulated as public wells are.
Toluene is characterized by the National Institutes of Health as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” Toluene is also considered to be a nerve toxin and one of many endocrine disruptors, which can cause adverse affects at unusually low concentrations. Toluene is also known to leach into groundwater.
The burden of proof should lie with OMYA and the state that these contaminants will not move from the tailings site to neighboring groundwater sources or to the Otter Creek. As the state’s largest user of biocides and having a record of spills, OMYA must be held responsible for this aspect of their operation. The Agency of Natural Resources must see that the issue of chemicals at OMYA is kept open for public discussion
SYLVIA KNIGHT
Charlotte
-----------------------
Rutland Herald
Letters for Friday, Dec. 27, 2002
Railyard is costly project
The Agency of Transportation wants to transplant the rail lines outside Rutland City. But the last time anybody checked, it was the rubber-tired vehicles that were causing gridlock at rush hour – not the trains. And wasn’t the EPA in a dither a while ago over benzene from auto exhaust in Rutland’s air? The impetus to move the tracks can’t possibly derive from economic issues. There’s very little freight traffic as it is, and if the main customer, OMYA, is forced out of business (as some zealots would prefer) the rights-of-way are likely to devolve into bike paths.
Previous stories on the proposed track removal have put the cost at $100 million.
That’s a lot of money for a state to spend when it’s having trouble funding welfare benefits and the opening of the new Springfield prison.
For decades the state has been unable to build a proper circumferential around Rutland. What was built is hardly conducive to promoting modern railroading. Where else but in Vermont would one find a grade crossing in a four-lane?
We should have reservations about an agency that paints a yellow line down Route 140 one week and has it paved over the next (as happened in Wallingford last September) being in charge of such an extravagant project.
BILL JENKINS
Tinmouth
-------------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to the Editor
Sunday, December 15, 2002
OMYA mining experience elsewhere
Until about a year ago, I lived in Lucerne Valley, Calif., above which, on the north slope of the San Bernardino Mountains, OMYA has extensive mine workings.
Thus, Lucerne Valley can serve as an example to Vermonters as to what to expect if OMYA mines at Dutch Hill.
A visit to Lucerne Valley would enable decision-makers to get the actual feel of the haul trucks as they rumble down the mountainside and to hear the grinding of their gears; to listen to the blasting and determine if it really is done only two times a week, mid-morning and mid-afternoon; and to see the ravaging effects mining has wrought on the mountain.
As in Danby, Lucerne Valley is connected to the outside world by a two-lane highway on which driving east into town at the 55 mph speed limit, it is not unusual to get a real jolt when a glance in the rearview mirror shows the giant grill of a tailgating haul truck.
Several years ago, OMYA requested a permit to extend mining westward to what is called White Knob. As part of the deliberative process, reportedly OMYA agreed to do certain things at the extension, among them to remove top soil, store it (replace it when mining ceases), and to do hydro-seeding. I have heard from people who have visited the mine that none of these has been done.
I do know that there is real anger about the enormous amount of waste limestone being thrown down the mountain front. A spokesperson for OMYA, in response to queries at a public meeting, assured those present that the mine workings would not be visible from the valley floor. The statement “You won’t even know we are there” is etched indelibly in their minds, and now they laugh ruefully as they look up at the big ugly hole with all the waste limestone below it.
After the new extension of mining, the only possible so-called salutary ripple effect on economic growth that I know of is a busy diesel truck repair shop. But if all the haul-truck drivers live in Lucerne Valley, the number of new jobs was considerable because there are a lot of haul trucks. I do know that none of the upper echelon administrative staff of OMYA or of the other two mining companies in Lucerne Valley live there.
HELEN BEIKMAN
Columbus, Ind.
-------------------
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
Rutland Herald
Letter to the editor
Questions about railyard project
Jeffrey Munger, Sen. Jim Jeffords’ legislative liaison in Rutland is incorrect when he says that there is no one rallying against the $100 million Rutland railyard relocation. Mr. Munger was hand-delivered a letter by me during last year’s legislative session that expressed numerous concerns about the project. The letter was also sent to the House and Senate Transportation committees, and there are legislators who share similar concerns.
The crux of the problem with this project is that it is sized to support one company’s expansion plans – OMYA – to serve as storage for its railcars.
Now that the Danby Four Corners valley deposit has been mothballed for the foreseeable future, where will OMYA get the material it says it needs to expand? Will it be Dorset (above John Irving and Walter Freed’s homes) or will OMYA attempt to open up the 200 acres it owns in South Wallingford north of the existing mine? Will OMYA’s expansion be fed by exercising its ownership of mineral rights around Florence, or will it come from the hundreds of acres the company owns in Salisbury?
OMYA expanded its plant in Canada to produce four times the capacity of the Vermont plant. The company is developing the capability to ship slurry from its plant in Alabama, which will take business away from the Vermont plant. Jim Reddy of OMYA says there are constraints in the rail system outside of Vermont that limit how much product can be shipped by rail. Are there any guarantees that OMYA will fulfill the promises it is making to utilize this huge facility?
The proposed railyard is to be located in a 100-year flood plain full of wetlands that is reported to have 30 feet of sand as a basis. Isn’t there still a lot of work to do to determine whether the site can meet environmental permitting requirements? We must have the answers to these basic question before building a huge complex with taxpayer money, primarily for the benefit of one company. The Rutland railyard relocation project could be sized to meet the needs of the region and cost much less than $100 million. OMYA can develop and pay for its own railcar storage.
ANNETTE SMITH
(Vermonters for a Clean Environment)
Danby
-----------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to Editor
November 25, 2002
OMYA worked by Vermonters
A. E. Williams of East Poultney recently stated in a letter to the editor that OMYA shows “no reluctance to desecrate another person’s homeland.” For the record, approximately 300 OMYA employees call Vermont home. This is our homeland, and we are part of the landscape.
Vermont has been blessed with many natural resources, granite, timber and marble among them. Marble has been quarried in Vermont for over a century. Quarries and quarry workers are inextricably a part of the past and present Vermont.
In the 1800s people flocked from Europe to Vermont to work in the quarries. Individual freedom, America’s abundant natural resources, and the promise of jobs brought them here.
The honor rolls of those who served our state and country, who died in our wars, reveal Polish, Italian, Welsh, Irish, Swedish, and a host of other nationalities; a testimony to the extraordinary diversity of the citizens who came. The ancestors of tens of thousands of Vermonters are among those immigrants.
These Vermonters served in our wars, raised families, built places of worship, and contributed to the Vermont culture. The beautiful St. Denis’s marble church in Proctor was built by craftsmen of Italian ancestry. The Swedish Lutheran Church prayed in Swedish and English until recently. The Union Church is constructed of split face marble; its congregation produces a concert every Christmas. Proctor also boasts a white marble high school and a white marble firehouse.
A. E. Williams further states that “our own citizens are bad enough,” (as desecraters of Vermont’s Landscape). I do not feel that quarries desecrate our landscape; I see them as part of the human and the historical landscape. Nor do I belittle Vermonters as desecraters of the landscape. I’m very proud of these citizens who have chosen to live the American dream. And I’m equally proud of OMYA’s current employees who choose to carry on the tradition of developing Vermont’s natural resources.
JOHN MITCHELL
(Former president, Vermont Marble Co. and OMYA)
Proctor
------------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to Editor
November 21, 2002
OMYA’s amoral attitude
Dear old OMYA is still at it. Money, money, money, anti-environment, saying how great they are to provide jobs, letting the dust settle into the lungs of employees — these are a few examples of their lack of conscience and amoral attitude.
Plus, do we really have to have white shiny paper? This is what they provide from the excavation. We, too, are to blame. Let’s not buy what they sell.
HELEN B. MICHALOWITZ
Windsor
-------------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to Editor
November 15, 2002
Economy and environment
As a member of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, let’s clear up a few issues. It’s not that we complain about OMYA’s jobs that are here. It’s the expansion that we are questioning — what it’s going to do to our roads, our infrastructure, our jobs and our rural landscape. And are they living up to our environmental standards?
The fact that a mining company is here in Vermont is in this area isn’t the gripe. It’s where are we going with this mining company in the next five to 50 years? Is it going to pollute our environment and change this area into a total mining area? We understand the balance in our economy that is needed to keep our rural, scenic areas and also to provide jobs, either manufacturing or mining or tourism or farming for our citizens. It is this balance that VCE and other organizations are trying to keep.
Here’s a question I have for people who may read this letter. Whose job is it to create jobs? We at VCE have never said it was our job to create jobs. We would love to be in the discussion and help wherever we can, but we feel that our mission is to make sure that we balance environmental issues and job issues so that everyone comes out a winner. Sprawl can be everyone’s problem if we do not watch how we regulate companies like OMYA. There are other businesses that will not benefit by OMYA’s expansion, like the ones that are already operating in the Danby Four Corners valley and hotels, restaurants and tourist-based businesses, even the ski resorts.
Rather than stooping to personal attacks on hard-working Vermonters like Annette Smith, who almost single-handedly in the last three and one-half years has brought these environmental issues to the forefront, let’s all start working together with our new governor to make Vermont a better place for all of us, and keep the balance that we all so love.
MIKE BETHEL
Bennington
------------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to Editor
November 13, 2002
OMYA exports desecration of land
During a two-week visit to Switzerland, I was impressed with the pristine landscape and the neatness of that small country. One saw no loose papers, no rubbish along the railroad or in the streets. A Swiss person would help to keep the landscape, streets and neighborhoods spotless by picking up debris. It therefore stuns me with the attitude of the owners of OMYA who show no reluctance to desecrate another person’s homeland. No industries are allowed to tarnish Switzerland. These are shipped to another person’s homeland, as is evident when we read about other countries complaining about the same problems that exist due to OMYA’s greed.
We existed for many years without these self-protective countries helping to desecrate our landscape. Our own citizens are bad enough. As far as I can determine, Switzerland is not helping much in the United States.
I, therefore, applaud the efforts of the people who oppose another scar in our Green Mountains. We have too many already.
A.E. WILLIAMS
East Poultney
-------------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to Editor
November 7, 2002
OMYA dumpsite is a concern
The Rutland Herald?s headline of Friday, Oct. 11, was extremely misleading. It read: ?OMYA reassures public on residues.? Having attended the meeting, I can attest that few, if any, were reassured by OMYA?s presentation.
OMYA?s proposed 32-plus-acre tailings dumpsite contains chemicals that threaten our water, air, and quality of health and environment.
To avoid permanent impact on surrounding lands and waters, the District Commission must deny the Act 250 permit allowing OMYA?s proposed dumpsite. To protect its citizens, the town of Pittsford should also oppose this mammoth project.
Please help Residents Concerned About OMYA in this fight to stop the 32-acre tailings dumpsite. To voice your concerns, contact the Pittsford Select Board and your local legislators. You may also join our efforts by contacting me at 483-0090.
BEVERLY PETERSON
Florence
----------------
Rutland Herald
Letters for Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2002
OMYA is what Vermont needs
In the Oct. 6 Vermont Sunday Magazine, Annette Smith was quoted as saying OMYA?s quest for a new source of marble is ?the ultimate sin.?
How can a company that rescued a dying company and industry, that puts to use a Vermont resource in a responsible way and creates hundreds of Rutland County?s best jobs, be described as the ultimate sin?
To me the ultimate sin is committed by those who move here and try to tell the working Vermonters what is best for them, yet they seldom ever contribute to creating jobs or opportunities, so like Annette Smith at 45, they can retire to their 52-acre sustainable farm.
OMYA is the best thing to happen to Rutland County?s economy in 30 years. OMYA is a good company, and we need them.
JOHN RUSSELL Jr.
(President,
John A. Russell Corp.)
Rutland
----------------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to the Editor
August 20, 2002
Look to broader economic picture
OMYA, OMYA, OMYA. Aren’t we bored with the rhetoric? “They’re good.” “They’re bad.” “They pollute.” “They don’t.” “Great citizens.” “Bad citizens.” “Did.” “Did not.”
How pointless! Where is the real jobs dialogue we desperately need in Rutland County?
Where is public discourse on how to have the best hospital and medical care infrastructure in the Northeast? Where is talk about leveraging existing assets to develop the best schools and colleges in the country? Where is debate on ways to create the best environment for technological development in northern New England? Where is discussion about how to internationally promote tourism in our spectacular hills and valleys? What about rebuilding our agricultural infrastructure of milk-processing and slaughterhouses?
Like Wendy’s old commercial: “Where’s the beef?”
Jim Reddy and OMYA have a golden opportunity now to genuinely serve the community by changing the everyday dialogue. As a successful regional force, they can quickly set a new tone for large-scale job development – for all – throughout this area of Vermont.
Let them consider:
1. Ending their practice of endless litigation to overturn state decisions with which they do not agree.
2. Rereading the rule book and to then make an internal pact to stay more comfortably within every state standard of chemical use. No one will then have to loudly question their environmental standards.
3. Working harder to employ OMYA’s ample own global assets to finance materials transportation off-road.
4. Making an agreement with people who live near their operations and routes to respect one’s human need for tranquility and security.
5. Suspending the divisive and, in the view of multitudes of fervent opponents who will never stop defending themselves, harebrained scheme to explode the fabric of life in towns around Danby Four Corners by opening a new mine on Dutch Hill.
If Mr. Reddy and OMYA choose not to follow this course, our society neglects debate over what’s really vital for people and jobs. Then our brightest citizens on all sides of the issues battle, divide and waste more precious time.
If OMYA really cares about Vermont, let them embrace true corporate citizenship and declare unswerving allegiance to widespread social and economic progress over their own self-centered interests.
STEVE BURZON
Danby
------------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to Editor
Aug. 7, 2002
Questionable facts on OMYA
Carl Spangler’s statements in his July 17 letter to the editor raise many questions about his sources of information and therefore conclusions.
First, at least one of his statements is wrong. Marble for the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Washington came from Colorado – not Vermont as Mr. Spangler stated. It is know as Yule marble. The quarry was owned by Vermont Marble. (My sources include: U.S. Army, Arlington Cemetery.)
Second, Mr. Spangler says: "Study OMYA’s agreements to supply calcium carbonate." How can Mr. Spangler tell us to study these when he has probably never studied them himself (perhaps a self-serving OMYA summary with many redacted facts but not the agreements themselves) as they are probably the most secret documents around since they contain prices, quantities, bacteria level specifications, which OMYA surely claims are private? If I am wrong, could Mr. Spangler indicate how I can see these actual agreements so I too can "be proud"? At the Chamber’s offices? At OMYA’s offices?
Is Mr. Spangler drawing his conclusions from "facts" provided by the PR department of OMYA?
DICK SMITH
Manchester
-----------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to Editor
Aug. 6, 2002
OMYA’s effort at publicity
Readers of this page may wonder about the flurry of OMYA letters. They are in response to a memo Jim Reddy of OMYA sent to employees, June 14, which reads in part: “In the last two weeks, the local newspaper has run several negative articles and letters about our company. A majority of the ‘news’ is unfounded. Most, if not all, of you know that there is a small group of people in the Danby-Tinmouth area that formed in opposition to a proposed quarry site in Danby.”
Employees are obediently writing letters attempting to correct “misinformation” which they never identify. Most interesting is their choice not to identify themselves as OMYA employees.
Steve Thompson, author of a recent letter, is the manager of OMYA’s plant inFlorence. Another OMYA employee, Scott McCalla, in charge of OMYA’s rail shipping, has personally attacked me through letters and e-mails.
Residents of the Danby Four Corners/Tinmouth valley have been clear about our position regarding OMYA’s desire to open a strip mine in Danby. As stated best by the chairman of the Tinmouth Select Board: “What we have here is absolutely precious and invaluable, and you cannot put a price tag on it, and we’re not for sale.”
ANNETTE SMITH
(Executive director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)
Danby
------------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to Editor
Letters for Thursday, Aug. 1, 2002
The comparison is not good
I am responding to a letter from Carl Spangler, chairman of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Spangler’s painting together the historic marble industry in Vermont and OMYA’s operations is an unbelievably dreadful comparison and an insult to the proud men and women who labored to create some of the classic architecture and monuments that grace the landscape of this country and around the world. A once-proud industry has been reduced to an automated rendering operation that grinds up this beautiful stone into dust to be used as filler in products that will soon add themselves to the waste stream. Is this a good thing? Is this what we want to put a made-in-Vermont sticker on? Our ancestors who gave this state its reputation for excellence in craftsmanship must be rolling in their graves at the spectacle of it all.
I was one of the 257 Vermont Marble Co. employees, displaced by OMYA as it tried to automate and then deconstructed this once world-dominant marble fabricating operation. OMYA’s management will tell you that this was because of a slump in the market; well, there were many ups and downs before, and as Vermont Marble was being taken apart the satellite operations in the area grew. Today the world market for building stone is strong and marble is still valued. The question now is whether there will be any usable marble left in a hundred years as OMYA searches out and locks up the best material all over the world. I just can’t seem to work up the same affection that Mr. Spangler has for this company. Mr. Spangler wishes that there were “10 companies like OMYA” in Vermont. It’s frightening that this is coming from the chairman of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce. I hope that his views do not reflect the thoughtful opinion of the general membership of this well-intentioned organization.
There’s business and then there’s business, and I would be careful which sort I would endorse if I were leading a business promotional organization. I can’t think of another company that operates here that causes such controversy, has such an impact on our infrastructure and physical landscape, or creates such stress on the very social fabric of this state as OMYA does. You can see on this page how OMYA is playing citizen against citizen. Carl Spangler wants us to stop “the bashing of extractive industries.” I wish OMYA would stop bashing Vermont.
MICHAEL FANNIN
Tinmouth
-------------------
Rutland Herald
Letters to Editor
Wednesday, July 31, 2002
OMYA: Leave Danby alone
Last week my husband and I spent our week of vacation from the city at our second home in Danby Four Corners. While shopping in Rutland I came across a postcard at one of the local stores. The postcard was a picture of the beautiful scenic landscape of Danby Four Corners. I found it so ironic that this particular postcard is being used to lure tourists into the area. Any unknowing tourist would be so intrigued and impressed by the beautiful landscape and the serenity that this postcard conveys. What the postcard should show is the devastating proposal by the Swiss-owned company called OMYA. It should show in the postcard how OMYA plans to destroy the whole mountain and leave a huge gaping hole right in the same place where the present post card shows a beautiful farm.
I am so sure tourists would love to ride around and view the area as they try to avoid OMYA’s huge trucks on the small rural roads. The entire landscape and the autumn foliage will be covered by white powder from the mine; certainly this will be a great tourist attraction in the fall. Not to mention the noise pollution and the pollution of the air and water. Almost everyone I have spoken to about the OMYA project is against it, and the only people that are for it are the people that are already employed by OMYA. Most of the positive articles that are written to the editor of the Rutland Herald and other area newspapers are from OMYA employees.
If OMYA wants to destroy the environment why don’t they go to Switzerland and destroy the environment over there? Leave the United States soil in the beautiful state of Vermont alone and untouched.
PAULA DIPPOLD
Northford, Conn.
--------------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to editor
Monday, July 29, 2002
OMYA’s dubious legacy
In regard to Carl Spangler’s recent remarks about Vermont marble:
While OMYA’s calcium carbonate ore mining operation is the “extraction industry” successor to the quarrying of Vermont marbles, elevating OMYA into the role of rightful heir to that industry is ludicrous. The many Dorset, Danby, and West Rutland quarries were operated by locally owned companies employing thousands of skilled stone cutters in the careful extraction of the very best of building stone for the construction of exceptional buildings and monuments, the very legacy Mr. Spangler remarks upon. What will be OMYA’s legacy in this “new and expanded era for that marble?” Good paper filler is no doubt important, but the Jefferson Memorial it is not.
It should also be noted that the vast majority of Vermont marble was not “trucked over Vermont roads” as he states, but transported by railroad.
ERIC ROSENCRANTZ, Dorset
High praise for OMYA
It concerns me when I read letters attacking OMYA. OMYA supports this community in countless ways, including providing good paying jobs, employing local venders and through charitable donations of time and money. It is time for us to return that support and appreciate their contributions.
I enjoy the quality of life in this community. This quality of life begins with a healthy economy. Without OMYA and a precious few other companies there would not be enough jobs to sustain our workforce. I personally would have to leave my home town, as many of the people I have grown up with have, to find employment.
I am proud to live here and proud to have OMYA as a part of our community.
AMANDA BERALDI, Rutland
-------------------------------------
Rutland Herald
Letter to editor
July 23, 2002
OMYA’s damage in Danby
As I sit on my deck overlooking Dutch Hill in Danby, I am looking at a scarred landscape. If OMYA is such a thoughtful neighbor, why did they make an enormous clear-cut on Dutch Hill. The answer is, I am sure, that it was less expensive for them to cut everything rather than just those areas that they were testing. For me, this is all I need to know about this company. There is already physical evidence that OMYA will disregard ecological concerns if it is in their economic interest. Anyone who doubts this should drive to the corner of Hoisington Crossroad and Tinmouth Road and look across at the mess OMYA has already visited on Danby’s backyard.
SUSAN SOSNA
Danby
--------------------
Rutland Herald
Letters for Saturday, July 20, 2002
OMYA plays positive role
It was good news to see that OMYA had been nominated for the prestigious Deane C. Davis award, which is awarded every year by the Vermont Chamber of Commerce. A well-deserved honor. We are fortunate to have a company of the magnitude of OMYA in Vermont. In spite of the fact that the company did not receive the honor, it is good to see they are finally getting positive recognition. There has been so much negative press about the company, and it is unjustified. OMYA and its 300 employees contribute substantially to the economy of Vermont and Rutland County.
OMYA runs a very efficient operation and annually pays large taxes to the state. During a time when Vermont has lost one-third of its manufacturing capacity, the presence of OMYA takes on even more importance. The governor suggested recently that we look at the positives in Vermont. OMYA is one of those economic positives. We should be pleased to have them here in Rutland County.
VIRGINIA RUSSELL
Brandon
---------------------
Manchester Journal
Letters to the Editor
July 19, 2002
Pro-corporate rhetoric disregards the environment
To the Editor:
A general commentary in answer to the plethora of letters propagandizing the benefits of conscienceless dissembling corporations, such as OMYA, which wreak havoc on the environment in the name of "jobs" and "progress."
Narrow, winding roads punctuating treasure valleys harboring endangered species of plants and animals are hardly analogous to highways already and acceptably filled with too much traffic! The gradual chipping away of this rainforest and the shores of that body of water - increasingly rife with pollution that comes from "nowhere" - imperceptibly wends its insidious corporate way into the environment until we find that the primordial life-nurturer verges on extinction. Jobs are important and companies that provide them equally so . . . but to accept the rhetoric of callous, abject greed is to support the eternal fox in the eternal henhouse ... both entitled to survive but not to irresponsibly destroy the world!
Ronnie Newman
Danby
-------------------
Rutland Herald
Letters for Friday, July 19, 2002
Getting the facts on OMYA
This morning (June 29) reading Greg Thayer’s letter to the editor reminded me of a story I would like to share with you.
Eight to 10 years ago, we had a tree on our property that was failing and threatening to fall on our neighbor’s property. Being somewhat handy, I set out to cut the tree down before someone was injured. I got out the chain-saw and started to work. After a short time my daughter, who at that time was 6 or 7, came out and was visibly concerned. I asked Katie what was the matter. She told me that her teacher had told her that we cannot cut trees down, for if we did, we will all die. The Earth will run out of oxygen. I sat Katie down and started to explain that the issue that her teacher was talking about was in the rain forests, where the people are cutting down hundreds of acres of trees just to put food on their table. That their economic situation was so bad that they really had no other choice but to cut trees down to provide food and shelter for their families. I really didn’t expect Katie to fully understand economics at that age; however, she was and is a very bright young lady. My intent was to inform her that she was correct in a sense; she just didn’t have all the information. Cutting a tree that was a hazard in the back yard was not going to be the death of us all.
My point in bringing this story to you is that so many times, we do not get all the information. People push for change. In this instance, my daughter’s teacher didn’t have all the information, didn’t have time to discuss all the information, or chose not to inform my daughter of all the information.
This is not so unlike the situation we have today with OMYA in southern Vermont.
The opponents of the project will stop at nothing to prevent OMYA from opening a quarry in Danby. They will say anything to discredit the company in their effort to derail this project. Now just as young Katie didn’t have all facts, I am sure that the general population is not getting the complete story either, which is understandable. All we hear is the negative hype whipped up by the OMYA opponents.
Few others get involved and tell their side of the story; after all, it is more difficult to get involved with things that you agree with.
STEVEN C. THOMPSON
Rutland
-------------------
Rutland Herald
Letters to Editor
July 18, 2002
Jobs went up anyway
OMYA’s impact on Vermont jobs doesn’t seem to stand up to comparison to the facts. During the period from 1999 to 2001 when OMYA decreased its spending from $85 million to $66 million, private non-farm seasonally adjusted employment in Vermont went up (yes, up) from 240,000 in January 1999 to 247,000 in December 2001.
Perhaps the “subtractor” effect rather than the “multiplier” effect is more powerful. Business usually thrives when good clean businesses come to town.
Maybe OMYA should publish a white paper and list the sources, definitions, and backup information for all the numbers it throws out so we taxpayers can make a choice. My source is the Vermont Department of Employment and Training.
DICK SMITH
Manchester
----------------
Rutland Herald
Letters to Editor
July 17, 2002
OMYA meets important need
The bashing of extractive industries has to stop. Quarrying is a rich part of Vermont history and a longtime contributor to Vermont’s economy and communities. Look around at the granite and marble in many important buildings around the world. Fly to Hong Kong and walk on Vermont granite in the airport. On the next high school class trip you chaperone to Washington, D.C., rub your hand over the marble on the U.S. Supreme Court Building, the Jefferson Memorial, and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, to name a few. Visit Canary Wharf in London, or the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial in Taipei, Taiwan. That marble came from Vermont, and yes, it was trucked over Vermont roads.
There is a new and expanded era for that marble. Study OMYA’s agreements to supply calcium carbonate processed from marble quarried here in Vermont to major multinational corporations for paper products, toothpaste, glue, paint, cereal, crackers, chewing gum, calcium supplements, antacids, and be proud.
You can find OMYA’s calcium carbonate almost everywhere you look. Calcium carbonate is in paint, paper, and plastics such as diaper linings, and school lunch trays. Plastic car parts featuring calcium carbonate make the car lighter and more fuel-efficient, and calcium carbonate in plastics reduces the nation’s dependence on petroleum imports. Calcium carbonate replaces lead in paint, making paint safer and of higher quality. Calcium carbonate substitutes for asbestos in ceiling tile, and many U.S. states use calcium carbonate to counteract the effects of acid rain and neutralize acidic waters. Fewer trees are harvested because calcium carbonate is used as a filler in paper.
If only Vermont had 10 companies like OMYA. OMYA’s success is our success. Our focus needs to be directed on how the company continues to be successful and grow, selfishly, for our benefit and in keeping with our community values and desired lifestyles. This is feasible if thoughtful people coalesce around the issue.
CARL SPANGLER
(Chairman of the board,
Vermont Chamber of Commerce)
Killington
------------------
Rutland Herald
Letters for Saturday, July 13, 2002
How OMYA contributes
One of the ways that OMYA participates in area schools is by paying environmental fines. An air pollution violation in 1998 resulted in payment to the American Lung Association to put on a program in a Rutland area school. In 2001, OMYA settled an enforcement action that resulted from numerous spills into area waters by having a portion of its fine converted to a civil penalty that was used to purchase equipment at the Rutland High School. By the time the check for $6,500 was sent to the Science Department, OMYA was calling it a "contribution" in its correspondence.
I wonder if part of the education process involved informing the students of the nature of OMYA’s environmental violations that resulted in the penalty.
When OMYA violates its permits, which it has done more than 20 times, it costs the state of Vermont time and money to bring enforcement actions. Presumably the fines are sufficient to repay the taxpayer money that has been spent on bringing OMYA into compliance with the law. When fines are diverted to school programs, no matter how worthwhile, and when fines are "washed" through the school system, it is Vermont taxpayers who pay in the end. And does OMYA take a tax deduction for its "contribution"?
ANNETTE SMITH
(Executive Director,
Vermonters for a Clean Environment)
Danby
----------------
Rutland Herald
Letters for Friday, July 12, 2002
Correcting misinformation
This letter is in response to the extremely misinformed editorial by Randy Koch a couple of weeks ago, as well as all of the negative OMYA editorials I have read recently:
1) OMYA does not "open up strip mines." I happen to live near two OMYA quarries, and unless you are aware of their location, one would never know they exist. Strip mines continue to grow for miles, while OMYA quarries go straight down. Calcium carbonate is not plentiful ?all over the planet.?
2) If OMYA’s processing plants are so "mechanized that they require virtually no human labor," then why does my husband along with most of his co-workers work six-day weeks most of the time?
As far as your multiplier effect statement, you could not be more wrong. OMYA spends $66 million to $85 million annually in the state of Vermont. Of that, $2.5 million goes to property taxes in 25 towns. Exactly what public services do they require that exceed those figures? I can think of none. OMYA also supports local communities financially through sponsorship of athletic teams and many other various events. OMYA is the largest single user of railroads in Vermont.
In addition, you mention that they do create a few quarry and trucking jobs relating to the multiplier effect. (Oh, you forgot construction, electrical, railroad.) What about the paycheck each of the approximately 300 OMYA employees brings home? In addition, OMYA provides excellent health benefits to their employees.
3) Vermont will not look like a "Third World country" because OMYA is here. If OMYA leaves Vermont, along with IBM layoffs and all of the other companies that have moved on, then Vermont will look like a Third World country because there will not be enough jobs to support our population.
4) Calcium carbonate has replaced the lead in paint; replaced the asbestos in ceiling tiles; is used as filler in car parts, resulting in lighter, more fuel-efficient cars; and in the paper industry, roughly 15 percent less trees are harvested worldwide as a result of using calcium carbonate as a filler, not to mention the process is more neutral than the old acid-based technology.
5) There are many other beneficial facts about OMYA that you and most people don’t know. So please don’t get on your "environmental high horse" about how OMYA supposedly damages the environment until you have all the facts.
JENNIFER QUENNEVILLE
Brandon
-------------------
Rutland Herald
Letters for Thursday, July 11, 2002
OMYA a friend of education
Thanks to the generosity of OMYA, 28 students received excellent quality T-shirts for their involvement, effort and cooperation in two extracurricular writing workshops. The Writers Block and Writers Partnership engaged seventh- and eighth-grade students of the Castleton Village School in projects that encouraged research and writing.
The Writers Block sought to reach students with issues that prevent them from attempting or finishing writing assignments. These students met during recess and on weekends to immerse themselves in Native American and Norse cultures to produce poems, stories and plays. In this environment of learning, students helped students to engage themselves with learning above and beyond the required curriculum.
Writers Partnership worked with students who are good writers. They met at their lunch times and worked independently to plan, write and implement plays, which they performed for the elementary grade students of the Castleton Elementary School.
OMYA has consistently proved to be a friend of local education by rewarding students who take the initiative to lea