Judge hears testimony on Omya
Magistrate to rule on water remedies
Toolbox
By Bruce Edwards STAFF WRITER - Published: March 28, 2009
A federal judge is weighing the appropriate action to remedy a health threat from chemically tainted groundwater at Omya's calcium carbonate plant in Florence.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Jerome Niedermeier heard from both sides in the case this week, as neighbors of the plant sought remedial action to prevent the contaminated groundwater from infecting their drinking water supplies.
Of particular concern to neighbors, who sued the company in 2005, is AEEA (aminoethylethanolamine), a chemical used by Omya that has shown to cause birth defects in laboratory rats.
During the three days of testimony in federal court in Burlington, both sides presented expert witnesses.
Residents called experts who testified that Omya's monitoring wells are not accurately capturing the extent of the pollution, that more monitoring wells are needed, and that plans to simply cap the existing waste site are not adequate, David Mears, who represents Residents Concerned About Omya, said Friday.
An independent study of the Omya site in the Florence section of Pittsford found chemicals in groundwater, including AEEA, but concluded there is "no current threat to human health or the environment" and that "the potential for future threats appears to be small."
"Our facility is fully compliant, we are adhering to the environmental monitoring requirements of the interim (solid waste) certification, and as evidenced by the Section 5 Study and expert testimony, our operations do not pose a risk to human health or the environment," Omya CEO Anthony Colak said in an e-mail Friday.
Omya presented additional expert testimony during the hearing that the company said further supported findings of the independent study.
Mears said one remedy is for the company to remove the estimated 2.5 million tons of waste from the site. But he acknowledged that may not be either an environmentally or economically viable option.
He said the most feasible remedy may be to leave the waste in place with stepped up "monitoring as the sole way to protect human health and the environment."
"There seems to be a point that's lost on Omya that the residents have been very clear they don't want to force the company out of business," said Mears, director of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic at Vermont Law School. "They want the court to select a remedy that will allow the company to continue to operate but they feel strongly that the company should be required to consider all available alternatives before settling on the cheapest one."
Although AEEA groundwater levels at the Omya site are within Vermont's safe drinking water standards, Neidermeier ruled in July that "the uncontroverted evidence shows that there is at least some form of harm to the environment and humans" and that remedial action is required.
Niedermeier gave the parties until April 17 to submit proposed findings of fact.
Residents Concerned About Omya have also appealed a state-issued interim certification for a solid waste disposal facility that calls for the company to close its waste pits.
Omya is represented by Alan Biederman and Hans Huessy.
bruce.edwards@rutlandherald.com.
11