Glass-dumping settlement draws criticism from Northeast Kingdom towns

Two Northeast Kingdom towns and one of the region’s solid waste districts are criticizing the Vermont Attorney General’s Office over its recent settlement with the Chittenden Solid Waste District in a glass-dumping case.

The towns of Charleston and Newport have sent letters to Attorney General TJ Donovan, concerned over the settlement announced Dec. 29.

The board of the Northeast Kingdom Waste Management District also sent a letter, contending the $400,000 settlement is not severe enough a penalty to deter the Chittenden district from improperly disposing of glass again in the future, said Paul Tomasi, executive director of the NEK group.

The settlement establishes that about 17,900 tons of glass were dumped on the Chittenden district’s Williston property from 2016 to 2018. That glass was delivered to the facility to be recycled, but the recycling market has dried up. By disposing of the glass on its property, the waste district avoided having to pay to have it recycled elsewhere.

The Chittenden district’s action “resulted in an important loss of credibility with consumers and the recycling community throughout the state of Vermont,” the NEK board’s letter says. “All solid waste districts suffered from this loss of credibility/”

The letter was addressed to Donovan; Julie Moore, secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources; and Diane B. Snelling, chair of the Natural Resources Board. The Northeast Kingdom district had discussed legal action, but its attorney advised against it.

John Brabant, director of regulatory affairs for the nonprofit environmental group Vermonters for a Clean Environment, filed a motion to intervene in the settlement case on Jan. 20. On Feb. 2, he withdrew it because the legal costs are too high. The motion to intervene could have resulted in a court review of the settlement.

The district maintains it used the glass in an appropriate way.

“The use of recycled glass was consistent with the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources acceptable uses for processed glass aggregate policy and also reflected industry-standard management practices for this material,” said Sarah Reeves, the Chittenden district’s executive director, in a written statement about the settlement.

VTDigger is underwritten by:

The Chittenden district declined comment on the letters sent to the attorney general’s office.

Under the settlement, $222,000 of the Chittenden district’s payment must go toward projects that benefit the public, and the Northeast Kingdom district wants an opportunity to comment on those projects. 

“There’s concern that they would somehow benefit from the project that they propose,” Tomasi said in an interview. 

The Chittenden district had sent him — and other waste district directors around the state — a list of potential projects, he said. Leaders from the waste districts met Jan. 26 to discuss the list. Some of the proposals have already been rejected by the attorney general’s office because they would benefit only Chittenden. Among the proposals was a plan to use the money to provide education about separate glass collection.

“We look forward to working out and announcing the details of a project or projects that will benefit all Vermonters,” Morris said in a written statement. 

Charleston also raised concerns about the supplemental environmental projects in its letter to the attorney general.

“We oppose the language relating to the (projects) and the fact that the defendant has a say in what is done with that money,” said the letter signed by Patrick Austin and Larry Young, Charleston Selectboard members. Austin is also on the board of the Northeast Kingdom Solid Waste District and works as a hauler, transporting glass and other materials from the Northeast Kingdom to the Chittenden Solid Waste District, where it is processed for recycling. 

The Charleston letter also criticized the settlement as “insufficient.” Glass from Charleston is sent to the Chittenden district for processing at its materials recycling facility, one of only two in the state.

Austin said his reaction to the settlement was disgust and frustration. 

“The fact that they’re allowed to continue to accept Vermonters’ recycling disgusts me,” he said. 

Austin also has questions about how much glass the Chittenden district is sending to the Frank W. Whitcomb Inc. quarry in Colchester. Whitcomb, a major paving company, mixes processed glass aggregate with other aggregate materials such stone, but only 1% or 2% of the overall mix can be glass.

“Now we’ve gone to stockpiling it in a pit in Chittenden County, and we’re still charging Vermonters to recycle this glass,” Austin said.

The Whitcomb company has confirmed that “finding a home” for the material is difficult. While some of it goes into fill or cover for construction projects, some of the processed glass aggregate is stockpiled at the quarry. 

Newport City had other concerns with the settlement, such as the absence of a requirement that the Chittenden district admit to wrongdoing of any kind. Zero-sort recycling from Newport is sent to the Chittenden district for processing and recycling.

VTDigger is underwritten by:

“Those of us who have represented to our users that our recycling is processed by legal and ethical means feel that we have been duped, and the fact that (the Chittenden district) continues to deny any of the violations listed in the settlement is troubling and disappointing,” wrote Laura Dolgin, the Newport city manager, in a letter to Melanie Kehne, assistant attorney general.

According to the settlement, the Chittenden district now has six months to pay $222,000 toward the supplemental environmental projects. Any qualifying projects have to be approved by the Agency of Natural Resources, the attorney general’s office and the Natural Resources Board.