Editor’s note: This commentary is by Jessica Miller of Cabot.
[T]he Agency of Natural Resources has completely abrogated its responsibility as a regulatory authority in defense of Agri-Mark. The multiple misrepresentations in the most recent indirect discharge permit are enough to warrant revocation of this permit. And the gross depictions concerning the nature of the waste stream that is being land applied and the uses and disposition of the waste stream that is being recycled throughout the plant should demand accountability from both the agency and Agri-Mark.
The indirect discharge permit – ID-9-0043 – authorizes the disposition of Agri-Mark’s two separate waste streams: land application of its Cabot plant’s “dairy processing wastewater” onto farmers’ fields in 33 towns in Vermont and spray irrigation of its so-called polished permeate onto fields behind the plant. The problem is Cabot’s “dairy processing wastewater” has little if any dairy component and is essentially chemically laden washwater hiding behind the broad definition of “dairy processing wastewater.”
Agri-Mark’s assertion that “The Guidelines for Land Application of Dairy Processing Wastes do not set minimum standards as to the content of the beneficial component in a dairy waste which would make it acceptable for land application” ignores the fact that these guidelines are premised on whey being the predominant component of its land applied waste with its concomitant fertilizing properties. And all of the rules, restrictions, application rates, etc. of that effluent are based on the fertilizer content of whey.
Agri-Mark knew then that it had to come up with a vague and very broad definition of its land applied waste in order to conceal the true nature of the stuff which is simply washwater containing over 200 cleaning chemicals.
Realizing that Cabot’s cheese production would be moving to the Middlebury plant, thus eliminating the presence of whey, Agri-Mark, prior to its final purchase of the Cabot plant in 1992, wrote to the then-CEO of Cabot, Bill Davis, demanding that, among other conditions, the definition of Cabot’s waste can be changed from “nonâsewage dairy waste” to “nonâsewage dairy processing wastes.” Agri-Mark knew then that it had to come up with a vague and very broad definition of its land applied waste in order to conceal the true nature of the stuff which is simply washwater containing over 200 cleaning chemicals.
The other waste stream at the Cabot plant is the liquid that is left over from separating whey from water before being sent to Middlebury for further processing into other products. What has been referred to in the past as pure, benign, low BOD washwater, this so-called polished permeate was pumped underground to three storage lagoons and then pumped uphill to be spray-irrigated onto fields behind the plant. And this is how this washwater is characterized in the current permit.
However, unknown to the chief of the Indirect Discharge Permit Section, Bryan Harrington, was that this polished permeate, now called pasteurized polished permeate, is being diverted to different uses inside the plant and ultimately discharged into the town’s municipal waste treatment facility and no longer spray irrigated onto its own land. Interestingly enough, nowhere in the current indirect discharge permit is there any reference to this change of use and the attendant wastewater system and potable water supply permit – WW-5-59980-R — authorizing this use.
To further muddy the waters, so to speak, is Agri-Mark’s claim that it has added a third reverse osmosis machine and ultra-violet sterilizer to render the permeate pasteurized. What was originally referred to as pure water after separating the whey is now being purified further and euphemistically characterized as recycling. It appears that Agri-Mark has found a clever solution to the disposition of what is, most likely, its most aggressive chemicals. Two years after implementing this new “recycling” of its polished permeate, the membranes of the filtration system of the town of Cabot’s waste treatment facility had to be replaced, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, due to clogging from an unexplained source.
The gross misrepresentations and deceptions inherent in this permit should render it invalid. And the agency’s unwashed hands in assisting with its contents clearly demonstrates not only its inability to regulate Agri-Mark, but its willingness to help cover up that industry’s shady operation.
