THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post Reply
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

Subject: RE: Transfer station complaint

To: dhass@poestenkillny.com, ewohlleber@poestenkillny.com, hvanslyke@poestenkillny.com, jbutler@poestenkillny.com, "Dominic Jacangelo" <djacangelo@poestenkillny.com>

Cc: jcasey@poestenkillny.com, shorton@poestenkillny.com, victoria.schmitt@dec.ny.gov, Kate.Kornak@dec.ny.gov

Date: Monday, April 23, 2018, 4:09 PM

And talk about great advertising for the future of the residents of the town who live near there (Poestenkill transfer station), as well as the children who go to Algonquin Middle School, the garbage trailer sitting there at 7:10 A.M. looked like something up from hell.

The sides of the trailer were coated with God-alone knows what kind of slime.

Where was that trailer before it came to Poestenkill?

What kind of slime was it hauling to coat it like that?

And why is that being introduced into the environment in Poestenkill?

That slime-covered trailer parked there for all to see this morning was a real symbol of the utter contempt the people of the Town of Poestenkill are held in by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Why does the Town of Poestenkill empower them by not standing up to them?

Paul Plante
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

To: Sue Horton <tcpoest@nycap.rr.com>; "tslavin@poestenkillny.com" <tslavin@poestenkillny.com>; "khammond@poestenkillny.com" <khammond@poestenkillny.com>; "hvanslyke@poestenkillny.com" <hvanslyke@poestenkillny.com>; "dhass@poestenkillny.com" <dhass@poestenkillny.com>; "jcasey@poestenkillny.com" <jcasey@poestenkillny.com>; "ewohlleber@poestenkillny.com" <ewohlleber@poestenkillny.com>

Cc: "press.office@exec.ny.gov" <press.office@exec.ny.gov>; "mwachunas@rensco.com" <mwachunas@rensco.com>; Rich Elder <relder@rensco.com>; "howard.zucker@health.ny.gov" <howard.zucker@health.ny.gov>; "ashbyj@nyassembly.gov" <ashbyj@nyassembly.gov>; Chris Churchill <cchurchill@timesunion.com>

Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020, 04:36:42 PM EDT

Subject: Poestenkill Transfer Station

10 September 2020

Hon. Keith Hammond
Supervisor
Town Of Poestenkill
38 Davis Drive
PO Box 210
Poestenkill,NY12140-0210

RE: Jacangelo Garbage Transfer Station; Poestenkill (T)

Dear Mr. Supervisor:

This morning I was talking with a person, a private investigator who is a reliable witness, who was at the Jacangelo Garbage Transfer Station at the intersection of Rt. 66 and 351 recently at about 1:00 P.M.

What he described seeing when there is the same nightmare the residents of this town faced when last this public health nightmare was in operation with both the town and the DEC turning their backs on the problem to protect the profits of the Waste Management company, namely, a sludge consisting of God-alone knows what and human excrement from adult diapers and potential medical waste, all of which are made into a toxic paste by dumping whatever garbage comes in on the floor, where it is then subject to being made into this toxic paste by the large loader which tries to push the pile of garbage into the trailers below the floor, which is exactly what I witnessed during previous operations at this facility.

That ground to my knowledge is not paved, and the site is built over porous shale, so that this sludge which is tracked around the site by the loader and other vehicles can then enter the ground water.

Why is the Town of Poestenkill allowing this to happen?

Consider this request for an answer in the form of a demand.

Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter, I remain

Sincerely,

Paul R. Plante, P.E.
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

To: Elder, Rich <RElder@rensco.com>

Subject: PFOA's in wells in Poestenkill

Dear Mr. Elder,

I am a former resident of Poestenkill and grew up on Weatherwax Road.

I see that PFOA’s were found in the water supply of Algonquin Middle School.

Wouldn’t it be prudent to test the water in the wells in a one mile radius from Algonquin School?

What is the source of those chemicals and what is being done to find out where it’s coming from?

If I were to buy property across the road from where I grew up and drill a well there, can you assure me that there wouldn’t any contamination that water?

I am interested to hear from you about what steps will be taken to solve this problem.

Citizen

*****************

From: "Elder, Rich" <RElder@rensco.com>

Subject: RE: PFOA's in wells in Poestenkill

Date: October 13, 2021 at 7:54:35 AM PDT

Citizen;

First sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

We are using a standard scientific method for the sampling in which we start from the point of known contamination and work our way out using the data from each previous sampling to drive the location(s) of future sampling(s) until we are comfortable we have reached the boundaries of the plume or contamination.

This is especially important when we are dealing with lower levels such as these and where we do not have a known source.

This process allows us, and more importantly our partner agencies, to use this data in trying to determine the source and possible responsible parties.

As far as your assurance of if you were to drill a well in the area of your previous residence could it be certain that you would not hit any contamination....

At this time I can not answer that question as we have not completed our investigation and we are still trying to not only understand the extent of the contamination but also the specific groundwater characteristics.

When we talk about the drilling of a new well there are many factors that must also be considered, such as the depth at which the contamination is, and if the well can be constructed in such a manner as to avoid this area or prevent water being formations from this area to flow into the new well.

Hopefully, as we continue our investigation and we learn more about these characteristics we may be better able to answer this question.

Keep in mind in general regardless of where you are when drilling a well there is no certainty that you will not encounter some contamination whether it be these chemical compounds or others (both naturally forming and man-made).

Hopefully this answers your questions or at least provides you up to date information and please feel free to reach out to me as we progress.

I am committed to working with the community and our partners to assure that we do all we can to protect the residents in this area (and throughout the County).

Richard Elder
Environmental Health Director
518-270-2632
relder@rensco.com
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

Subject: Re: PFOA's in wells in Poestenkill

Date: October 13, 2021 at 11:12:57 AM PDT

To: "Elder, Rich" <RElder@rensco.com>

Mr. Elder,

Thank you for your email.

I was wondering where the starting point is to determine where the contamination is coming from.

I know that Waste Management operates a dump at the corner of Rt. 66 and Rt 351.

Algonquin Middle School is downhill from there as is where I grew up on Weatherwax Rd.

Will you start your testing there and work out from that radius for a mile or more?

Another question is when will the testing start on those wells ?

I would like to see that initiated as soon as possible given the health risks of drinking that well water.

Are you coordinating with Bob Brunet to find out the cause of this problem?

I am very concerned because I don’t want to purchase any land without knowing whether or not my water will be safe to drink.

Citizen

*****************

From: "Elder, Rich" <RElder@rensco.com>

Subject: RE: PFOA's in wells in Poestenkill

Date: October 14, 2021 at 1:59:19 PM PDT

Citizen;

See below a response to your questions:

1. As we have not identified a specific source (and we have identified many potential sources) the initial starting point for the sampling has to be the known contaminated well and we work out from this location following the data.

In this case the original contaminated well is at the middle school and we are working out from there.

2. This testing is well under way with the first two rounds completed, the third round currently underway and we are looking at additional potential sampling locations while we are waiting for the data to be evaluated.

NYSDEC is also coordinating field work that is to start very shortly in the area which will be in addition to the sampling ongoing.

3. We do continue to work with the Town and Mr. Brunet.

Richard Elder
Environmental Health Director
518-270-2632
relder@rensco.com
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

"Two more Poestenkill wells exceed state PFOA limit"

Kenneth C. Crowe II, Albany, New York Times Union

Oct. 15, 2021

Updated: Oct. 15, 2021 8:05 p.m.

POESTENKILL – Two more residential wells have tested positive for PFOA contamination, Rensselaer County officials said Friday.

This brings to four the number of homes near the Algonquin Middle School that have seen drinking waters supplies exceed the state level of 10 parts per trillion for PFOA since testing began this summer.


“We received results for the second round of testing yesterday afternoon and providing this information as soon as possible for residents."

"We continue to test wells in the town and continue to seek the source of this contamination,” County Public Health Director Mary Fran Wachunas said Friday

The county and state health departments and state Department of Environmental Conservation are seeking to determine the source of the contamination.

A third round of testing is taking place and DEC is examining the closed Poestenkill landfill.

DEC is providing drinking water to the two homes that tested positive while filtration systems are installed.

The county is testing for PFOA, the acronym for perfluorooctanoic acid, and PFOS, or perfluorooctane sulfonic acid.

PFOS has been used in stain-resistant fabrics, fire-fighting foams, food packaging and other processes.

PFOAs have been a serious issue in Rensselaer County since 2014 when municipal water supplies and private wells were found to have been contaminated by the substances in Hoosick, Hoosick Falls and Petersburgh.

The issue arose in Poestenkill after the Averill Park Central School District discovered the wells at Algonquin Middle School were contaminated.

This was found out after the district conducted state required testing in January.

The second round of testing occurred at seven sites south and southeast of the middle school.

One site had no detection, three had detections of the chemical below the state limit of 10 ppt, two were above the state limit and one sample at Algonquin Estate, a nearby development, had no detection.

The county so far has tested 17 wells with four positive results.

Testing is voluntary.

Written By

Kenneth C. Crowe II

Kenneth C. Crowe II covers Rensselaer County for the Times Union. He writes about Troy, US Census, northeastern Albany County and whatever else comes up. Screenwriting is a fascination. You can reach him at kcrowe@timesunion.com.

https://www.timesunion.com/news/amp/Two ... 536615.php
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

IN THE MATTER OF AUTHORIZING ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY THE ATTORNEY TO THE TOWN OF POESTENKILL WITH RESPECT TO PENDING AND/OR NEWLY INITIATED LITIGATON

RESOLUTION #2a-1996


WHEREAS, the Town Board has heretofore reviewed with the Attorney to the Town the status of actions, special proceedings, appeals and other litigation which was pending prior to January 1, 1996 or has been thereafter commenced; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board members have heretofore discussed such matters among themselves in executive session for the purpose of determining which matters should or need to be prosecuted and/or defended and which matters should not or need not be prosecuted and/or defended by the Town; and

WHEREAS, in making its determinations, the Town Board has been guided by such considerations as the significance of such proceeding to the Town and the citizenry thereof, the nature and extent of the impact of any adverse determination or result, the prospects for success in prosecuting and/or defending said matter, the consequences of failing to prosecute and/or defend any such matter, the participation or involvement of other parties or litigants who might bear all or part of the burden of litigation to be otherwise borne or shared by the Town, and the cost to the Town and its residents of involvement or continued involvement in such matters, as well as other similar cost-benefit considerations; now let it therefore be

RESOLVED, that the Town hereby directs the Attorney to the Town to proceed as follows with respect to such matters:

With respect to the matter known and designated as PAUL PLANTE vs POESTENKILL TOWN BOARD et. al. (Index No. 179138) commenced on or about January 25, 1996, the Attorney to the Town is hereby directed to fully defend same.

MOVED BY: Councilman Slavin

SECONDED BY: Councilman Hammond

VOTED UPON AS FOLLOWS:

Supervisor Zweig: YES

Councilman Hammond: YES

Councilwoman Legenbauer: ABSENT

Councilman McLaren: YES

Councilman Slavin: YES

Dated: February 22, 1996
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

16 October 2021

TO: Tom Russell, Poestenkill Planning Board

RE: DEC and the Poestenkill transfer station

Tom, I have been pouring over my records concerning the transfer station which are voluminous and go back to the original lawsuits against the town board and the DEC and come forward again from there.

One issue of course, is the condition of the ground near the transfer station at any given moment in time.

Since I am not allowed in there under threat of violence and arrest, I obviously cannot testify to the condition of the ground today, whether paved or unpaved, and from Rt. 66, it is hard to tell.

It seems I recall discussions about what would happen if it were paved as to where the pus and slime would then go, and it must be recalled the creation of that pus and slime was on a daily basis as they tried each day to ram several hundred tons of God alone knows what, including human excrement in Depends and baby diapers, through a facility designed for thirty tons a day.

As to when it wasn't paved, I have before me a letter from NYSDEC Commissioner John P. Cahill dated March 19, 1998 in response to my February 18, 1998 letter of complaint about the transfer station to the Commissioner, which I believe I have previously copied you on, wherein is stated as follows:

It is my (Commissioner Cahill) further understanding that the Town is initiating a dialogue between the new owners of the transfer station, USA/United Waste, and local residents in an attempt to resolve the various issues discussed in your letter.

The Department has also agreed to participate in this process.

Specifically, facility representatives have agreed, among other things, to guard against litter deposited on adjacent roadways (the trees along 351 were festooned with plastic bags, paper, etc.), AS WELL AS PAVE PORTIONS OF THE TRANSFER STATION ROADS.

This paving should address the concerns you have raised about mud tracking and dust conditions in and around the facility.

end quotes

For the record, if any such "dialogue" was ever initiated by the Town between USA/United Waste and local residents, I was excluded from it.

In that same letter, the Commissioner stated thusly:

On February 16, 1998, two Department of Environmental Conservation Officers inspected the facility, conducted interviews with you and a facility representative and were also unable to identify any violations.

end quotes

That part about the two ECO's conducting interviews with me is pure fantasy, as we clearly see by going to DEC's own records where we have as follows:

TO: Director Wayne Brewer

FROM: Captain E.T. Washburn.

SUBJECT: Complaint from Paul R. Plante

DATE: February 13, 1998

I have assigned Lt. Paul Bernstein and ECO Karen Staniewski to investigate Paul R. Plante.

Please be advised that the Attorney General's Office has been looking into this site and are reviewing DEC Solid Waste Files.

end quotes

In the parlance of the thuggish NYSDEC, "investigate Paul R. Plante" translates as "go out there and scare him by letting him know in no uncertain terms that he is biting off way more than he can chew by going after the DEC for corruption,"

On that day in question, which I still vividly remember, an EnCon police car came down Liberty Lane and into my driveway, and when I went out to see what was up, Staniewski, a large, burly female who was driving got out of the driver's door and dropped into a "gunfighter's pose" with her hand near her piece while glowering at me as if she would really like to see how much stopping power her pistola really had, whether it would knock a man down, or merely make a hole in him, while Bernstein, an older man with white hair and a white mustache, a grandfatherly type, got out of the passenger side door and came over and put his arm around my shoulder while letting me know I was digging a deep hole for myself by going up against the DEC.

So there is an idea for you of how long this issue has been going on in Poestenkill.

Paul R. Plante, NYSPE
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

17 October 2021

TO: Tom Russell, Poestenkill Planning Board

RE: DEC and the Poestenkill transfer station

So, Tom, do you see what is happening here as we develop the record further and further and we get a real good look at the "SLIMEBALL" lawyer's trick the Town of Poestenkill employed against me in that Appellate Court matter, which "SLIMEBALL" lawyer's tricks were employed by Poestenkill because it had nothing else to go by?

And now Pat Tomaselli, the master of those "SLIMEBALL" lawyer's tricks, is honored by a shrine to his memory on the way into Poestenkill Town Hall, which is a real statement about the total lack of integrity in Poestenkill town government that it honors a lawyer who used "SLIMEBALL" lawyer's tricks against a town resident with a shrine to worship his memory outside of Poestenkill town hall, and that takes us back to an earlier statement I made to you, that if Poestenkill were a person, with its well-established criminal record, it would be considered a career criminal and would be doing hard time as a habitual offender, three strikes and you're out, along with its partner in crime, the NYSDEC, which is also a career criminal and habitual offender that should be doing life without parole.

The last e-mail I sent you on the Poestenkill "Embrace of Corruption and Retaliation Act of 1996" takes us back to my letter to the editor in the September 30, 2021 Advertiser entitled "PFOA in Poestenkill, Part VI" where I posted as follows:

With respect to the PFOA groundwater contamination issue in Poestenkill affecting the Algonquin Middle School as well as other residential dwellings in that area, the ugly truth here is that the lives and health of those children, as well as everyone else residing in that “Black Air” zone, were written off as expendable by the Poestenkill town board on 22 February 1996 with the passage of Resolution #2a-1996, “In the Matter of Authorizing Action to be Taken by the Attorney to the Town of Poestenkill With Respect to Pending and/or Newly Initiated Litigation,” a.k.a “The Embrace of Corruption & Retaliation Act of 1996,” which Act directed the Poestenkill town attorney, now fondly remembered by a shrine dedicated to him outside Poestenkill Town Hall, to fully defend against Plante v. Poestenkill Town Board, et al, (Index No. 179138) commenced on or about January 25, 1996.

In reality, Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Poestenkill Town Board, Jay F. Nish, Paul Sieloff, Nelson Armlin, Mark Dunlea and Kristine Legenbauer, Index No. 179138 had already been decided in my favor by a decision of Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice Edward O. Spain on March 28, 1994 wherein Judge Spain annulled a resolution of the Poestenkill Town Board made on November 10, 1992 based upon facts stated under oath by myself in my pro se petition in that matter because the Town Board issued an approval for the Poestenkill regional garbage reception center at the intersection of 66 and 351 in Poestenkill based on a fraudulent waste management facility permit issued by DEC, a Class E felony in violation of Section 175.40 of the Penal Law, “Issuing a false certificate,” which fraudulent permit was then laundered by Poestenkill in granting its own approval.

NYS Asst. AG Kathleen Liston Morrison was forced to admit that fraud under oath in an October 14, 1993 affirmation in Albany County Supreme Court before Judge Robert Williams, which is the corruption embraced by Poestenkill on 22 February 1996.

end quotes

Now, all of that is a matter of public record and cannot be refuted.

And that brings us to a decision of Hon. Robert C. Williams, JSC, on 29 October 1993 in The Matter of the Application of Paul R. Plante For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules against New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Thomas C. Jorling as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Benson Bros. Disposal, Inc. wherein the Judge stated as follows:

Petitioner Paul R. Plante seeks "an Order and/or judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules to annul the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's determination on April 7, 1993 to issue a Part 360 Solid Waste Management Facility Construction Permit to Benson Brothers Inc., together with costs and disbursements of this action.

Intervenor/respondent Benson Brothers Disposal, Inc. has moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that petitioner lacks standing.

end quotes

It should be noted that in their papers, Benson Brothers characterized me as a "well-known troublemaker" in Poestenkill, a stupid claim I would say the Judge enjoyed when he humiliated Benson's attorney in open court before a host of witnesses right after he had NYS asst. AG Kathleen Liston Morrison swear that her client, the DEC, was in fact engaged in criminal activities when it issued the fraudulent permit that Benson brothers was then able to launder through the compliant and crooked Poestenkill Town Board in a bid to "legitimize" it, which bid was derailed when I also took the Poestenkill Town Board to Supreme Court in another Article 78.

Getting back to the 29 October 1993 decision in The Matter of the Application of Paul R. Plante For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules against New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Thomas C. Jorling as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Benson Bros. Disposal, Inc., we have further as follows:

The Court lacks jurisdiction to decide this matter if the petitioner does not have standing.

At the outset then, the Court must address the issue of standing raised in Benson Brothers' motion to dismiss before it addresses the other issues.

A party has standing to challenge an agency decision if the statute at issue grants him standing or if he falls within common law principles.

* * * *

The next issue is whether the petitioner has standing under common law principles.

The issue of standing in environmental cases was addressed at length in Society of Plastics, supra, where the Court of Appeals explained:

Simply stated, a party must show that the in-fact injury of which it complains (its aggrievement, or the adverse effect upon it) falls within the "zone of interests," or concerns, sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted.

* * * *

In land use matter especially, we have long imposed the limitation that the plaintiff, for standing purposes, must show that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large . . . . This requirement applies whether the challenge to governmental action is based on a SEQRA violation . . . or other grounds.

(77 N.Y.2d 773-74)

Thus, to prove he has standing under common law principles, the petitioner must allege that he will suffer a direct injury if the permit is issued and that he is arguably within the zone of interests that the Legislature sought to protect by enacting ECL 27-0701.

The petitioner alleges that he lives about a half a mile from the facility (Verified Petition, para. 249).

He claims that discharge from the facility will run into his surface or groundwater (id. at 244-255), that noise from the facility will affect him (id. at 265-66), that odor from the facility will drift towards his residence (id. at 286-88), and that the facility will change the rural nature of the community.

* * * *

The allegations of the petition, if true, are sufficient to establish that the petitioner may suffer harm if the permit is issued.

And because the petitioner lives near the facility, his alleged injuries differ from those of the public at large.

Moreover, the Court finds that the petitioner is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected by ECL 27-0707.

The petitioner does not bring his petition on behalf of an activist or pressure group lacking direct ties to the community in question.

And unlike the plaintiff in Society of Plastics, supra, the petitioner's complaint is primarily environmental rather than economic.

In enacting article 27 of the ECL, the Legislature arguably sought to protect people living near solid waste facilities from environmental harm.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the petitioner has standing under common law principles governing that doctrine.

The Court next addresses the DEC's motion to remand the permit for further proceedings.

The DEC has admitted that it issued the permit in reliance on an incomplete application and in violation of applicable statutes (Affirmation of Kathleen Liston Morrison in Support of State Respondents' Request for Remand ["Liston Aff."], para. 2]).

end quotes

That was an admission of a Class E felony in violation of Section 175.40 of the Penal Law, “Issuing a false certificate,” which false certificate was then laundered through the compliant Poestenkill Town Board, as was clearly stated in my September 30, 2021 Advertiser post entitled "PFOA in Poestenkill, Part VI," and which false certificate was at issue in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Poestenkill Town Board, Jay F. Nish, Paul Sieloff, Nelson Armlin, Mark Dunlea and Kristine Legenbauer, Index No. 179138, which case was decided in my favor by a decision of Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice Edward O. Spain on March 28, 1994 wherein Judge Spain annulled a resolution of the Poestenkill Town Board made on November 10, 1992 based upon facts stated under oath by myself in my pro se petition in that matter because the Town Board issued an approval for the Poestenkill regional garbage reception center at the intersection of 66 and 351 in Poestenkill based on a fraudulent waste management facility permit issued by DEC, a Class E felony in violation of Section 175.40 of the Penal Law, “Issuing a false certificate,” which fraudulent permit was then laundered by Poestenkill in granting its own approval.

So, Tom, which side are you going to be on?

If elected, will you continue Poestenkill's war of aggression on Paul Plante?

Or will you be for law and order in Poestenkill?

Paul R. Plante, NYSPE
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

THE ADVERTISER Letters To The Editor

Fact-checking NYSDEC’s PFOA propaganda


October 21, 2021

To establish a proper historical context with respect to understanding how we are being intentionally misled by the recent spew of slick, professionally-published political propaganda on PFOA in Poestenkill’s ground water and the on-going search for the “evasive” source of the PFOA which is stumping all the experts, sent out to all the residents of the affected zone in Poestenkill by NYSDEC, a state agency with a well-established criminal history with regard to issuance of fraudulent permits as well as a documented history of “regulatory insufficiency,” a euphemism for gross negligence, a history that includes PCB’s in the Hudson River, the famous Storonske Cooperage case in Schodack and PFOA in Hoosick Falls to name but a few, we need to go back to March 25, 1999 and a Times Union article by Michelle Morgan Bolton entitled “Residents denounce DEC’s trash deal – Waste Management’s fine fails to satisfy townspeople, who vow further action in state court,” where we were informed as follows concerning NYSDEC burying a laundry list of environmental crimes at the NYSDEC-permitted Poestenkill transfer station, to wit:

“They’ve given the company a get-out-of-jail-free card,” said Paul Plante, one of the residents who claims the company is violating its permit.

“For $20,000, the DEC will keep its back turned.”

“We have been severed from any protection of the law whatsoever.”

Waste Management denied the violations named in the consent order, yet signed it and paid the fine.

All pending action against the company, including citations issued by the town’s code enforcement officer, along with the DEC’s criminal and administrative actions, are now null and void, the order states.

POOF!

All records of those crimes were buried by DEC in a cover-up, and now, giant Waste Management has a clean record as if those environmental crimes had never happened, which is why DEC can’t find the source of the PFOA without incriminating themselves as well.

Paul Plante
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

THE ADVERTISER Letters To The Editor

Caution Urged with PFOA Statements


October 21, 2021

I attended the two informational meetings about PFOA held at the VFW Post in Poestenkill.

There was much good information to be gathered at these meetings.

However, there were also some statements that should have been qualified, clarified, or even corrected.

At least one of these was made by guest panelist Judith Enck, former Regional Administrator for the US EPA’s Region 2.

She had been informed that the County and State agencies knew about the PFOA for 18 months before she did and her statement implied that no one told the public because the agencies were negotiating with St. Gobain about free bottled water.

The reason why neither the County, nor the State, nor EPA Region 2 (Judith’s office) nor U.S. EPA in Washington told the public is because that is not their task.

Under Federal and State requirements, it is the water system who notifies the public of contaminants in the water.

And they did.

In December 2014, a few weeks after we had confirmed with certified methods the presence of PFOA in the water, the Village issued its first quarterly mailing about the contamination to all of its customers.

That was about three to four months (not 18) since the initial complaint.

The Village handled this as a “Tier 2” notification.

In December 2014 we discussed this situation with our EPA Regional 2 water program advisors (i.e., Judith’s staff).

They seemed fine at that time and when we updated them during the subsequent ten months as to how the situation was being handled.

Also interesting to note is that upon learning of the contamination after the Mayor’s first notice in December 2014, St. Gobain Corporation notified EPA in Washington D.C. about the contamination.

Much of this is documented on the Village of Hoosick Falls website under “GAC Filtration” then “Documents” for those who care to look.

William Gilday, P.E.

Retired, NYS DOH Bureau of Water Supply Protection
Post Reply