Case Title: In re Putney Paper Co., Inc.

Citation: 168 Vt. 608, 714 A.2d 644

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-06-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Putney Paper Co., Inc.  (97-081); 168 Vt. 608; 714 A.2d 644

[Opinion Filed 23-Jun-1998]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 9-Sep-1998]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 97-081

                             FEBRUARY TERM, 1998

In re Putney Paper Company, Inc.      }   APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
                                      }     Waste Facility Panel of the
                                      }     Vermont Environmental Board
                                      }
                                      }     DOCKET NOS. WH-600-WFP &
                                                        ID-9-0257-WFP

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Appellant Nathaniel Hendricks appeals an order of the Waste Facility
  Panel (Panel) of the Vermont Environmental Board issuing an amended Solid
  Waste Certification permitting Putney Paper Company to operate an unlined
  landfill cell, and an Indirect Discharge Permit authorizing the indirect
  discharge of leachate into the Connecticut River from the cell. Hendricks
  contends that (1) the Panel's findings concerning the flow of groundwater
  are not supported by the evidence; (2) the Panel improperly applied the
  Water Quality Standards; (3) the Panel's findings are contrary to the
  Ground Water Protection Rule and Strategy; and (4) the Panel improperly
  relied on an expired variance.  Appellee Putney Paper cross-appeals,
  arguing that Hendricks cannot establish party status and therefore has no
  right to appeal the Panel's decision.  We affirm.

       The Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) issued a Solid Waste
  Certification (Certification) to Putney Paper on September 15, 1995,
  authorizing it to construct a new unlined paper sludge landfill cell.  ANR
  separately issued Putney Paper an Indirect Discharge Permit (Permit) on
  January 10, 1996, authorizing the discharge of leachate from the new cell.
  Hendricks, who owns a parcel adjoining the landfill cell to the west,
  separately appealed the Certification and the Permit to the Panel.  Putney
  Paper responded to each of Hendricks's appeals by challenging his party
  status.  The Panel granted Hendricks party status to challenge both the
  Certification and the Permit and ordered the appeals consolidated.  On
  November 8, 1996, the Panel issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
  Order, an amended Certification, and an amended Permit authorizing Putney
  Paper to operate the new cell.  Both parties filed motions to alter the
  Panel's decision, which were denied.  This appeal followed.

       We first consider Putney Paper's argument that Hendricks does not have
  party status to appeal either the Permit or the Certification.  The Panel
  originally granted party status to Hendricks under 10 V.S.A. § 6102(b) and
  (c), permitting him to challenge the Certification, and subsequently the
  Permit.  Section 6102(b) provides that adjoining property owners are
  entitled to party status "to the extent that the waste facility would have
  a direct effect on [their] property."  Putney Paper asserts that Hendricks
  was not entitled to party status under § 6102(b) because the Panel's
  ultimate findings demonstrate that the new cell will have no impact on
  Hendricks's property.

       With respect to the Certification, the Panel found that volatile
  organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, and polychlorinated
  biphenyls (PCBs), along with "dioxin, iron, and manganese will leach from
  the sludge."  The Panel recognized the harmful nature of some of the
  leachate, even though the amounts would not be above detectable limits. 
  The Panel granted Hendricks party status, concluding that "[g]iven the
  proximity of Appellant's drinking wells, the

 

  Panel concludes that the Appellant has demonstrated that the Project will
  have some effect on his property."  Relying on similar findings, the Panel
  also granted Hendricks party status to appeal the Permit.

       After the Panel rendered its decision on the merits, Putney Paper
  moved to alter the Panel's finding that Hendricks was entitled to party
  status.  In support of its motion, Putney Paper argued that, having
  concluded that the landfill will have no effect on Hendricks's property,
  the Panel should revise its prior determinations and rule that Hendricks is
  not entitled to party status under § 6102(b).  The Panel affirmed its prior
  determinations, and Putney Paper appeals.

       We review the Panel's decisions regarding party status for abuse of
  discretion.  See In re Chittenden Recycling Servs., 162 Vt. 84, 88,