Uh Oh....

[summitchallenger]

http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=8512056

[chuck]

Thats an expensive oops!

[win]

In February of 2007, the EPA conducted a surprise, full-scale audit of Sugarbush. We were the first ski resort in the USA to have had such an audit. Over a year later, they issued a report and deemed that we were in violation of certain filing requirements. We worked diligently with them, and in the process, discovered that we should indeed tighten up many of our internal procedures. The audit pointed out several areas for improvement, which we found constructive and useful.

As you all know, we are very conscious about being environmentally responsible, and we are proud of our record. Since assuming ownership of the resort, we have done much more than was legally required, and we have spent over $2 million to improve water quality. It is also important for all of you to know that Sugarbush under our ownership has never had a discharge of hazardous waste that in any way harmed the environment.

While we were extremely disappointed that the EPA decided to fine us, we accepted the fact that our reporting had fallen short, so we agreed not to appeal the fine. The fine was far less than it could have been, if they did not believe we had taken corrective actions following their visit over a year ago. Paperwork and process is more important than ever these days.

Much to my disappointment, the EPA unilaterally issued yesterday's press release without any prior notice to us and without an opportunity to comment.

We believe the EPA is following a strategy of first investigating ski resorts on federal land (Sugarbush and now a second resort) and will then move on to investigate other Vermont ski resorts. I found it curious that we were the first ski resort in the USA to have had a complete EPA audit. We also find it curious that just this week, the EPA cited Vermont for conducting a poor clean up of Lake Champlain. It appears that our home state of Vermont, one of the most environmentally conscious States, is on the EPA's radar screen.

Contrary to the message put out by the EPA, our landlord--the National Forest Service--has applauded our environmental record. Just recently, Vermont's Agency of Natural Resources cited our water and water quality initiatives as exemplary in the ski industry.

The Press release by the EPA really PMO ,and I think it was extremely unfair, but I also understand the way governmental agencies and bureaucrats work. C'est la vie!

[chuck]

Win - Must have been a slow news day! Just another example of how the media can exert perception over reality.
Hopefully your commentary will be published, very nicely done!

[summitchallenger]

My brother made a comment to me about the press release, and I did some research to find that the EPA was complaining about diesel, propane, and bleach (!). I figured that if they have time to chase SB around for those "violations," then they must have solved global warming....

In all, I think it was lame what they did. I would appeal after this media splash. But the other media splash (the "Today Show") probably had a much great net gain than this minor blip.

[Lostone]

When I first went to the CAX link, I only saw 2 paragraphs, and thought that could be talking about a diesel spill.

Now, according to the Distorter article, it seems to be not filling the correct paperwork.

Paperwork is important, but it is a far cry from chemical contamination I would have expected, for the original article.

[noski]

It appears that our home state of Vermont, one of the most environmentally conscious States, is on the EPA's radar screen.

At the risk of sounding too political and Greg slapping my hands... I wonder how much has to do with ultra-conservative-led EPA, being generally unhappy with liberal VT and Leahy/Sanders influence and trying to poke our eyes with their sticks. I don't think this has anything to do with Sugarbush at all.

[HowieT2]

It appears that our home state of Vermont, one of the most environmentally conscious States, is on the EPA's radar screen.

At the risk of sounding too political and Greg slapping my hands... I wonder how much has to do with ultra-conservative-led EPA, being generally unhappy with liberal VT and Leahy/Sanders influence and trying to poke our eyes with their sticks. I don't think this has anything to do with Sugarbush at all.

couldn't agree with you more. It's all politics.

[ski_resort_observer]

According to the report on WCAX it's vitally important that when there is an emergency, for first responders, knowing what hazardous materials they might be dealing with is critical for their safetyand the public. as well. I bet if you talk to local fire departments, law enforcement and EMS personnel they see nothing political about it. Mistakes happen, not a big deal, but to brush it off as some political vendetta is a major reach IMHO.

[HowieT2]

According to the report on WCAX it's vitally important that when there is an emergency, for first responders, knowing what hazardous materials they might be dealing with is critical for their safetyand the public. as well. I bet if you talk to local fire departments, law enforcement and EMS personnel they see nothing political about it. Mistakes happen, not a big deal, but to brush it off as some political vendetta is a major reach IMHO.

No offense, but IMHO you're being a little naive.

[Lostone]

Depends on where the papers are kept. If they are in Washington, they wouldn't be useful, but if they are made available to the Warren Fire Department... If you were a fireman, approaching a fire, you'd really want to know if there were propane tanks, and where they were.

I did the job of reporting chemicals, when I worked in Mass, and it is a pia. It is largely ignored, but should something go wrong, you'd really want it to have been done right.

[labwab198]

I've worked in the chemical industry for over 30 years. Anyone who stores chemicalsd needs to follow Federal Law as far as reporting, labeling and having MSDS's on site (sheets that tell how hazardous the compound from a reactivity and health standpoint). These laws were put in place to prevent serious situations from becoming worse.(as happened before these laws were enacted). Bleach is a reactive compound and under the right conditions can release Chlorine gas (which is extremely reactive and toxic) and Deisel fuel as we all know can be combined with fertilizer to mak a real nice bomb. Therefore, it is important to know what's on your property and the amounts of these that you have. Afterall, if something goes wrong the person is just as injured or dead if you willfully violated the law or if it was an error of omission or honest mistake.

I have never seen or heard of anyone who is inspected and found to be in violation escape a fine. The EPA's stand (is and has always been) that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Prompt address of the areas of concern will get you a lesser fine though.

You can complain about the manner of the reporting or the fact that the EPA made such a big deal about it but the fact remains Sugarbush was in violation of environmental law. What baffles me is the attitude that Vermonters deserve a break because they are so environmenally conscious. That doesn't give you the right to break the law or to turn your back on the pollution which is running into Lake Champlain from Vermont on a daily basis. In fact, I would excpect environmentally conscious Vermonters to react with more shame than the average US citizen instead of trying to cook up some politically motivated hatchet job.

[Strat]

I don't think anyone believes we deserve a break; they're curious as to why the sudden interest in Vermont by the EPA, considering our reputation as generally being environmentally conscious. The laws obviously need to be obeyed, reputation or not; no one is contesting that. Some are just wondering why the EPA picked Sugarbush, out of all of the areas in Vermont, and Vermont out of all of the states in the country, to audit at this time. Unless they start this procedure with other ski resorts or areas like them, it does seem rather out of the blue, no?

[noski]

I don't think anyone believes we deserve a break; they're curious as to why the sudden interest in Vermont by the EPA, considering our reputation as generally being environmentally conscious. The laws obviously need to be obeyed, reputation or not; no one is contesting that. Some are just wondering why the EPA picked Sugarbush, out of all of the areas in Vermont, and Vermont out of all of the states in the country, to audit at this time. Unless they start this procedure with other ski resorts or areas like them, it does seem rather out of the blue, no?

...and to release information to press with no opportunity for Sugarbush to comment. My issues revolve around the PR component not the inspection/findings. I should have been more clear. Sugarbush does not dispute the inspection results from 16 months ago and immediately initiated proper paperwork procedures.

Having said that, Labwab, welcome to SKIMRV. Sorry it took a button-push to have you chime in.

[labwab198]

Points taken. The press could do a better job of explaining and getting everyones point of view, but its alot more sensational to say VErmont SKi Resot FINED!!!

Thanks for the welcome. I really like Sugarbush (and have for years). I just joined SKIMRV on the recommendation of Lostone.