Gov. Phil Scott on Monday vetoed a bill that would have allowed Vermonters affected by the release of toxic chemicals to more easily recoup medical monitoring expenses.
Scott said the state has recently passed numerous drinking water protections, but he worried that the bill, S.37, lacked clarity and could negatively affect the business climate in the state.
“Numerous Vermont employers have expressed concerns to me, and to Legislators, that the unknown legal and financial risks, and increased liability, is problematic for continued investment in Vermont,” Scott wrote in his veto letter.
Businesses might have difficulty obtaining insurance if the bill became law, he said. He asked lawmakers to consider changes to the bill next session.
In a joint statement, environmental groups said Scott’s veto “protects corporate polluters rather than Vermonters.”
The bill would have provided Vermonters harmed by toxic releases “just a little bit of fairness,” Jon Groveman, policy and water program director for the Vermont Natural Resources Council, said in a written statement.
“Instead of holding polluters responsible for medical costs and damage to Vermont’s environment, he has sided with corporate lobbyists that have misinterpreted the impacts that S.37 will actually have on business in Vermont,” Groveman said.
Sens. Dick Sears (D-Bennington) and Brian Campion (D-Bennington) sponsored S.37 in response to the contamination of dozens of private wells in North Bennington. State officials say toxins known as PFOAs released from the former Chemfab plant were to blame.
Scott last month announced a $25 million settlement with the plant’s owner, Saint-Gobain, to extend municipal water service to most affected wells. That’s in addition to $20 million the company has already paid. The state will pick up $5 million in infrastructure costs.
Several business groups objected to liability provisions that would have allowed the state to recoup cleanup costs from companies that “knew or should have known that the material presented a threat of harm to human health or the natural environment.”
“Companies that act negligently and put people at significant risk of developing a serious disease should be accountable,” William Driscoll, vice president of Associated Industries of Vermont, said in a release. “But we should have fair and reasonable standards for determining liability like the other states around the country that have addressed this issue.”
Driscoll raised the same concern during the legislative session, arguing unsuccessfully that the provision was being added hastily.
Read the governor’s letter here:
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
“I’m not going to invest money from my business in this state if I can be sued for poisoning people!”
You already can be sued for poisoning people. Anyone absolutely can sue a company that releases a chemical that causes that person harm. And the government can sue the company, too. Please tell me you are aware of these basic facts about our legal system.
Guess you don’t know what this bill would have done. It would have allowed you to sue a company: 1) for releases that laws and regulations allow, AND 2) without any evidence that you have actually been hurt. Repeat after me: Without. Any. Evidence. That. You. Have. Been. Hurt.
If that sounds c-c-c-crazy it’s because it is.
So that’s what Scott means by a “business friendly” environment.
Corporate capture of government and regulatory agencies just goes on . . .and on . . . and on . . .
There is a very good article on The Intercept about how PFOA levels should be 700 times lower than already EPA allows.
Drink up, folks . . Happy Hour is now enforced by law . . .
In this world of managed medical care and draconian copays, it is only reasonable to ask the polluters to pay the costs of medical monitoring after the pollution is discovered.
There, knowyourassumptions, I fixed it for you.
You have no idea what you*re talking about. You have not read the bill.
There, Just-Took-A-Bong-Hit-Alsop, I fixed it for you.
You wanna bet?
Knowyourassumptions. I just read the bill and I will post the text directly so that you and others may understand more clearly what is stated within. I will leave my opinion out of the discussion for the moment and simply try to clarify the argument within the comments section. The bill states, “A person without a present injury or disease shall have a cause of action for the remedy of medical monitoring against a person who is the owner or operator of a large facility from which a toxic substance was released if all of the following are demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence:
(1) The person was exposed to the toxic substance as a result of tortious
conduct by the owner or operator, or persons under the control of the owner or
operator, who released the toxic substance.
(2) As a proximate result of the tortious exposure, the person has a
greater risk of contracting a latent disease…” There are more requirements as well stated in the bill. In addition, within the US legal system it is my understanding that in general one must prove damages to be awarded any type of settlement in the form of cash payment, payment of attorney fees, or payment of medical procedures. Just Google the bill S.37 and read it, it is not an opinion whether one must prove damages, it is a fact that one must prove damages.