Below
is a chronology of events involving Luzenac America Vermont division
Rio Tinto Minerals, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources / Act 250
office, FEMA, the town of Windham, VT and Luzenac’s neighbors:
The dates are approximate.
Note: Luzenac claims to be ISO 14001 compliant. Their 'certification' is through NSF-ISR.
1982 OMYA / VERMONT TALC RECEIVES PERMIT 2W-0551 FROM VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD (LATER 'ACT-250) TO OPEN HAMM MINE IN NORTH WINDHAM, VT.”1. The project shall be completed as set forth in Findings of' Fact and Conclusions of Law #2WO551, in accordance with the plans and exhibits stamped “Approved” and on file with the District Environmental Commission, and in accordance with the conditions of this permit. No changes shall be made in the project without the written approval of the District Environmental Commission.” Drawings are accepted with this plan specifying size and location of the mine. (see full permit text 407K PDF) (original drawing future link 1.4M)
EARLY 1990's LUZENAC PURCHASES HAMM MINE
1995 – LUZENAC PROMISES TO CONTROL WATER LEVEL IN HAMM MINE. Luzenac sends Mine Manager (Skip Hall) to reassure my father and me (neighbors downhill of mine) that they will take all necessary steps to monitor and control water level in this mine (see letter 9-25-1995 59K PDF).
1995 to 1997 LUZENAC CEASES OPERATIONS IN HAMM MINE. The 8+ acre mine is 140 +/- deep. Pumping equipment is removed shortly thereafter.
12/1/1997 LUZENAC TELLS TOWN OFFICIALS THEY “WERE MONITORING the pit water level routinely and would pump it down before it overflowed onto someone's property.(see link 78K)
1997-2002 WATER LEVEL RAISES OVER 130 FEET (20+ feet a year). Luzenac does not monitor and record the water level as promised to Town or neighbors. (see 15a below)..
AUTUMN 2002 LUZENAC FILES WITH STATE TO CLOSE ACT-250 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS (allow them to expire). Luzenac claims all remediation work is complete, and water level is stable at about 20 feet below the brim (based on only A recent measurement and the level in an overflowing mine several hundred feet away). Due to staffing and budget limitations the Vermont State Environmental (Act-250) office must accept Luzenac America at their word, and allows the permit to close.
LATER IN AUTUMN, 2002 LUZENAC SELLS PROPERTY (INCLUDING HAMM MINE) TO PRIVATE LAND OWNERS. As part of sale, landowners agree to accept responsibility for all environmental problems. Property is considered to sell for much below market value.
MARCH 2003 AS SNOW MELTS IT IS NOTICED THAT MINE LAKE IS OVERFLOWING. Pretty much ‘on schedule’. Water is flowing from the area near the northeast corner of the rim, which it happens to be lowest. My family and Town of Windham notify new landowners requesting that they deal with problem. We and the town are forced into taking civil action to stop this water.
AUGUST 2003 - SUDDEN STORM – HAMM MINE WATERS WASH OUT OVER 1,000 FEET OF TOWN ROAD. Town receives FEMA assistance to rebuild this road and one other road in town following this storm.
2003 to PRESENT - MINE OVERFLOW CAUSES TO TOWN AND PRIVATE PROPERTY. Erosion and icing damage occur on my family’s farm and town roads. Swamp plants start to grow in historically dry healthy fields. Holes appear in several acres as soil erosion continues in fields. Fish are found living in eroding stream, hundreds of feet from bodies of water.
OCTOBER 2006 - VERMONT ACT-250 (AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES) ISSUES JO 2-241 THAT JURISDICTION STILL APPLIES. Our hopes are raised that we may get protection from the state.
OCT/NOV 2006 – LUZENAC AMERICA APPEALS JO 2-241 (Docket No. 271-11-06 VTEC) rather than help fix the problem.
SEPT 27, 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL COURT RULES AGAINST LUZENAC'S REQUEST FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT.
OCT 11 and 12, 2007 LUZENAC APPEAL GOES BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL COURT (Docket No. 271-11-06 VTEC). James Purdy (“Agent” and subcontractor for Luzenac) is primary witness for Luzenac, the plaintiff.. The scheduled time of two days only allowed for an estimated half of the time that would be required for this case.
James Purdy and Robin Reilly both testified that Luzenac did not monitor and record the water level from 1997 through 2006
James Purdy testified that although the Act-250 office may have received additional drawings, the only approved' drawings he knew of were those submitted with the original Permit 2W-0551.
James Purdy testified that the the drawings he prepared and sent to the Act 250 office 'clearly showed” the discharge point which overflowing water would leave the mine. These drawings are ??? and ??? (links or attachments).
NOV 21-22 SECOND HALF OF APPEAL BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL COURT (Docket No. 271-11-06 VTEC). Newfane, VT Courthouse, 9AM start.
NEWS
September 27, 2007
-Vermont Environmental Court issues decission against Rio Tinto /
Luzenac!
(Rio Tinto / Luzenac
maintains an ISO 14001 Environmental Registration)
Vermonters count on Act-250 to protect the environment and neighbors
of Strip Mines (Quarries and Gravel Pits). Current action by
Luzenac America (Ludlow,
Vermont) may limit the state of Vermont's ability to
protect us. (See Luzenac Appeal Questions
below)
Strip mines and quarries are among a few places where Vermont Act-250
Environmental permits are allowed to close or expire. Most
other permits remain open forever. If the permitted activity is
found to cause environmental or other harm, the Act-250 office can
take steps to help in most cases. This is not true for strip
mines and quarries - Once these permits are closed, Act 250 control
is limited.
Expired quarry permits are difficult to
re-open. If permitted activity is later found to cause
environmental damage civil action may be your only solution.
This can take several years while damage can continue to the
environment, neighbor properties or public roads.
(Dates are approximate and from my memory)
In 1982
the original Act 250 Permit 2W-0551 was issued to tthe Vermont Talc
Division of OMYA for a Strip Mine to extract talc from the 'Hamm
Mine' in North Windham, VT. As part of this permit and its
amendments, they agreed, among other things: (see
notes)
1) Excavate final grading to a site plan (drawing) that
would have a "V" outlet on the South side of the mine at a
level below the rest of the rim of the 8 + acre strip mine /
quarry.
2) "Water from the mine up to 40 GPM will be pumped
from a settling basin in the mine to a holding pond."
3)
Work with the town to do necessary repairs and upgrades to the town
road.
4) " The land area to be disturbed for the proposed
changes will not increase runoff significantly."
In the next 20 years, the mine traded hands several times ending with
Luzenac America, currently a division of Rio Tinto . Mining
continued until about 1997, the mine about 140 feet deep. While
the mine was in operation underground streams were opened, and they
needed to pump water continously to prevent filling. When they
stopped mining the pumps were turned off and the mine bagan to fill
steadily. In 2002 Luzenac America sold the mine to a private
land owner, as the water approached the rim of the mine (140 feet
deep). The last Act 250 permit expired quietly in 2002.
In 2003 serious flooding began from the north east corner of the mine
. It turns out the "V" was not put in as the drawings
showed, it was several feet above much of the rim.
In
August, 2003 there was a large rain storm, The mine (an 8+
acre lake now) acted like an 8 acre parking lot without any
controlled drainage. The water washed out the gravel road,
several culverts and a stream crossing bridge. The damage was
over $50,000 to the road, most of which was covered by FEMA.
The flooding is also causing advancing damage to my family's
property. As a result we have joined the Town of Windham in
civil action against the current owner.
In August
2006 I applied to the Act 250 office for a Jurisdictional Opinion to
reopen Permit 2W0551, because the conditions of the permit were not
met before it was closed. In October 2006 the Springfield
District Coordinator issued Jurisdictional Opinion JO #2-241 to
re-open this permit.
In November 2006 Luzenac America
appealed JO #2-241. This appeal is 271-11-06 VTEC, with the
Vermont Environmental Court. If Luzenac is successful with this
appeal, it may seriously weaken Act 250 (as the Huntley Decision
did). I hear that Luzenac has acted in an environmentally
responsible manner up to this point. I understand that they
must act in the best best interest of their company. I do not
agree that environmental legislation or Luzenac’s neighbors
should suffer as a result.
We have joined the town of
Windham, taking the current owner to court to recover damage to the
road and our property. Most of the money recovered by the town
will probably be rerurned to FEMA. The costs to my family have
been enormous.
If you live near a quarry / strip mine, or know someone who does, pay extra attention to the Act-250 permits. Failure to do so may cause serious environmental damage or damage to your property.
From my research to date the three main things lacking from the
law are:
1) Notification – When an Act-250
permit expires or is closed, it does so quietly. There is no
requirement for the quarry owner to notify adjoining land owners,
town governments or regional planning districts. The cost of
this would be minimal compared to future damage.
2) Snapshot
- When a permit is closed / expired the AAct--250 office can only take
a 'snapshot' of the site. They cannot look at what changes are
occurring (like rising water, or pumps being stopped, in my case).
There does not seem to be a provision to extend jurisdiction in these
cases to see where it will 'level off'.
3) Future Damage
- If an expired / closed permitted activiity is found to cause
unforeseen subsequent damage, there is no way to re-open the permit
for that reason.
Mining and quarries are important
industries to the state of Vermont. It seems that most are
operated responsibly. We just need the controls to be sure that
this activity does not cause damage in the future.
DO
NOT consider this a criticism of the employees of the Department of
Environmental Conservation / Act-250 office. The Act-250
offices need the tools from the Legislature and State Government to
be able to do their jobs correctly.
Links:
NEWS
September 27, 2007 -Vermont Environmental Court issues order against
Rio Tinto / Luzenac!
(Rio Tinto / Luzenac maintains an ISO
14001 Environmental Registration)
Drawing
of whatever is in the quarry water, heading for a stream that feeds
into the Saxtons River (280K)
The US-EPA and Vermont
Stormwater people say there are no standards for "Conductivity",
but why is this water so different?
Jurisdictional
Opinion JO #2-241 to re-open Act 250 Permit 2W-0551 Oct 2006 (PDF
56K)
More on my problems with permit 2W0551 in North
Windham, VT. (future link)
Excerpts
from permit 2W0551 and related files (2K)
Description
of the 2004 Huntley Decision which made it very hard to reopen
permits (PDF 129KB)
Letter
to the Editor to several Vermont newspapers sent 10/25/06
A
picture of our farm before the flooding problem.
Note that all
fields and lawn areas were able to be mowed back then.
Luzenac
Appeal Questions (231K PDF)
Luzenac
America, currently a division of Rio Tinto
FEMA's
site to report waste.
E-mail: [email protected]
I do
not know if there is a reward, but it may be worth a try.
Thanks
for looking at this,
Jim McCandless
[email protected]
Support Biodiesel! - America needs renewable energy self reliance and fewer emissions. Hydro-electric, Windmills, Solar, Re-Use, Recycle – They all help!