EMCAG Members and Alternates Present: : Deby Botelho, Jim Condict, Linda Cook, Tom Essex, John Freitag, Neal Meglathery, Kendall Mix, Gwenda Smith, Scott Stokoe, Bob Walker, and Steve Willbanks
Strafford Technical Advisor: Sally Mansur
Copperas Hill Coalition: Kathy Hardy, Fred Moody
Agency of Natural Resources: Skip Flanders, Andy Raubvogel
State Historic Preservation Office: Giovanna Pebbles
Facilitator: Cindy Cook, Adamant Accord

The meeting began at approximately 7:05.

Second Repository for EPA Documanets in Lieu of the Cafe

The CAG decided to designate the Strafford Town Office as the second repository for EPA documents (in lieu of the Full Moon Cafe), since the cafe is no longer easily accessible.

October Meeting Summaries

The CAG reviewed and approved the October 10 and October 24 meeting summaries.

Protocol for Adding Material to the Elizabeth Mine Website

The CAG unanimously agreed that the comments of Technical Assistance Grant Consultants Woody Reed and Richard Downer should be posted on the CAG's website, and that the CAG should review new materials, before they are posted. Cindy Cook and Kathy Hardy will coordinate new postings.

State of Vermont's Perspective re TP-3

State Archaeologist Giovanna Pebbles noted that Emily Wadhams could not attend, due to illness. Giovanna described the mine as an historic resource of statewide and national significance and an extraordinary resource. She described the discussions between the State Historic Preservation Office and the Agency of Natural Resources as an example of state agencies working very well together. The outcome of these discussions is that the state supports the preservation of TP3 to the greatest extent possible. She said that her office would support the removal of very limited areas of TP, if this makes sense from historical, environmental and financial perspectives.

Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) General Counsel Andy Raubvogel stated that the State of Vermont has a singular position with respect to the preservation of TP 3. He said that the ANR is not considering all of TP3, and that the unified state position is to preserve most, if not all, of TP3. If there is any portion of TP3 above the Class 4 road that is of relatively low historic value and that has a high environmental impact, ANR would like to consider removing it or treating it in situ.

Andy noted that the project is at a crossroads. Before EPA issues and "Action Memo" describing the cleanup action that will be taken at the site, it will ask ANR for its formal concurrence. It has always been Secretary Johnstone's intention to ask the CAG for its views, before making a final decision. He is asking the EMCAG and the Strafford and Thetford Selectboards for their recommendations regarding the future of TP3. While these opinions will have a lot of weight in ANR's decisions making process, ANR must also consider its statutory and financial obligations.

Andy stated that if the community concludes that all of TP3 should be preserved, ANR will support this position. While the projected O & M costs for the preservation of all of TP3 are at the high end of what the agency can support, Andy is comfortable with the projected costs.

ANR will be discussing the cleanup with the legislature early in the session, and it will be important for the community to provide its point of view. He closed by saying that ANR is comfortable with using the NTCRA process for the cleanup. In response to a comment by John Freitag, Andy noted that the NTCRA process is not intended to be used to address emergencies.

Bob Walker noted that he was nervous about choosing a particual cleanup alternative without a clear financial commitment on the part of the State of Vermont to maintain the wetlands in perpetuity. Andy responded that ANR has many such on-going financial and legal obligations and that it is comfortable with the high end of the projected annual O & M costs of $181,000. He noted that to put these costs in perspective, one should understand that ANR's annual operating budget is approximately $25 million.

ANR Waste Management Division Director Skip Flanders noted that the mine cleanup is an important project to improve the state's water quality. ANR staff have been discussing the need to address water quality issues in the Ompompanoosuc River --especially the mine -- for 30 years. His staff is excited that a cleanup may begin soon.

Dick McGaugh suggested that EPA quantify the amount and toxicity of runoff from the various piles within TP3 before asking the CAG to make decisions regarding its treatment. Andy noted that people vary as to how much information they want before making a decision, and that his staff is comfortable with making a decision to preserve most or all of TP3, if the community so desires. John suggested that the NTCRA process is not appropriate for this site, and that the CAG should slow things down and ask that the cleanup be handled as a Remedial Action, so that there will be time to gather more data, and so that the state's 10% cost share under the Remedial program will serve to prevent EPA from over-engineering the cleanup.

Skip Flanders closed the discussion by saying that he is open to preserving all of TP#, but needs to hear from the EMCAG and the town selectboards before making a final decision.

Once everyone's questions were answered and comments heard, Giovanna Pebbles and Andy Raubvogel left the meeting.

EMCAG Comments re Draft EE/CA

Nine the ten member groups support the goals of the cleanup, as described in the draft EE/CA. John noted that Citizens for a Sensible Solution members believe that the goal of having the effluent from the wetlands meet Vermont Water Quality Standards is overly restrictive when the West Branch above the mine does not meet these standards.

Most members support EPA's recent proposal to eliminate the wall on the eastern edge of TP1, and support EPA's proposal to reduce truck traffic. Several representatives noted that truck traffic will be temporary.

Seven representatives voiced a preference for Alternative 2B; two prefer Alternative 2, but do not have a preference between 2B and 2C; JohnFreitag (Citizens for a Sensible Solution) does not support any of the alternatives described in the draft EE/CA, and proposes limiting the Non Time Critical Remocal Action (NTCRA) to the construction of diversion ditches and passive wetland treatment systems.

Meeting Schedule

The CAG decided to cancel the November 28 and December 26th EMCAG Meetings, and to use the January 10th meeting for an EPA public informational meeting regarding the EE/CA.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:37 PM.

top