$22M Congressional ‘Earmark’
Sought for Elizabeth Mine
By M. D. Drysdale
and John Freitag

The Vermont Congressional delegation is being asked to consider a special "earmark" appropriation, likely as high as $22 million, to complete work at the Elizabeth Mine site in Strafford.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has already spent $20 million at the site of the copper mine, which closed in 1956 and left several piles of "tailings," which are rich in both copper and iron, metals which leach into the West Branch of the Ompompanoosuc River.

The metals are not a human health hazard, but they affect the color of the water and the biota—tiny organisms—in the water. In spite of the $20 million expenditure, however, the Ompompanoosuc this summer ran with a brighter orange color than at any time in recent memory.

The EPA has said that another $22 million is needed, but Superfund money, which funds the project, is growing more scarce.

Two responses to this dilemma have grown up in Strafford and Thetford in recent weeks. One says, "Slow down—what you're doing is not working!" and the other says "Get moving!"

The first response, as relayed to the Strafford selectboard in a petition from members of Citizens for a Sensible Solution, was a request to create an independent review of what has been done at the mine site and what is being proposed.

The opposite response came this week from Bob Walker, head of the Elizabeth Mine Study Group, which in the 1990s first focused attention on the problem. Walker and three others have penned a letter to the Vermont Congressional delegation asking them to attach an earmark to the federal budget to complete the work as soon as possible.

The "earmark" process has become controversial in recent years because the appropriations fall outside the normal budget process and are added without review by members of Congress to the final budget.

"We feel it is crucial at this point to let our congressional delegation know that the community wants to get this project cleaned up as soon as possible," Walker wrote in a letter to members of Elizabeth Mine Community Advisory Board (EMCAG), asking their support. "The EMCAG has stated its support for the mine cleanup and we believe we now have to try and get the funds to complete the job."

Not all in the community agree. Ned Coffin of Strafford, a long time environmentalist, wrote a tart response to Walker's proposal.

"When things are going badly (and you can't explain why), why would any reasonable person want to a accelerate a program?" he wrote.

"I consider it highly irresponsible and oppose it."

Controversial Element

The disagreement includes the question of what ought to be done as well as how quickly to do it.

Particularly controversial are the EPA plans to move nearly 300 tons of tailings pile number 3 (TP3), which contains some of the oldest waste material on the site, to the top of the largest tailing pile (TP1). The concern is that exposing this material, that has lain undisturbed for over 100 years, could lead to acid shock in West Branch, and could threaten the long-term stablilty of TP1, which was buttressed in an expensive operation two years ago.    

Three community technical advisors have raised concerns over moving TP3.

Coffin noted that consultant Richard McGaw concluded that "in summary, based on its unique historical perspective and its stability, it is recommended in the strongest terms that the entire area of TP-3 be preserved in its present state except for the limited activities mentioned here."

The Strafford selectboard has recently put forth its own views on the issue, which supports both sides to some extent. The letter, dated Dec. 8, noted that "the longer the project is prolonged the more expensive it will become." However, the board said, the clean-up plan, drafted more than five years ago, "needs review," both in terms of its vastly increased costs and also "in terms of some of its engineering assumptions, which may have changed over time."

The board specified that moving TP3 to the top of TP1 needs more study.

"We agree that an appropriate technical review of the project by a qualified individual or team is in order to confirm that the cleanup plan is in fact the most practical and cost-effective way of achieving the legal requirements of the project, which is to bring the river up to Vermont water quality Standards," said the selectboard in a letter to Ed Hathaway of EPA.

An attempt to have the issue discussed at a EMCAG meeting and some combination of proposals be agreed upon was rebuffed by Walker, who sent out the letter to the Congressional delegation without seeking consensus from the EMCAG.

One potential ally in convincing the Congressional delegation to act apparently thinks that the letter is being sent too soon. State Rep. Jim Masland of Thetford wrote that "Specifically, the letter seems to have more than one purpose and as such may be at odds with itself.

"I don't believe that rebuilding momentum via this letter is at all a good idea," Rep. Masland said.