Rutland Herald

OMYA fires back over CLF's claim

February 6, 2001
By BRUCE EDWARDS Herald Staff

OMYA Inc. has asked the state Environmental Board to dismiss a motion by the Conservation Law Foundation to have one of its Act 250 permits revoked.

The CLF last month asked the Environmental Board to revoke the permit for OMYA's alleged failure to live up to an agreement to move forward and build a rail spur to haul marble ore from its Middlebury quarry.

The company, along with the CLF and several state agencies, signed a memorandum of understanding in 1998 that called for a study and possible construction of a rail spur, provided the project proved feasible.

With an estimated cost between $20 million and $26 million, the 3-mile spur from OMYA's quarry to the rail line in Middlebury would help alleviate heavy truck traffic along Route 7 from Middlebury to the company's calcium carbonate plant in Pittsford.

The Act 250 permit issued to the company for a 10,000-square-foot plant expansion included the memorandum as one of the permit's condition.

However, in its 46-page response, OMYA "vigorously disputes" that it has violated the conditions of its Act 250 permit.

"While the memorandum of understanding set forth various activities that the different parties were to pursue, it does not specifically require construction of a rail spur within five years …" OMYA argued in its filing with the Environmental Board.

The company, through its attorney Edward V. Schwiebert, went on to state that "the memorandum of understanding and the permit both recognize that the rail spur is not the only alternative to be considered and may be deemed infeasible and may not be completed at all."

OMYA also noted that the Act 250 permit the CLF is seeking to revoke did not seek an increase in truck trips, but was solely for a building addition.

While the CLF claims that OMYA has delayed moving forward on the rail project, the company said that OMYA and Vermont Railway have spent $60,000 so far to pursue their obligations under the memorandum.

OMYA also argued that it was other parties to the memorandum that failed to live up to their obligations. The company said that from August 1999 through the winter of 2000, it tried to arrange meetings among the parties with no success.

The company said the Agency of Transportation has so far failed to respond to a draft analysis of so-called least environmentally damaging alternatives that OMYA and Vermont Railway presented the agency.

The company also criticized the Agency of Natural Resources for its alleged failure to take the necessary steps to lay the groundwork for an environmental review of the project.

"Despite OMYA's good faith and continuing efforts to pursue alternative transportation methods, under the memorandum of understanding and otherwise, other parties to the memorandum of understanding have not upheld or have refused to perform their obligations and commitments, whereby OMYA has questioned the degree of public support for the memorandum of understanding, the proposed Middlebury rail spur alternatives, and the wisdom of further expenditures on the part of private parties," the company wrote in its response.

The company also questioned the CLF's contention that the rail spur was economically feasible.

And while AOT Secretary Brian Searles said recently that the state would fund up to one-third of the construction costs of the project, OMYA said in its motion that it has never been informed of the "state's commitment."

The company noted that the memorandum limits the AOT's contribution to $68,000 for its share of planning costs.

CLF Senior Attorney Mark Sinclair called OMYA's response nothing more than "smoke and mirrors" and "finger-pointing."

"What we've got after three years is basically resistance to even endorse the rail project as a possible solution," Sinclair said Monday.

He maintained that a cost-sharing between the state, OMYA and Vermont Railway made the project feasible. At the same time, Sinclair said it appeared OMYA wanted the state to foot a larger share of the cost.

If OMYA has come up with a better alternative than the rail spur, Sinclair said, the company should share that information with the other parties to the memorandum.