Rutland Herald

Foundation tries to push OMYA toward rail

January 18, 2001
By BRUCE EDWARDS Herald Staff

Fed up with what it calls OMYA's foot-dragging on a plan to help alleviate truck traffic along Route 7, the Conservation Law Foundation asked the state Wednesday to revoke an Act 250 permit issued to the company more than two years ago.

The CLF alleged in its petition to the state Environmental Board that the land use permit for OMYA's plant expansion should be revoked. He said the company has failed to live up to its promise to build a rail spur so it can ship marble ore by train between its Middlebury quarry and its processing plant in Florence.

CLF spokesman Mark Sinclair said that in October 1998 the District 1 Environmental Commission issued an Act 250 permit for a 10,000-square-foot plant expansion based on OMYA's commitment to planning a rail spur that would divert much of its truck traffic off Route 7.

He said OMYA's commitment was contained in a memorandum of understanding signed by the state Agency of Transportation, the Agency of Commerce and Community Development, the Agency of Natural Resources, OMYA, Vermont Railway and the CLF.

Sinclair said the memorandum committed OMYA to building the rail spur within five years if the project was economically feasible.

More than two years after the memorandum was signed, Sinclair said OMYA has failed to live up to its commitment, despite the AOT's willingness to pay up to a third of the estimated $20 to $26 million cost, with OMYA and Vermont Railway picking up the rest of the tab.

He said that the state's "generous offer" made the project feasible for OMYA.

He added that while the state must share some responsibility for the delay, most of the blame had to be shouldered by OMYA.

"I think the state has made it clear they are willing to provide a significant portion, one-third of the capital costs for constructing the spur … and OMYA seems to want more public funding for the project," said Sinclair, the CLF's senior attorney.

"My feeling is that OMYA has decided that they're not going to go forward with the project unless they can leverage a lot more public funding for the spur."

OMYA Executive Vice President James Reddy said Wednesday he was not aware of the CLF petition. But he disagreed with the assertion that the company had been dragging its feet on the rail project.

Reddy said the company was currently exploring other options besides the rail spur to move its marble ore 3 miles from its quarry to the rail line in Middlebury. He said those options included conveyor belt and pneumatic tube systems that would tie in with the rail line.

"We really would prefer to be on rail. That's what we're trying to figure out," Reddy said. "How can we can get from the quarry to the rail."

Reddy also said it was his understanding that the transportation agency has so far only agreed to pay a third of a $750,000 environmental study to determine whether the rail spur could receive a permit. He said he was not aware that the state was willing to pay a third of construction costs.

"Obviously, if the state pays a third of the capital costs, we have to go back and look at the economics again," he said.

Agency Secretary Brian Searles confirmed Wednesday that the state's funding offer also applied to construction.

"That would also be subject to the three-way grant," he said.

However, he said that at this point he was unsure what kind of interest OMYA had in pursuing a rail option.

"We haven't had substantive discussions about this in quite some time," he said. "We've been awaiting word from OMYA and the railroad as to whether or not they want to participate (in the environmental study)."

In addition to the cost, the rail spur has environmental obstacles to overcome. In a letter to the CLF dated Jan. 12, OMYA attorney Edward V. Schwiebert reminded Sinclair that the spur must not only be economically feasible but also able to gain a permit.

"In short, OMYA and VTR (Vermont Railway) cannot afford to spend the huge sums that are at stake only to be blocked at different turns along the way with the contention that the project does not pass muster under one program or another," Schwiebert wrote.

He went on to state, "OMYA simply cannot afford to go through this process only to find that 'an arrowhead in the ground' has derailed it."

But Sinclair said the CLF was fairly confident the environmental problems could be solved. In addition, he said a rail spur would create environmental benefits.

"Getting permits for this is certainly less daunting than getting permits for bypasses around Brandon, Pittsford," he said. "This is the fastest and least expensive way to get some relief for those towns that are suffering the effects of ever-increasing truck traffic."

Sinclair conceded there's little chance at this point that the Environmental Board will revoke OMYA's Act 250 permit. He said, however, he hopes the board will take a strong stance to make sure that "OMYA begins to comply with the (memorandum)."

OMYA and its marble ore hauling tractor trailer trucks have highlighted the problem of heavy truck traffic along Route 7 through Brandon. To keep up with worldwide demand for its product, OMYA has tried unsuccessfully to increase the number of trucks hauling ore from Middlebury to Pittsford to 170 round trips a day.

In addition, the company is proposing to open a new quarry in Danby.

The company lost an appeal to the state Environmental Board, limiting the round trips to 115 a day. However, OMYA has filed a companion lawsuit in federal court, arguing that the state violated its constitutional rights by limiting its access to a federal highway.