When the new mining rules took effect last year, the Freemans’ told The Monitor that they planned to move ahead with an exemption application. To avoid a more rigorous permitting process, they planned to extract the spodumene ore and ship it out of state for processing.
Explaining why the project remains on pause, Mary Freeman expressed frustration with some of the new requirements for an exemption, some of which she said are either undefined and “financially infeasible.”
“There is a new requirement to test for PFAS,” she said, referring to the family of toxic so-called “forever chemicals” that the state of Maine has taken numerous steps in recent years to address. “This is not a single test because there are thousands of chemicals in this category.”
Freeman says she asked DEP which PFAS chemicals she is required to test for and was told “all of them.” When she asked for a full list, she got no response, she said.
“These chemicals were introduced beginning in the 1940s and International Paper owned this land until we bought it,” she said. “It was only used for forestry and has no land fills, etc.”
Clark, the DEP mining coordinator, said he recalls a conversation with the Freemans about PFAS testing requirements awhile back and that he planned to look into whether there are any loops that were left unclosed.
Freeman contends that the recently enacted rules, much like the prior existing mining regulations, are “designed to discourage mining in Maine rather than to promote environmentally conscious mining.”
Luke Frankel, a staff scientist at the Natural Resources Council of Maine, a conservation group that supported last year’s changes to the Maine Metallic Mineral Mining Act, said the state has taken an appropriately cautious approach to mineral development, learning from past mistakes and in the case of spodumene, finding a reasonable middle ground.
“These minerals will be needed for the energy transition, there’s no question about that, whenever that happens,” but it is critical for Maine to have stringent rules on the books to ensure the protection of the environment and public health, he said.
“Maine is a wetter state than Australia or even Nevada, where most of the lithium mining happens in the U.S.,” he said. “The climate, the geology, everything is completely different. The reason why the laws are so strict here is because a lot of the environmental risks are a lot greater.” |