Pesticides & Maine Lobsters. State's Dec 2016 report shows 9 coastal towns with anti-tick chem in flats

How do we keep Maine's coastal waters  as pesticide-free as possible, for the good of our oysters, lobsters, their predators and their prey that live in and breathe those waters? 

According to a pair of Maine Board of Pesticides Control reports from  2015   and 2016 , with the exception of 9 towns coastwide, our coastal waters and sediments are relatively pesticide free. Or at least at non-detection levels. 

 The 12/16/16 16 report noted "There were no detections in sediments collected from sites previously identified as juvenile lobster habitat or adjacent to lobster habitat."  

Locations with Reportable Levels (RLs) of pesticide Bifenthrin (RL= 0.045 ppb) * 
Blue Hill           0.26 ppb Bifenthrin  
Camden           0.060 ppb Bifenthrin
Boothbay Hbr  0.26 ppb Bifenthrin 
Bath                 0.054 ppb Bifenthrin
Bath                 0.066 ppb Bifenthrin (dup)
Yarmouth         0.56ppb Bifenthrin
Portland           0.32ppb Bifenthrin 
So Portland     1.0ppb Bifenthrin
Biddeford         0.76ppb  Bifenthrin    Biddeford 5.0 ppb  Cypermethrin
Kittery              0.088ppb  Bifenthrin 

*RL  is the lowest concentration at which a chemical can be detected in a sample, and its concentration reported with accuracy.


Here's the timeline since this sampling/testing initiative began in 2014.
2014  
February 5, 2014  Legislation LD 1678. An Act to Protect Maine's Lobster Fishery introduced 2/5/14 by Representative Walter Kumiega, Deer Isle, before the  Maine Legislature's Agriculture and Conservation Committee. The bill would prohibit the use of pesticides methoprene or resmethrin  "in any body of water that drains into the Gulf of Maine or on land from which runoff could enter into any such waterway."  

February 6, 2014.  Maine Pesticide Control Board head Henry Jennings  testified against the bill (23 second excerpt) (Listen to Jennings'  full 40 minute Q&A with legislators)   He said impetus for the bill came from what he called the flawed study of the Long Island Sound lobster disaster the ID'd  heavy use of  methoprene and resmethrin in land around the Sound as a key reason. Alternative reasons for the Lobstercaust? He shrugged.

February 21, 2014   (1) Ag & Conservation Committee voted 2/21/14 Ought Not To Pass on LD1678. killing it.
(2)  BPC chief Jennings agreed to organize a coastal Maine sediment & stormwater pesticide sampling project. However, he  said that the call for pesticide sediment and water testing is so small that local chemical labs don't do it. (Later he chooses  Montana State Analytical Laboratory and the Southwest Research Institute (Texas) to do the sample testing)

March 18, 2014  Legislature writes to BPC's Jennings requesting an interim report by January 2015  and a final report by 2017.

April 18, 2014  BPC holds a  presentation on  testing sediments for pesticides.
See  meeting minutes    Jennings' slide show at the meeting  

2015

January 10, 2015 BPC releases an  "interim" report  on their first round of testing. 
See test results here  In Penobscot Bay,  BPC  water quality specialist. Mary Tomlinson sampled the northwest flats of Rockland Harbor, Laite Beach in Camden, and boat launches in Belfast and Blue Hill. The BPC collected samples between August 27 and September 10, 2014 and shipped to them to  the two contract laboratories. Montana Analytical Laboratory and  Southwest Research Institute.  

2016 
December 16, 2016 report This final report is limited to the Casco Bay  and Saco area;  BPC said Penobscot Bay and elsewhere on Maine coast, have  mostly very small to zero levels of pesticides. So the 22016 study dofused on Portland and Saco In fact the report states: "There were no detections in sediments collected from sites previously identified as juvenile lobster habitat or adjacent to lobster habitat."

Saint George: controversial ramp & float application sent back to Planning Board - for 3rd time. AUDIO

Saint George Board of Appeals

SAINT GEORGE.  On December 15th, the Saint George Board of Appeals voted to send back to the town's planning board for reconsideration, an application  by two property owners  to put a ramp and float into Saint George's biodiverse Watts Cove.

Audio of the 12/15/16 meeting:  

1. Presentations by attorney for applicants Bryce & Gail Molloy 31min and  atty for Matthew Stern & other interested parties 22min  Full: 60min mp3). *

2. Board Discussion & Vote. Part 1. 14min, Part 2. 13min, Part 3. 14min  and Part 4. 19min  

Public attendeesT

The appeals board told the planning board to take a second look at  the November 17, 2016 appeal by Bryce & Gail Molloy of the rejection of  their second application on October 4th  to build a ramp with chained floats extending out from the shore of Watts Cove, a small intertidal embayment of the tidal Saint George River.

The cove is well documented by  conservation agency Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife,  and in reports from environmental consultants Paul Leeper of Moody Mtn Env. (report)) and Sr Ecologist Richard Podolski PhD of the Ecology And Technology firm, (report) . Both identify Watts Cove and surrounds as high quality, highly productive estuarine shore and wading bird and shellfish habitat.

The St George Planning Board denied the 2 requests  based on  Section 15C of the shoreland  "The facility shall be no longer in dimension than necessary to carry on the activity and be consistent with the surrounding character and uses of the area. A pier, dock or wharf in non-tidal waters shall not be wider than six feet for non-commercial use."

However, their review  included  extensive consideration of the plan's fitness to meet the standards of Section 16 D-4 :

"4. Will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird or other wildlife habitat;"

In their October 25th rejection of  the  10/4/16 application, the Planning Board's Motion to Deny stated:
"The facility is not consistent with the surrounding character and uses of the surrounding area because:  

1.  of the unique character beyond Watts Cove beyond the dam 

2.  the existing conservation easement and resource protection in the cove 

3.  the tidal waterfowl and wading bird habitat 

4.  the absence of existing floats in the water "

CONTROVERSY

After deciding in the Molloys' favor to send the application back to the Planning Board, controversy arose as Appeals Board members and the two attorneys sparred over what the scope of the Planning Board should be in its review of the newly sent back application:
Both Sections 15C and 16D-4?  Or 15 C only?

Atty James Katsiaficas

They disagreed over whether the float would unlawfully intrude into an area identified by the Department of Inland Fish and Wildlife as Significant Wildlife Habitat  for shorebirds and other species.   

James Katsiaficas, the Molloy's attorney, said that as a seasonal ramp and float, the proposal fell outside Maine DEP's purview. The Dept of Inland Fish and Wildlife's involvement would have been contingent on Maine DEP  seeking IFW's expertise. With DEP not involved, there was nothing for IFW to review. The findings of the Department of Inland Fish and Wildlife need not be factored in. LISTEN TO KATSIAFICAS 31MIN MP3.

Atty Paul Givens

Paul Gibbons, attorney for Watts Cove shoreowner Matthew Stern and other interested parties, held to the opposite opinion. He said that the Planning Board was  entirely free to use all of the evidence and information it had put into the official record, and discussed during its deliberations, when looking at the application again, and determining if it would : "have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish aquatic life, bird or other wildlife habitat."   . LISTEN TO GIBBONS TESTIMONY 22MIN

 Gibbons said the documented facts of the unacceptable impacts to wading birds & other wildlife should compel the Planning Board to reach the same conclusions as before.

 He noted that the float would  intrude into an area identified by the Department of Inland Fish and Wildlife as Significant Wildlife area for shorebirds and other species. 

These concerns were about Section 16 D-4 of the Saint George shoreland zoning ordinance which requires a positive finding that a project "[w]ill not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish aquatic life, bird or other wildlife habitat."  

Watts Cove lower. Saint George River, upper .

However, the planning board did not specifically include these Section 16 D-4 related issues in its list of "findings" in the final wording of their rejection of the Molloy's plans. Only 15C.

Did the Planning Board begin its review of the Molloy stair and floats, and then end its review when they found 15C to be a showstopper? Not  the facts found re the impacts of the project on Sec 16D-4 

Thus, said the Appeals board chair and the Molloys' attorney. the planning board could not consider those Section 16D-4 issues in its new review.  Only Section 15 C-5 standards on the size and shape of the proposed ramp and floats  should be reviewed *

Members of the Board of Appeals were initially mixed on whether the Planning Board should be directed to review the project under 16 D-4 In addition to Section 15 C-5 of  the shoreland zoning ordinance, but ultimately voted to request only that they review the project under the latter.

FMI Significant Wildlife Preservation Committee ** Their email

Maine offshore wind test center: FOAA docs show state wants to make it a permanent windpower site.

November 22, 2016, response by Kathleen Leyden, head  of the Maine Coastal Program, responded to Friends of Penobscot Bay's Freedom of Access Act request for  "Public records in custody of you or your staff dating from April 1, 2016 to November 14, 2016 that pertain to the Maine Aquaventus /Volturnus floating ocean wind turbines project, slated to occupy the Maine Offshore Wind Test Center. (FOPB letter is page 34)  

Topics  (1) tweak  rules  to make the state offshore wind test center a permanent windpower site. (2)  opposition from Protect Monhegan folks.

FOAA Part One Pages 1-12  PDF  Articles sent to  and from people listed below

FOAA Part 2 Pages 13-34    PDF   Emails between the  people listed below 

State Agencies

Person	Position	E-mail
Kathleen Leyden	Dir Maine Coastal Prog (MCP)	Kathleen.Leyden@maine.gov
Mark Bergeron	Dir DEP Bureau of Lands	Mark.Bergeron@maine.gov
Robert G. Marvinney	ME Geologic Survey	Robert.G.Marvinney@maine.gov
Patrick C. Woodcock	Governor's Energy Office	Patrick.C.Woodcock@maine.gov
Meredith Mendelson	DMR Deputy Commissioner	Meredith.Mendelson@maine.gov
Philip deMaynadier	DIFW Coordinator	Phillip.deMaynadier@maine.gov
Todd Burrowes	MCP Fed. consistency reviewer	Todd.Burrowes@maine.gov
Peggy Bensinger	MDEP's  Asst AG	Peggy.Bensinger@maine.gov
Matthew Nixon	MCP  GIS &  Ocean Planning	Matthew.E.Nixon@maine.gov

Monhegan Residents

Person	Position	E-mail
Barbara Hitchcock	Concerned Resident Hitchcock House	barbaramonhegan@gmail.com
Laura T Singer	Concerned Resident	lsinger@maine.rr.com

Wind Industry

Person	Position	E-mail
Beth Nagusky	Lake Erie Energy Development. Former head ME Governor's Energy Office- Baldacci	bnagusky@leedco.org
Val Stori	Clean Energy Group	val@cleanegroup.org

 "Website for the wind industry"

Val's Blogs: http://www.cleanegroup.org/blog-author/val-stori/

Email to: Info@windindustry.com   

S

Managing Maine’s Near Shore Ecosystems - a 1995 ME State Planning Office report

Options for Managing Maine’s Near Shore Ecosystems
A four part report produced by Maine Coastal Program's Josie Quintrell  & Gro Flatebo, Ash Cove Consulting, Yarmouth   August 1995. (pdf )

Josie Quintrell, 2015

"Maine’s near shore resources – the coastal lands and neighboring waters that stretch from Kittery to Eastport – are one of the state’s greatest assets and resources, greater in acreage and economic importance than our public lands ashore." So writes Josie Quintrell in this 1995 report where she lays out and examines principles of managing human impacts on Maine's salt water environment. Quintrell is presently (2016) director of the International Ocean Observing System Association

Title/Introduction 2pg

Ecosystem Management 14pg

Alternative Dispute Resolution 13pg

Marine Protected Areas 7pg

Marine Zoning 6pg

Report as single document 42pg

WRFR Penobscot Bay Report 11/19/16

On November 15, 2016. MOCA  the Maine Ocean and Coastal Acidification Partnership in conjunction with NECAN The North East Coastal Acidification Network brought together a host of reseachers legislators, agency staffers, eco activists lobstermen and aquaculturists from along the Maine coast to consider what has been learned  as it is studied more. 

Here are two important parts of the meeting - Note :often a power point presentation was being shown...

NECAN Policy Part 1. 11minutes

NECAN Policy Part 2. 18min

Point Source acidification Pt 1. 23 min

Point Source Acidification 2 32 minutes

Searsport Harbor dredge plans:two updates. Plus Camden & Blue Hill dredge news

Maine  Dredging Team Updates 

The Maine Dredging Team today released minutes from its October 11, 2016 meeting in Portland.  The team is led by Maine DOT  and the Army Corps of Engineers  and includes other state and federal agencies.  At the meeting, the Army Corps of  Engineers (ACOE)reviewed  the status of current navigation improvement projects in Maine. 

Below are sections from the report about Searsport Harbor,  Camden Harbor & Blue Hill Bay.  Read full 2 page report here. (pdf)  *** Meeting participants list (pdf)

Searsport Harbor (1). Ed O’Donnell (ACOE) explained that, at the request of MaineDOT, the ACOE is evaluating options for maintenance dredging of the existing federal project as a separate project, independent of the related proposed navigation improvement project. See above. Mr. O’Donnell clarified that the maintenance dredging project would be confined to the boundaries of the existing federal project, and involves dredging about 40,000 cy of material near the piers. Mr. O’Donnell further explained that ACOE is looking at various disposal options, would like to place the dredged material in a suitable upland location, and is awaiting further information from MaineDOT. 

Rob Elder (MaineDOT) noted that Maine DOT has retained an environmental consulting firm to investigate to assess upland disposal alternatives. In response to questions, 

Jay Clement (ACOE) indicated that he had no knowledge of discussions of potential dredging in the Penobscot River and placement of dredged materials in a CAD cell to be built off Castine and Cape Jellison as part of the federal court-ordered cleanup of mercury contamination. Mr. Clement said he’d check with colleagues and provide follow information. In response to the questions, Mr. Clement further explained that any such dredging and disposal project would require applicable state and federal permits, applications for which would be processed with public notice and opportunity for comment and in consultation with natural resources agencies. Mr. Clement further explained that a project-specific EA would prepared and would be the basis for determining whether an EIS would be appropriate to ensure a hard look at environmental effects.

Searsport Harbor (2) Ed O’Donnell (ACOE) explained that, at the request of MaineDOT, the ACOE is evaluating options for maintenance dredging of the existing federal project as a separate project, independent of the related proposed navigation improvement project. See above.

Searsport Harbor. Mack Point dredging, 1966.

Ed O’Donnell clarified that the maintenance dredging project would be confined to the boundaries of the existing federal project, and involves dredging about 40,000 cy of material near the piers. Mr. O’Donnell further explained that ACOE is looking at various disposal options, would like to place the dredged material in a suitable upland location, and is awaiting further information from MaineDOT.   Rob Elder (MDOT)noted that MaineDOT has retained an environmental consulting firm to investigate to assess upland disposal alternatives.

In response to questions, Jay Clement (ACOE) indicated that he had no knowledge of discussions of potential dredging in the Penobscot River and placement of dredged materials in a CAD cell to be built off Castine and Cape Jellison as part of the federal court-ordered cleanup of mercury contamination.  Mr. Clement said he’d check with colleagues and provide follow information. In response to the questions, Mr. Clement further explained that any such dredging and disposal project would require applicable state and federal permits, applications for which would be processed with public notice and opportunity for comment and in consultation with natural resources agencies. Mr. Clement further explained that a project-specific EA would prepared and would be the basis for determining whether an EIS would be appropriate to ensure a hard look at environmental effects.

Camden Harbor .  Mark Habel (ACOE) reported that ACOE headquarters approved federal involvement in a feasibility study of a proposal to improve the existing breakwater. Work on this project remains on-hold pending execution of a feasibility cost-sharing agreement with the Town of Camden pursuant to which the town would be obligated to fund 50% of the study’s cost.  The ACOE awaits the Town’s decision.  Note This project has been "on hold" since at least May, 2016.      Camden Harbor Navigation Project

Blue Hill Bay. Mark Habel (ACOE) said that the Town of Blue Hill and the ACOE have entered into a cooperative agreement for the on-going feasibility study for this project. which involves a proposed shallow-draft channel and turning basin. See news story.10/20/16 Environmental sampling showed gasoline contamination in some areas where dredging had been planned, and additional sampling showed this to be confined to surface sediments, with clean glacial till comprising the bulk of the material to be dredged. The ACOE and town are also looking at reconfiguring the turning basin to minimize the volume of contaminated material needing removal.

Mega challenge of marine microplastics: keeping them off mother nature's menu

Microplastics in  a crustacean larvae.

Microplastics and larger plastic bits in saltwater or fresh are problematic for the fish, birds, crustaceans, bivalves and other organisms that ingest them. How do we keep plastic out of their diets?

Recent research suggests that the key attraction of the plastic bits to fishes, birds and invertebrates is the flavor/odor of the biofilm of bacteria that has colonized these plastic particles as solid habitats.

Like other organisms, bacteria eat and breathe and emit wastes andsignaling chemicals. Those emissions are attractive to animals from protozoa to invertebrates and vertebrates, who treat the plastic particles as though they were mini-wontons or micro- matzo balls.

Since we won't be training Mother Nature to avoid plastic, and we aren't likely to stop manufacturing and using the stuff any time soon, can we make plastic unattractive to microbes?

Plastic makers have been required to tweak their products chemistry to protect public health, so it is not impossible to require plastic people to make their stuff unattractive to marine bacteria, or freshwater ones.

Pastic-filled bird carcass & plastics taken from it

But that raises more questions:
While you _could_ add an antibacterial to the plastic, the ubiquity of the plastic bits in the bays and seas is such that you would be filling the water column with antibacterial chemical-emitting particles - specifically geared toward repelling or killing natural marine or freshwater bacteria that live there.

That's not a good way to go.. How else to make plastic unappealing to marine bacteria?

Floating windmills off Monhegan update : UMaine’s New England Aqua Ventus 1 Offshore Wind Demonstration Project, off Monhegan Island

EA-2049: University of Maine’s New England Aqua Ventus 1, An Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration Project, Offshore Monhegan Island in the Gulf of Maine

SUMMARY

DOE is  funding the University of Maine to design, construct and operate a 12 MegaWatt (MW) offshore wind advanced technology demonstration project (i.e. New England Aqua Ventus 1) in the Gulf of Maine, approximately 2.5 miles south of Monhegan Island, Lincoln County, Maine and 12 miles off the mainland.  This project is also known as the Maine Aqua Ventus 1 project.

WHAT’S NEW

September 2016 – DOE intends to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the New England Aqua Ventus 1 project.
DOE anticipates initiating the public scoping process for the EA in Fall/Winter of 2016-2017 at which time DOE will be seeking public comments to help define the scope of environmental impacts and issues to be addressed in the EA.  It is also anticipated that public scoping informational meeting(s) would occur as part of the public scoping process.  Public scoping is a key component of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and is used to provide an opportunity for the public to help define the scope of environmental impacts and issues to be addressed in depth in the EA.  All public comment opportunities will be posted below.

OVERVIEW

For more information on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration Projects, click here.

Fishing grounds of Penobscot Bay videos and Cusk vids

ROCKLAND HARBOR UNDERWATER VIDEO  16 min

Rockport Harbor  6minutes

Rockport harbor 8 minutes

Searsport Harbor 6min


Cusk Pair Stellwagen

Stellwagen habitat recovery project

Cusk exploiting a bit of pipe


NURC DIVE sample gathering   starts gathering at 240

Rockport

Stockton Harbor: MDEP reports on acid, oil and chemical spill incidents,1983-2012

Incident reports  on acid spills oil spills and other chemical at GAC Chemical's Kidder Point property from 1983 to 2012. Click on spill number of the report you wish to read  (From the HOSS online pollution spill reports ) 

Muncipality: SEARSPORT, Keywords: Delta Chemical, General Alum, GAC Chemical  Reports are html. If the spill number is not clickable, the spill report is pending.

Spill Number	Report Date	Town/MCD	Location	Spill Type	Tank Type
B-257-1983	Oct 14, 1983	SEARSPORT	DELTA CHEMICALS INC...	Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-271-1983	Nov 9, 1983	SEARSPORT	DELTA CHEMICAL KIDDER...	Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-101-1984	May 27, 1984	SEARSPORT	DELTA CHEMICALS INC...	Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-206-1984	Sep 21, 1984	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-221-1984	Oct 12, 1984	SEARSPORT		Oil Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-262-1984	Dec 11, 1984	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-10-1985	Jan 24, 1985	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-21-1985	Feb 11, 1985	SEARSPORT		Non-Oil, Non-Hazardous Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-121-1985	Jun 21, 1985	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-1-1985	Nov 1, 1985	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-304-1986	Jul 30, 1986	SEARSPORT		Non-Oil, Non-Hazardous Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-402-1987	Oct 29, 1987	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-250-1988	Jun 20, 1988	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-255-1988	Jun 22, 1988	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-300-1988	Jul 14, 1988	SEARSPORT		Oil Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-522-1988	Nov 14, 1988	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-579-1988	Dec 9, 1988	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-580-1988	Dec 9, 1988	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-610-1988	Dec 30, 1988	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-15-1989	Jan 9, 1989	SEARSPORT		Oil Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-65-1989	Feb 9, 1989	SEARSPORT		Non-Oil, Non-Hazardous Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-107-1989	Mar 12, 1989	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-147-1989	Apr 5, 1989	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-241-1989	May 12, 1989	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-353-1989	Jun 27, 1989	SEARSPORT

Spill Number	Report Date	Town/MCD	Location	Spill Type	Tank Type
B-604-1989	Oct 11, 1989	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-746-1989	Nov 18, 1989	SEARSPORT		Non-Oil, Non-Hazardous Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-42-1990	Jan 19, 1990	SEARSPORT		Non-Oil, Non-Hazardous Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-305-1990	Jun 4, 1990	SEARSPORT		Oil Incident	Underground Tank(s) Involved
B-136-1991	Mar 20, 1991	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-249-1991	Apr 23, 1991	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-435-1991	Jul 16, 1991	SEARSPORT		Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-637-1991	Oct 7, 1991	SEARSPORT		Non-Oil, Non-Hazardous Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-25-1992	Jan 13, 1992	SEARSPORT		Non-Oil, Non-Hazardous Incident	Underground Tank(s) Involved
B-531-1992	Oct 1, 1992	SEARSPORT		Oil Incident	Underground Tank(s) Involved
B-625-1992	Nov 5, 1992	SEARSPORT		Non-Oil, Non-Hazardous Incident	Underground Tank(s) Involved
B-65-1993	Feb 5, 1993	SEARSPORT		Oil Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-344-1993	Jun 29, 1993	SEARSPORT	DELTA CHEMICAL KIDDER...	Oil Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-398-1993	Jul 22, 1993	SEARSPORT	DELTA CHEMICAL KIDDER.

B-2-1994	Jan 3, 1994	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM INC....	Oil Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-64-1995	Feb 7, 1995	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM &...	Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-395-1995	Jul 20, 1995	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM INC....	Oil Incident	Underground Tank(s) Involved
B-319-1996	Jun 19, 1996	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM &...	Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-383-1996	Jul 19, 1996	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM &...	Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-80-1997	Feb 13, 1997	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM INC....	Hazardous Material Incident	Above Ground Tank(s) Involved
B-425-1997	Aug 5, 1997	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM &...	Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-573-1997	Oct 7, 1997	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM &...	Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-668-1997	Nov 20, 1997	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM &...	Non-Oil, Non-Hazardous Incident	Underground Tank(s) Involved
B-220-1998	Apr 3, 1998	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM &...	Oil Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-308-1998	May 4, 1998	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM &...	Non-Oil, Non-Hazardous Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-375-1998	Jun 9, 1998	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM &...	Hazardous Material Incident	Above Ground Tank(s) Involved
B-32-2000	Jan 20, 2000	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM &...	Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-695-2000	Nov 14, 2000	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM CHEMICAL...	Hazardous Material Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-478-2001	Aug 27, 2001	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM &...	Oil Incident	Unknown/Unspecified
B-62-2002	Feb 5, 2002	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM &...	Hazardous Material Incident	Above Ground Tank(s) Involved
B-297-2002	May 28, 2002	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM CORP...	Hazardous Material Incident	None
B-434-2002	Aug 20, 2002	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM &...	Hazardous Material Incident	None
B-656-2002	Dec 10, 2002	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM CORP...	Hazardous Material Incident	None
B-345-2003	Jul 20, 2003	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM CORP...	Hazardous Material Incident	Above Ground Tank(s) Involved
B-556-2004	Oct 14, 2004	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM &...	Hazardous Material Incident	Above Ground Tank(s) Involved
B-627-2004	Nov 17, 2004	SEARSPORT	GENERAL ALUM &...	Hazardous Material Incident	Above Ground Tank(s) Involved

Additional GAC Chemical spills 
B-627-2004 11/178/04

B-112-2005 3/4/05

B-35-2008  1/19/08  Rail acid spill

B-291-2008 5/25/08 

B-356-2008 6/22/08 

B-183-2009 3/13/09 

B-306-2009 5/11/09 

B-57-2010 2/3/2010  

B-85-2010 2/20/2010

B-305-2011 5/19/11

B-423-2012 8/17/2012