Search

Dec 26, 2016

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   (1Ag & 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."

Dec 16, 2016

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:  
2Board Discussion & VotePart 1. 14minPart 2. 13minPart 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.

Dec 9, 2016

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

PersonPositionE-mail
Kathleen LeydenDir Maine Coastal Prog (MCP)Kathleen.Leyden@maine.gov
Mark BergeronDir DEP Bureau of LandsMark.Bergeron@maine.gov
Robert G. MarvinneyME Geologic SurveyRobert.G.Marvinney@maine.gov
Patrick C. WoodcockGovernor's Energy OfficePatrick.C.Woodcock@maine.gov
Meredith MendelsonDMR Deputy CommissionerMeredith.Mendelson@maine.gov
Philip deMaynadierDIFW CoordinatorPhillip.deMaynadier@maine.gov
Todd BurrowesMCP Fed. consistency reviewerTodd.Burrowes@maine.gov
Peggy BensingerMDEP's  Asst AGPeggy.Bensinger@maine.gov
Matthew NixonMCP  GIS &  Ocean PlanningMatthew.E.Nixon@maine.gov

Monhegan Residents
PersonPositionE-mail
Barbara Hitchcock
Concerned Resident
Hitchcock House
barbaramonhegan@gmail.com
Laura T SingerConcerned Residentlsinger@maine.rr.com

Wind Industry
PersonPositionE-mail
Beth Nagusky
Lake Erie Energy Development.
Former head ME
Governor's Energy Office- Baldacci
bnagusky@leedco.org
Val Stori Clean Energy Groupval@cleanegroup.org
 "Website for the wind industry"
Email to: Info@windindustry.com   





S

Nov 27, 2016

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

Nov 19, 2016

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



Nov 16, 2016

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.

Nov 10, 2016

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?

Nov 3, 2016

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.

Sep 24, 2016

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 NumberReport DateTown/MCDLocationSpill TypeTank Type
B-257-1983Oct 14, 1983SEARSPORTDELTA CHEMICALS INC...Hazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-271-1983Nov 9, 1983SEARSPORTDELTA CHEMICAL KIDDER...Hazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-101-1984May 27, 1984SEARSPORTDELTA CHEMICALS INC...Hazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-206-1984Sep 21, 1984SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-221-1984Oct 12, 1984SEARSPORTOil IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-262-1984Dec 11, 1984SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-10-1985Jan 24, 1985SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-21-1985Feb 11, 1985SEARSPORTNon-Oil, Non-Hazardous IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-121-1985Jun 21, 1985SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-1-1985Nov 1, 1985SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-304-1986Jul 30, 1986SEARSPORTNon-Oil, Non-Hazardous IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-402-1987Oct 29, 1987SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-250-1988Jun 20, 1988SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-255-1988Jun 22, 1988SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-300-1988Jul 14, 1988SEARSPORTOil IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-522-1988Nov 14, 1988SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-579-1988Dec 9, 1988SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-580-1988Dec 9, 1988SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-610-1988Dec 30, 1988SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-15-1989Jan 9, 1989SEARSPORTOil IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-65-1989Feb 9, 1989SEARSPORTNon-Oil, Non-Hazardous IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-107-1989Mar 12, 1989SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-147-1989Apr 5, 1989SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-241-1989May 12, 1989SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-353-1989Jun 27, 1989SEARSPORT
Spill NumberReport DateTown/MCDLocationSpill TypeTank Type
B-604-1989Oct 11, 1989SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-746-1989Nov 18, 1989SEARSPORTNon-Oil, Non-Hazardous IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-42-1990Jan 19, 1990SEARSPORTNon-Oil, Non-Hazardous IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-305-1990Jun 4, 1990SEARSPORTOil IncidentUnderground Tank(s) Involved
B-136-1991Mar 20, 1991SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-249-1991Apr 23, 1991SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-435-1991Jul 16, 1991SEARSPORTHazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-637-1991Oct 7, 1991SEARSPORTNon-Oil, Non-Hazardous IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-25-1992Jan 13, 1992SEARSPORTNon-Oil, Non-Hazardous IncidentUnderground Tank(s) Involved
B-531-1992Oct 1, 1992SEARSPORTOil IncidentUnderground Tank(s) Involved
B-625-1992Nov 5, 1992SEARSPORTNon-Oil, Non-Hazardous IncidentUnderground Tank(s) Involved
B-65-1993Feb 5, 1993SEARSPORTOil IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-344-1993Jun 29, 1993SEARSPORTDELTA CHEMICAL KIDDER...Oil IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-398-1993Jul 22, 1993SEARSPORTDELTA CHEMICAL KIDDER.

B-2-1994Jan 3, 1994SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM INC....Oil IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-64-1995Feb 7, 1995SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM &...Hazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-395-1995Jul 20, 1995SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM INC....Oil IncidentUnderground Tank(s) Involved
B-319-1996Jun 19, 1996SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM &...Hazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-383-1996Jul 19, 1996SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM &...Hazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-80-1997Feb 13, 1997SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM INC....Hazardous Material IncidentAbove Ground Tank(s) Involved
B-425-1997Aug 5, 1997SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM &...Hazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-573-1997Oct 7, 1997SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM &...Hazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-668-1997Nov 20, 1997SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM &...Non-Oil, Non-Hazardous IncidentUnderground Tank(s) Involved
B-220-1998Apr 3, 1998SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM &...Oil IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-308-1998May 4, 1998SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM &...Non-Oil, Non-Hazardous IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-375-1998Jun 9, 1998SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM &...Hazardous Material IncidentAbove Ground Tank(s) Involved
B-32-2000Jan 20, 2000SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM &...Hazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-695-2000Nov 14, 2000SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM CHEMICAL...Hazardous Material IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-478-2001Aug 27, 2001SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM &...Oil IncidentUnknown/Unspecified
B-62-2002Feb 5, 2002SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM &...Hazardous Material IncidentAbove Ground Tank(s) Involved
B-297-2002May 28, 2002SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM CORP...Hazardous Material IncidentNone
B-434-2002Aug 20, 2002SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM &...Hazardous Material IncidentNone
B-656-2002Dec 10, 2002SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM CORP...Hazardous Material IncidentNone
B-345-2003Jul 20, 2003SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM CORP...Hazardous Material IncidentAbove Ground Tank(s) Involved
B-556-2004Oct 14, 2004SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM &...Hazardous Material IncidentAbove Ground Tank(s) Involved
B-627-2004Nov 17, 2004SEARSPORTGENERAL ALUM &...Hazardous Material IncidentAbove 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-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