***Link to IFW Advisory Council
The bill was presented by Rep Rena Newell and had testimony from Mulian Dana, Dawn Neptune and Don Kleiner: Listen to speakers below
More?
Feb 22, 2021
Feb 18, 2021
Rockland and the Summit natural gas plan - a WRFR discussion, 2/17/21
On February 17, 2021 WRFR Community Radio's "Rockland Metro" show featured a discussion on the Summit Gas proposal and its implications for Penobscot Bay. Joe Steinberger hosted the discussion, which including Sierra Club leader Becky Bartovics of North Haven, Rodney Lynch former Rockland development director, Ron Huber of Friends of Penobscot Bay Jonathan Fulford of the Belfast Energy Committee. Joe Steinberger raised a series of questions that the attendees gave answers to.
Pt 2 9min 6sec Q to Becky Why is this a bad idea
Pt 3 4min 19sec Rockland is compact couldn't using this make sense?
Pt 4 4min 23sec How is natural gas more polluting?
Pt 5 3min 9sec Aren't people already using gas (propane?)
Pt 6 4min 54sec So why just not ban fossil fuels?
Pt 7 9min What are best renewables for Rockland?
Pt 8 12min Can we go solar? How practical is it?
Feb 17, 2021
How Penobscot bay towns fended off Big Gas four times so far
Big Gas has been turned down four times along the Penobscot Bay coast - all because of town governments responsive to their communities A strong planning board is a wonder to behold.
Two proposals came and went in Searsport, two likewise in Rockland.
2004 Conoco Searsport
2012 DCP Midstream Searsport "The message on Propane for Maine [website] said the project had received federal and state permits but said the local planning board had a "contrary view of our project." from: Pen Bay Pilot story 4/2/13
2015 Energy Management Incorporated, Rockland
2021 Summit Natural Gas Rockland
2004 Searsport turns away Conoco's & Baldacci's LNG plan
2012 Searsport considers, rejects DCP Midsteam LPG gas tank and port
Govt, NGO & Industry Documents archive
* 1/12/12 DCP Midstream replying to Army Corps 1/4/12 request
* 1/4/12 Army Corps of Engineers asks DCP to answer questions
* 12/2/11 Thanks But No Tank! files a lawsuit against MDEP decision
*10/24/11. MDEP grants DCP permits (24 pg pdf)
https://www.pressherald.com/2013/04/02/company-drops-plan-for-lpg-storage-tank-in-searsport/
* MDEP's files on DCP's LPG Tank plan, Jan - Oct 2011
* MDEP DRAFT approval of DCP Tank 9/27/11.
* MDEP's initial announcement about DCP Plan.
2015 Rockland considers, rejects Energy Management Inc Pipeline / gas burner plan.
Feb 15, 2021
A Marine Protected Area Along The Boundary Between U.S. And Canada on Georges Bank? Time for a second look.
In the late 1990s, an effort was made to convince the US and Canadian governments to establish a 10 kilometer wide joint marine protected area along their Georges Bank Boundary. Below, read the scientific paper that stimulated the effort. The plan would use the US National Monument process to protect a 5 kilometer wide strip on its side, while the Canadian Government would use its Ocean Act to similarly protect a 5 mile wide strip along its side of the Georges Bank border.
Rationale: the strip would serve as a scallop egg producing reserve, with its larvae reliably seeding the rest of Georges Bank with scallop. The proposal, however, received sufficient congressional opposition to pressure the Clinton Administration into declining to sign the National Monument Executive Order. Canada then dropped its side of the proposal.
RATIONALE FOR A MARINE PROTECTED AREA ALONG THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY BETWEEN U.S. AND CANADIAN WATERS IN THE GULF OF MAINE Original article here. Click on "Full-Text available"
RICHARD McGARVEY(l) and J.H. MARTIN WILLISON
Biology Department, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. Canada B3H 4Jl. 1 Present address: South Australian Research and Development Institute, 2 Hamra Ave., West Beach, SA 5024, Australia.
FROM: Marine Protected Areas and Sustainable Fisheries, Editors: Nancy Shackell and JH Martin Willison, Science and Management of Protected Areas Association
SUMMARY We propose a marine protected area along the ICJ international boundary (the "Hague line") separating U.S. and Canadian Atlantic waters. This line passes through the Gulf of Maine and the intensively fished Georges Bank. The area included in the proposed reserve contains a variety of habitats representative of the Gulf of Maine.
We propose that a strip be protected against exploitive , uses. The width of the protected area would be a matter for negotiation but might be set at 10 km: 5 km on each side of the boundary. This marine reserve would serve four principal functions: (I) to preserve marine, mainly benthic, biodiversity in these biotically rich coastal habitats in a small but long zone of untrawled bottom; (2) to enhance important benthic fisheries, notably scallops, by leaving a subpopulation to grow to advanced adult ages at which egg production is much greater than by adults at average time of harvest in the present fishery; (3) to provide a buffer zone to reduce encroachment of scallopers and trawlers from one nation into the waters of the other, and to facilitate enforcement against these territorial violations; and (4) to provide untrawled bottom for benthic ecological study.
1. INTRODUCTION
The marine ecosystem of the Gulf of Maine region lies on the Atlantic coastal shelf north of Cape Cod, east of Maine and west and south of Nova Scotia (Fig. 1). At the outer edge of the Gulf of Maine lies a very large and shallow region, Georges Bank (Figs. 1 and 2). This bank has an area within the 60 m depth contour of about 33,700 km2, about the size of Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts (1). Primary productivity on Georges Bank, in particular, is among the highest in the North Atlantic, measured at 455 grams carbon fixed per year per square meter (2). Catch rates, particularly of groundfish (including haddock and cod) and scallops, were historicly among the highest as well. The best fishing at present, for both scallops and groundfish, lies along the Northern Edge and Northeast Peak of Georges Bank, predominantly in Canadian waters (see Fig. 2).
Current understanding provides two reasons for the biological richness of Georges Bank waters. First, strong tides sweep back and forth across the large eastward-extending shallows of the bank. The high turbulence of this movement creates zones that are fully mixed, all the way to the bottom, which continuously replenishes the surface with settled nutrients, stimulating the growth of phytoplankton, and thus providing rich production for the marine trophic web.
Secondly, as water surges over this shallow ridge into and out of the deeper Gulf of Maine to the north, water moves north and south about 45 km with the tides twice daily (3), a total of about 180 km, together with a residual average displacement clockwise around the Bank of about 7 km. For scallops, this clockwise gyre has the crucial effect of retaining spawn on the Bank; scallop eggs and larvae drifting freely with the currents in their pelagic phase during the first month of life. The predominant movement of water along the Northwest Atlantic coastal shelf from Arctic waters to Cape Hatteras is southward with the Labrador Current. Iles and Sinclair (4) have advanced the theory that coastal zones of high retention and turbulent flow which yield higher productivity and greater repro ductive integrity, like Georges Bank, play a principal role in sustaining marine populations over many generations. Sinclair and others (5) have advanced this same hypothesis for sea scallops in the Northwest Atlantic.
The history of these fishing grounds is much like that of waters off Newfoundland and other rich Northwest Atlantic coastal zones. Before the international boundary between the USA and Canada was established in a mediation ruling by the International Court of Justice in The Hague in 1977, the most intense fishing was by foreign fleets, principally large factory trawlers, which in the early 1970s peaked at highly excessive levels. Levels of catch for a variety of species reached levels often two to three times previous highs. This crisis was, at that time, a principal motive behind the declaration by the USA of a 200-mile coastal fishing exclusion zone, which was soon adopted worldwide, and led to the establishment of the Hague line (6, see Fig.1).
Since 1977, most fishing in these waters has been by US and Canadian fleets on their respective sides of the line. Rapid capitalization for new vessels with more powerful engines and fishing tchnologies, particularly for groundfish and scallops, ensued after 1977.
In this proposal, we shall focus on this example of the Georges Bank population, whose fishery is worth about $100 million annually to the USA and Canada. It is relevant to focus on scallops for three reasons: cross-border fishing disputes have centered on this species; detailed data are widely available, and spatial zone protection can be expected to be particularly beneficial to scallop fishery because, unlike fish, scallops rest on the bottom, swimming short distances only to escape.
2. POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF A PROTECTED ZONE ALONG THE HAGUE LINE
2.1 Location of the protected area
The potential benefits of marine protected areas are reviewed elsewhere in this volume. As Bohnsack (9) has stated "they enhance fisheries, reduce conflicts, and protect resources". After we realized the probability that a protected area might help to enhance and stabilize the Georges Bank scallop fishery, one of us had a lucky encounter with Kirk Munro, a fisherman, who suggested that the Hague line might be acceptable to the commercial fishing community as a protected area location. The reasons are politically complex, but include the reduction of conflicts to which Bohnsack referred (see above).
The Hague line intersects Georges Bank within the region which is rich in scallops (Fig. 2). The evidence of the present study suggests that protection of as little as 8-10% of the productive part of the bank would have a substantial effect on scallop recruitment throughout the bank. A protected zone along the entire length of this line, about 10 km wide (5 km within each of the national jurisdictions), as shown approximately in Fig. 1, may suffice to enhance and stabilize the scallop fisheries in both the USA and Canada. For this protected zone to be effective, all commercial and destructive activities must be excluded (for discussion, see Ballantine, this volume), with the exception of defined shipping lanes.
We can expect that once a protected area has been established along the Hague line for a sufficient time it would be effective in the enhancement of other species of commercial value (for discussion, see 9). The protection of representative spawning habitat and nursery grounds is important for many species. By extending the protected area throughout the Hague line (Fig. 1 ), a representative cross section of the habitats of the Gulf of Maine would be protected, providing for conservation of much of the benthic diversity of this biologically diverse region.
2.2 Conflict reduction.
A commonly-shared cross-boundary ecological preserve in the Gulf of Maine region may facilitate closer cooperation between the USA and Canada in dealing with acing these ecosystems, caused principally by overfishing. There is a precedent on land for USA-Canada cooperative management of a protected area. The Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, which lies along the continental divide, spans the Montana-Alberta border.
A zone excluding fishing vessels from this boundary should greatly assist bilateral enforcement against illegal cross-boundary incursions, in particular by American scallopers, which has become a sore point with Canadian fishers and public alike. Encroachment of vessels into the protected zone would no longer be internationa incidents since responsibility for enforcing the exclusion would be retained by authorities of the home nation of these vessels on each side of the border. A 10 km protected zone should make aerial observation and coastal patrols significantly more effective.
2.3 Fishery Productivity When a fishery collapses due to overfishing, the reason is that egg production of the adult population has been reduced to the point that it is insufficient to replenish the population in subsequent generations. Most eggs do not survive to age 2; for scallops in the present population, survival chances are roughly 1 in 10 million (10). Other factos which affect population size are less influential. Environmental factors mediated by fluctuations in currents during time of spawning and larval drift strongly influence this survival rate from year to year. However, these external factors are independent of stock size, and thus should average out over many spawning seasons. Density dependent factors, which limit recruitment of juveniles to the adult population due to overcrowding and competition for food, are probably relatively minor in a heavily fished population because population densities are below peak values.
Average recruitment should, therefore, vary linearly, or a bit less than linearly, with egg production. 82% of the average annual total recruitment to Georges Bank from 1977 to 1988 occurred on the Northern Edge and Northeast Peak of the bank (10). For this scallop population, regression analysis has shown that recruitment is highest in years when scallop production is highest (11). This suggests that greater egg production in this region tends, on average, to result in greater numbers of younger scallops recruiting to the fishable stock.
The USA-Canada boundary along the proposed protected zone runs directly through this region of maximal effective spawning, lying a bit south and east of the zones of densest scallop abundance (12).
It is difficult to predict whether the average density of females per m2 in the protected zone would rise due to dramatically reduced mortality of adult scallops of fishable size or whether density dependent effects, which will also come into play when the region is unfished, would reduce recruitment even more, thus reducing the numbers per m2. Both effects would be felt strongly, and only measurements made after the establishment of this zone could provide the answer.
However, as a first guess, it is reasonable to suppose that the two effects balance and average annual densities in protected and fished areas would be roughly the same. Since we are interested in long- term averages, we may further limit ourselves to considering the long-term average age structure, which we approximate by the steady state age structure. The latter is obtained from the reported average level of natural mortality, M=0.1 (13,14,15), together with fishing mortality, for scallops age 5 and older, of F = 0.966, where this rate of capture is presumed to rise with age up to age 5 (10,13,16,17). Under these assumptions we may calculate the fractional increase in total scallop egg production per female.
The number of eggs spawned by an average female, can be calculated from
The results of the calculation of Eq. 1, indicate that an average female in the present exploited population produces 15 million eggs in an annual spawning, while in a protected zone, due to the higher average age of the females, the number is 153 million eggs, a factor of 10 times greater. If scallops aged 3 and 4 do not contribute substantially to total viable egg production, as the indirect evidence noted above hints, this factor would be 21. The most likely value lies somewhere in between.
Fishing effort often focuses on the aggregations of older individuals because of meat-count regulations designed to raise average harvested size. Using the same methods used to calculate average eggs released per female, the average age of a scallop in the exploited fishery is estimated as 3.1 years, versus 7.9 years in a protected zone.
By allowing scallops to live and reproduce over a natural lifespan, the eggs per female would thus increase by an order of magnitude or more in this proposed protected zone. Its location in or near the regions of highest density and recruitment make this choice of location ideal for the goal of enhancing scallop production. Tidal flows are highly turbulent and variable, and the lengthwise extension of the protected zone across the Bank should allow for larval drift to most regions of the N orthern Edge and Northeast Peak, and to the Southeast Part. This proposal thus fits well with Apollonio' s general call (22) for "biologic management" of the fisheries resources of Georges Bank.
The question remains whether healthy natural adult scallop beds supplying arich source of spawn annually would actually result in greater recruitment. The evidence of a significant stock-recruitment relationship in the Northern Edge and Northeast Peak (II), where the protected zone is proposed, implies that greater egg production should yield, on average, linearly proportional increases in recruit numbers in that region. Canadian scallop fishing effort, reported in hours of time a scallop drag is being towed along the bottom, is sufficient in a typical year to roughly cover the entire Canadian side to the 110 m depth contour. It is therefore difficult to imagine that density dependent competition and crowding is a substantial limiting factor, particularly in the locations of highest scallop abundance where most effort is directed. Thus, more spat settling on each region of favorable habitat would be expected to yield a nearly proportional increase in recruits, though wide fluctuations in the currents above the US-Canada line during spawning season would also be expected to yield substantial variability in survival of eggs originating in the protected zone from year to year.
A number of factors imply that we have conservatively estimated the higher average fecundity of females in the protected zone. First, it was assumed that senescence increases natural mortality rapidly for scallops above age 16, as shown in Fig. 3, implying reduced egg production in Fig. 4, for ages 17 to 20. No evidence has been reported for this assumption. Second, we know that intensive exploitation of scallops begins at about age 3.25 by Canadian statistics (20). By age 4.25, numbers are typically reduced to less than 10%, and by age 5.25, less than 1% survive relative to the abundance at age 3.0 (20, Tables 6 and 7). These very steep declines in abundance, observed directly by scientific survey, imply values of mortality greater than those assumed in the results graphed in Figs. 3 and 4. If future fishing pressure is as great, the proposed protected zone would have an even greater relative effect on the production of spawn than shown in Fig. 4.
2.4. Ecological restoration and study
There would be considerable benefits to science and to fisheries monitoring if part of the productive region of Georges Bank, and other representative parts of the Gulf of Maine, were free from human disturbance. This would allow natural restorative processes to come into effect in those regions which had been subject to disturbance, while protecting other regions against future impacts. Protection from the deleterious effects of benthic fisheries is crucial in this regard. Bottom trawls and dredges disturb benthic habitats considerably; a typical scallop dredge, for example, weighs about a ton and is estimated to kill approximately as many scallops left on the bottom as it brings up (21).
Of benefit to the scallop fishery would be the ability to do controlled field experiments and measure natural mortality, growth, fecundity, predation, and density dependent effects. At present, this is possible only in regions, such as coastal inlets, where scallop densities are not sufficient to support a commercial fishery .Improved measurements of these variables would be of great value in managing the scallop fishery.
It would also valuable to know what effects continuous disturbance and, in some cases, local devastation have on the nature of the benthic ecosystem. Without adequate control sites, such as would be provided by the proposed protected area, we have no means to measure these effects. As a result, there is sometimes more rhetoric than objectivity in marine environmental management.
REFERENCES
1 R.H. Backus andD.W. Bourne, in: R.H. Backus and D.W. Bourne (eds), Georges Bank, M.I. T. Press, Canlbridge MA, 1987, p.356.
2 J.E. O'Reilly, C. Evans-Zetlin and D.A. Busch, in: R.H. Backus and D. W. Bourne (eds.), Georges Bank, M.I. T. Press, Cambridge MA, 1987, pp. 220-233.
3 B. Butman, J. W. Loder and R.C. Beardsley, in: R.H. Backus and D. W. Bourne (eds.), Georges Bank, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA, 1987, pp. 125-138.
4 T.D. Iles and M. Sinclair, Science 215 (1982) 627-633.
5 M. Sinclair, R.K. Molm, G. Robert and D.L. Roddick, Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1382 (1985) 113 p.
6 D.R. Christie, in: R.H. Backus and D.W. Bourne (eds.), Georges Bank, M.I.T. Press, Canlbridge MA, 1987, pp. 469-473.
7 J.A. Posgay, Int. Comm, Northw. Atl. Fish" Ser. 1016, Doc. 73 (1962) 20 p.
8 F.M. Serchuk, P. W .Wood, J.A. Posgay and B.E.Brown, Proc. Nat. Shellfisheries Assoc. 69 (1979) 161-191.
9 J.A. Bohnsack, Oceanus 36 (1993) 63-71.
10 R. McGarvey, F.M. Serchuk and I.A. McLaren, J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 13 (1992) 83-99.
11 R. McGarvey, F.M. Serchuk and I.A. McLaren, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50 (1993) 564- 574.
12 G. Robert, G.A.P. Black and M.A.L. Butler, Canadian DFO Atlantic Fisheries Research Document 93/15 (1993) 33 p.
13 L.M. Dickie, J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 12{1955) 797-857.
14 A.S. Merrill and J.A. Posgay, Int. Comm. Northw. Atl. Fish. Res. Bull. 1 (1964) 88-106.
15 B.A. Macdonald andIR.J. Thompson, J. Exp. Mar. Bioi. Ecol. 101 (1986) 285-299.
16 J.F. Caddy, ICNAFRedbook 1972(3), 79-86.
17 R.J. Smolowitz and F.M. Serchuk, Proc. World Symposium on Fishing Gear and Fishing Vessel Design, Marine Institute, St. John's, Newfoundland, November 21-24, 1988, 13 p.
18 B.A. Macdonald and R.J, Thompson, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 25 (1985) 295-303.
19 R. W. Langton, W .E. Robinson and D. Schick, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 37 (1987) 19-25.
20 R.K. Mohn, G. Robert and G,A.P. Black, Canadian Atlantic Fisheries Scientific Advisory Committee Research Document 89/21 (1989) 26p.
21 J.F. Caddy, J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 25 (1968) 2123-2141.
22 S. Apollonio, in: R.H. Backus and D. W. Bourne (eds.), Georges Bank, M.I. T. Press, Cambridge MA, 1987, pp. 508-511.
FROM: MARINE PROTECTED AREAS and SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES
Proceedings of the symposium on marine protected areas and sustainable fisheries conducted at the Second International Conference on Science and the Management of Protected Areas, May 16-20, 1994, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
END
Feb 13, 2021
The pollutant nobody thinks about. Part 1: PFAS - What Casella Claims
On February 8th The Environment & Natural Resources Committee held a meeting on the Maine PFAS Task Force report https://www.maine.gov/pfastaskforce/materials/report/PFAS-Task-Force-Report-FINAL-Jan2020.pdf starting at 1:00 pm on Thursday, February 6th.
Prior to the Public Comment, members of the Governor's PFAS Task Force, including Jeff McBurnie, director of permitting and regulatory affairs at Casella Organics, provided input on the task force report's recommendations. McBurnie has played a key role in making sure that Casella's Earthlife Compost products were exempt from State PFAS restriction implemented in 2019. [Link to pfascasella.pdf]
The PFAS Task Force report states that, "Municipalities spent hundreds of thousands of dollars more than they had budgeted for in 2019 to test for PFAS and to send wastewater sludge to landfills instead of using it as a soil amendment."
As landfills in Maine become the disposal sites for increasing quantities of PFAS contaminated sludge from across the northeast, the amount of leachate containing PFAS is also likely to increase. Landfill leachate is currently being discharged through wastewater facilities into the Penobscot, Sebasticook, and Kennebec Rivers.
While neighboring states take action to track and control PFAS-containing landfill leachate, the State of Maine has no requirements to treat or test for PFAS compounds prior to discharge of leachate into waterways. As a result, neighboring state's landfill leachate is being exported to Maine for disposal.
[http://penbay.org/waste/landfills/PFASKennebecMerrimack.pdf]
The task force report focuses on unlined landfills as a major source of PFAS contamination, but fails to look at impacts of PFAS-containing leachate generated in lined landfills that are taking sludge.
It will be important that committee members to understand the importance of including provisions in legislation relating to implementing the task force report to address the tracking, testing, treatment, disposal, and environmental impacts of PFAS-contaminated landfill leachate.
[http://penbay.org/waste/landfills/PFASLandfillsarticles.pdf]
The pollutant nobody thinks about. Part 2 PFAS & PFOS Casella's Claims:
Casella "Earthlife" Products, produced in Unity Township, Maine
https://www.casella.com/products/earthlife-products/compost/hawk-ridge-compost
=====================
PORTLAND, Maine —
We do it every day, but when you flush your toilet in Greater Portland, your waste may actually end up
back at your house, sort of.
A unique program between several communities and Casella Organics recycles biosolids, turning that
waste into compost.
Before the 1970s, most waste from Portland went untreated and into Casco Bay, but now that waste is
transformed into a gardening solution.
...Sludge, as the solids are known at this stage, go through a three-day bacteria-laden process. The bugs
eat up the harmful organic matter, eventually turning into a cake-like substance.
The material, now known as biosolids, is put into large trucks to be taken to a Casella Organics facility.
The water district pays Casella to take the waste away, and it’s Casella’s decision about what to do
next.
In all, the East End plant exports about two truckloads of biosolids a day.
The truck then go to one of two plants to make the compost.
At Casella Organics’ Hawkridge Compost Facility in Unity, the biosolids are mixed with saw dust and
other material.
Excerpts from: https://www.wmtw.com/article/from-flush-to-flowers-human-waste-turned-into-
compost-1/2013186#
+++++++++++++
From Casella's 2006 annual report:
New England Organics’ operations treat valuable residual byproducts as resources, not wastes. This
division recycles over 400,000 tons/year of wood and coal ash from power plants, biosolids (sewage
sludge from municipal wastewater treatment plants) and paper mill sludge (FiberClay®).
The flagship Hawk Ridge Compost Facility manufactures 90,000 cubic yards of compost annually from
45,000 tons of biosolids feedstock. Composts, soils and mulches are sold and distributed to agriculture,
landscaping and construction markets, often carrying the tradename EarthlifeTM.
http://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/c/NASDAQ_CWST_2006.pdf
Response to Concerns, by Casella: Prepared for the City of Lewiston, January 2013
"We distribute approximately 200,000 tons of Earthlife® products to 250 farms across the state
annually, economically improving soil health and crop yields.
We also provide comprehensive and sustainable residuals management services to more than 40
industrial and municipal customers including wastewater plants, pulp and paper mills, food processors
and the power industry."
http://www.lewistonmaine.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3045/CASELLA-PROPOSAL---Casella-
Response-to-Questions?bidId=
+++++++++++
State’s ‘forever chemical’ restrictions not applied to compost
UNITY — State environmental regulators have allowed companies to sell compost made with treated
municipal sludge to the public this summer, even as they restrict the use of sludge on many farm fields
because of concerns about chemical contamination.
Maine has about a dozen operations that use treated sludge, referred to in the industry as a “biosolid,”
to make compost, and they continue to distribute products containing PFAS as environmental
regulators and a task force formed by Gov. Janet Mills try to figure out how to deal with the pervasive
“forever chemicals.”
Direct application of treated sludge on Maine farm fields has slowed dramatically this year amid new
concerns at the Maine Department of Environmental Protection over levels of PFAS in the would-be
fertilizer. But the DEP has granted a dozen facilities that mix sludge with other materials to make
compost an extension, of sorts, to continue selling their nutrient-rich product to landscapers, nurseries,
contractors and home gardeners.
...Some environmental groups involved in the debate remain concerned, however, and are urging the
DEP to conduct more testing before allowing PFAS-laced sludge or compost to be spread anywhere.
“I would challenge the assumption that gardens and other places where compost will be used have
average or below-average PFAS levels,” said Patrick MacRoy, deputy director of the Portland-based
Environmental Health Strategy Center. “And the reason I challenge that is it’s only logical that
gardeners are going to use compost year after year.”
....Located on roughly 15 acres a few miles from downtown Unity, Casella’s Hawk Ridge facility is a
massive operation that produces roughly 80,000 cubic yards of compost annually. While the company
sells to individuals, most customers of Casella’s various compost blends are contractors, landscapers or
others buying in bulk.
Tractor-trailers deliver an estimated 4,800 cubic yards of treated sludge monthly to the Unity facility.
After unloading the truck, workers combine the piles of waste with wood shavings, sawdust, wood
chips and “starter” compost that adds a carbon base and bulk to the nitrogen-rich waste and begins the
composting process.
...All told, the biosolids-based compost could be on-site at Hawk Ridge for six months to nearly a year
before it is sold as “Class A” compost that is more than 99.9 percent free of the pathogens found in
human waste.
McBurnie said Casella lost a sizable chunk of business as well as a few customers in the spring when
the DEP imposed a monthlong moratorium on compost sales while PFAS testing was done. Although
sales have been brisk since then, the uncertainty over what happens after June 30 of next year is still “in
the back of our minds,” he said.
Even though Casella owns or operates several landfills in Maine, the company does not want to landfill
the sludge now being accepted at Hawk Ridge because it recognizes the additional value of the finished
product. Landfilling sludge also increases municipalities’ costs and consumes limited landfill space.
- Excerpts from "State's Forever Chemical Restrictions Not Applied To Compost," by Kevin Miller,
Portland Press Herald, Posted August 18, 2019 Updated November 8, 2019
https://www.pressherald.com/2019/08/18/states-forever-chemical-restrictions-not-applied-to-compost/
+++++++++
Recommendations by Maine PFAS Task Force member Jeff McBurnie of Casella Organics to not apply
PFAS restrictions to "biosolids" such as Casella's Earthlife products:
Feb 12, 2021
Feb 6, 2021
Maine DMR gave legislators CARES Act for Fishermen update Feb 4th 2021. AUDIO mp3
Dierdre Gilbert, DMR Marine Policy Director did the presentation. Part of the 40 minutes are questions from legislators and her answers. Commisssion Keliher was there and received a few questions when called on, now and then.
Feb 5, 2021
Maine DEP's guide to how the agency responds to "non-compliance events" like the Mack Point plastic spill.
When several tons of plastic waste were spilled into Penobscot Bay back in December 2, 2020 from the cargoship Sider London Maine DEP, (after a ridiculously slow and uncoordinated start) finally got on the job. On January 15, 2021, Pamela Parker head of the agency's enforcement division presented Sprague Energy this notice of Violation (pdf)
Parker followed agency guidelines set out below.
1.Determining an Appropriate Non Compliance Response
A. Environmental Impact.
B. Significance of the Violation
C. Circumstances of Discovery.
D. Causes and Circumstances of the Violation.
E. Action Once Aware of a Violation.
F. Financial Gain Associated With the Violation.
G. Regulated Party’s Overall Environmental Record.
2. Enforcement & Compliance in Maine
The following are MDEP's commonly used enforcement tools. Details of each, and a description of DEP's approach in applying them, are available at this state link
1. Letter of Warning. LOW
2. Notice of Violation. NOV
3. Administrative Consent Agreement
4. 80K Action in District Court
5. Referral to the Attorney General.
Feb 3, 2021
Me Legislature's Environment & Natural Resources Committee - Feb 1, 2021 - Orientation Day speakers
Report 1 Dalyn Houser, Saco River Corridor Commission
Report 2 Leeann Hanson. Joint Environmental Training Coordinating Committee/
INTRODUCTIONS (Each from to to 3 minutes long)
2. Agricycle Energy (Dan Bell)
3. American Chemistry Council (Margaret Gorman)
4. Associated General Contractors of Maine (Matt Marks)
5. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (Jake Cassady)
7. Casella Resource Solutions (Jeff McBurnie)
8. Casella Waste Systems (Toni King)
9. Coalition for Community Solar Access (Kaitlin Kelly O’Neill)
10. Conservation Law Foundation (Sean Mahoney)
11. Consumer Brands Association (Greg Costa)
12. Consumer Healthcare Products Association (Carlos Gutiérrez) (No Show)
13. Defend Our Health (Sarah Woodbury)
14. Dirigo Partners (Garrett Mason)
15. Don’t Waste ME (Ed Spencer)
16. Drummond Woodsum (Joanna Tourangeau)
17. Eaton Peabody (Bill Ferdinand)
19. Efficiency Maine Trust (Michael Stoddard)
20. Environment Maine (Anya Fetcher).
21. Friends of Casco Bay (Ivy Frignoca)
22. Friends of Penobscot Bay (Ron Huber)
23. Glass Packaging Institute (Scott DeFife)
24. GrowSmart Maine (Nancy Smith)
25. Hart Public Policy (Deb Hart)
26. Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Maine (Carl Chretien) (No-show)
27. Hospitality Maine (Greg Dougal)
28. Industrial Energy Consumer Group (Tony Buxton)
29. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (Sharon Treat)
30. Island Institute (Nick Battista)
31. Maine Association of Planners (Tex Haeuser)
32. Maine Association of Wetland Scientists (Alieta Burman)
33. Maine Audubon (Eliza Donoghue)
34. Maine Beverage Association (Newell Augur)
35. Maine Conservation Voters (Beth Ahern)
36. Maine Dairy Industry Association (Julie-Marie Bickford)
37. Maine Farm Bureau (Julie Ann Smith)
38. Maine Farmland Trust (Ellen Griswold)
39. Maine Forest Products Council (Patrick Strauch)
40. Maine Grocers and Food Producers Association (Christine Cummings)
41 Closing remarks /End of meeting
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)