Search

Showing posts with label Penobscot Bay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Penobscot Bay. Show all posts

Dec 26, 2025

Esssq in Distress: 80 Years of Chemical Manufacturing Discharges into the heart of the Penobscot Bay Estuary

2025

Results from:  "Limited Assessment of Shoreline Erosion and Industrial Contamination at GAC Chemical Corporation, 34 Kidder Point Road, Searsport, ME August 1, 2025  (120 page downloadable.pdf)

A comprehensive summary based on data compiled by Ron Huber, Penobscot BayWatch with  fieldwork and analysis by Paul Bernacki, Jillian Howell and Ruby Treyball, aka "The Home Team"

Purpose: Synthesize historical documentation, citizen advocacy efforts, and a 2025 professional assessment of the extent of GAC Chemical Corporation's pollution of Stockton Harbor accompanied by the illegally built Sears Island causeway

Prepared by Paul Bernacki.  Funded by Ron Huber


EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW

This Report documents eight decades of industrial chemical manufacturing at Kidder Point, Searsport, Maine, and synthesizes its cumulative environmental impact on Stockton Harbor—a critical pocket estuary within the Penobscot River/Bay interface. 

Since the late 19th century, The site has operated continuously . It was  a steamboat landing,  beginning in the 1920s importation, then preparation of superphosphate fertilizers,  followed by alum, sulfuric acid, ammonia,  alum (45,000 tons/year capacity) and numerous other chemicals to order.

Key Finding: Industrial operations have created multiple contamination pathways into Stockton Harbor through:

  • Direct wastewater discharge pipelines
  • Atmospheric deposition (acid fog/mist)
  • Eroding shoreline fill containing industrial waste
  • Buried building materials (asbestos, lead, PCBs, tarpaper)
  • Bauxite tailings dumped on shore

Despite 26+ years of citizen documentation and advocacy, regulatory agencies have failed to comprehensively address ongoing pollution that threatens the brackish/saltwater interface critical to estuarine function.


I. SITE HISTORY & CORPORATE SUCCESSION (1925-2024)

Timeline of Ownership and Operations

1925-1944: Summers Fertilizer Company

  • 1925: Began import operations at Searsport with small storage facilities
  • 1929: Bulk storage plant operational
  • 1944: Built sulfuric acid and superphosphate plant (T.W. Cunningham, contractor)
  • 1946: Purchased crane-operated facility at Sandy Point in Stockton Springs (second site impacting the estuary)
  • 1950: Completed "European process sulfate of ammonia plant"—first of its type in USA.
    • French Kuhlmann Corporation technology
    • Belgian engineer from Zelsate assisted
    • Fred L. Litty, top chemical engineer, was general manager
    • Graver Construction Company (NYC/Chicago) built it
    • Featured world's first industrial-scale laminated wood arch Quonset hut (4-foot thick arched plywood beams)

1943-1966: Northern Chemical Industries (NCI)

  • Division of Summers Fertilizer, then independent
  • 1953: Added aluminum sulfate process
  • 1955: Built ammonia plant (joint venture with Chemetron Corp.)
    • 125 tons/day design capacity
    • 45,000 tons/year production capacity
    • Oil-fired Texaco process
    • Built by Girdler
  • 1956: Added ammonia nitrate plant and nitric acid plant
  • 1965: Operations documented in Grace Brothers Superfund case submission
    • Described "worn and aged" buildings
    • Equipment condition "bad to good"
    • "Quite dirty" facilities
    • Critical admission: "All salt water used is on a once-through basis, and returns to the bay in surface ditches"
  • 1966: W.R. Grace & Company leased facility
    • Ammonia production discontinued
    • Planned to import ammonia from Trinidad via Grace ships

1970-1994: Delta Chemical Inc.

  • 1970: W.R. Grace discontinued superphosphates, ammonium nitrate, nitric acid production
    • Delta Chemical succeeded Grace
  • 1974: Fernview Collision Incident—Major environmental evidence
    • Ship collided with BAR pier in acid fog on August 21, 1974
    • Delta's sulfuric acid plant 1.3 miles from pier
    • 98% acid recorder malfunction caused excessive SO3 emissions
    • SO3 + water = sulfuric acid mist/fog
    • Reduced visibility, caused respiratory distress in longshoremen
    • Court found Delta 35% liable
    • Corporate culture revealed in Delta log book doggerel (Nov. 15, 1974):

      "Gas leaks gas leaks everywhere / Promises to fix them float in the air / Time continues to pass us by / While the fumes still head for the sky / There is nothing there to West's eye / Production Production is Sawyer's cry / As you sit gasping in your chair / The 'Dollar Sign' is everywhere. / In the background OHSA [sic] lurks / Waiting to foul up the works."

  • 1970s: Began dumping bauxite tailings on shore
  • 1993: Manufacturing liquid alum, ammonium sulfate, sodium aluminate, polyacrylamide polymers
    • Receiving and reselling sulfuric acid in bulk

1994-Present: General Alum & Chemical / GAC Chemical Corporation

  • March 1994: General Alum & Chemical Corporation (founded 1979 by James A. Poure) purchased Delta's 152-acre facility
  • November 1999: Renamed GAC Chemical Corporation
  • May 2003: Toledo, Indianapolis, and Saukville plants sold; headquarters moved to Searsport
  • June 23, 2015: Converted to Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP)
  • Current operations: Manufactures/distributes liquid alum, ammonium sulfate, sodium aluminate, aqua ammonia, liquid urea, polyvinyl alcohol, hollow sphere plastic pigments

Scale of Historical Operations

Ammonia Production (1955-1967):

  • 12 years of operation at 45,000 tons/year capacity
  • Approximately 540,000 tons total ammonia production
  • Required millions of gallons/day of seawater cooling
  • All cooling water returned to Stockton Harbor via surface ditches

Waste Generation Estimates:

  • Conservative (5% waste): 2,250 tons/year → 27,000 tons over 12 years
  • High estimate (15% waste): 6,750 tons/year → 81,000 tons over 12 years

Associated Chemical Production: Each with separate waste streams feeding into harbor:

  • Superphosphate fertilizer
  • Sulfuric acid (two plants: 60 T/D + 100 T/D capacity)
  • Ammonium sulfate
  • Alum (17,000 sq ft building)
  • Nitric acid
  • Ammonium nitrate
  • Various solutions

II. AERIAL PHOTO ANALYSIS: VISUAL EVIDENCE OF EXPANDING CONTAMINATION (1939-1990)

The aerial photo analysis tracking changes at the facility reveals progressive environmental degradation:

Key Observations by Time Period

1939-1965: Infrastructure Development

  • 1939: Vegetated site, minimal facilities
  • 1957: Ammonia plant present with carbon settling ponds, original lagoon south of alum plant
  • 1963: Plant expanded, multiple carbon settling ponds visible, dark sediments visible
  • 1965: Single lagoon SW of plant, "no discharges visible"

1966-1990: Bauxite Mud Accumulation Era

  • 1966: Second lagoon visible, bauxite mud visible in end of carbon pond 2
  • 1972: Bauxite mud discharges visible in all six carbon ponds
  • 1974: Area of bauxite mud deposits increasing
  • 1982: Area of bauxite mud deposits increasing (repeated observation)
  • 1985: Area of bauxite mud deposits increasing
  • 1990: Area of bauxite mud deposits increasing

Pattern: Consistent, progressive expansion of bauxite mud contamination from 1966-1990, correlating with alum production from bauxite ore using acid leaching process.


III. CONTAMINATION PATHWAYS INTO STOCKTON HARBOR

1. Direct Water Discharge (1944-1970s, potentially ongoing)

1965 Grace Brothers Document Evidence:

  • "All salt water used is on a once-through basis, and returns to the bay in surface ditches"
  • Salt water temperature: 30°F to 64°F (winter to summer)
  • Used for cooling: power plant, ammonia plant, nitric acid plant, ammonium nitrate plant
  • Three water systems: city water, closed circuit cooling, and salt water from bay

Discharge composition likely included:

  • Heated cooling water
  • Chromate inhibitors (from closed circuit system)
  • Process contamination from leaks/spills
  • Acidic runoff from manufacturing areas
  • Heavy metals from chemical processes

2. Atmospheric Deposition: The 1974 Acid Fog Incident

August 21, 1974 - Fernview Collision Case Evidence:

The Malfunction:

  • Delta Chemical's 98% sulfuric acid recorder failed
  • Plant continued operating despite knowing this was dangerous
  • June 1974 memo (2 months prior) warned: "This instrument is necessary to make acid and hold the strength without fluctuation. Any sudden change in strength results in heavy absorber stack omissions [sic] that are visible to the surrounding area."

The Environmental Impact:

  • Excessive SO3 emissions from stack
  • SO3 + atmospheric moisture = sulfuric acid mist
  • Created "fuming acid" at 100.4% concentration
  • Acid fog reduced visibility to near zero
  • Traveled 1.3 miles to BAR pier
  • Caused respiratory distress in longshoremen (eye/lung irritation)
  • Court found Delta 35% liable for ship collision

Implications:

  • Proves atmospheric acid deposition into Stockton Harbor
  • Pattern of prioritizing production over safety
  • Regulatory evasion culture
  • If visible acid fog reached 1.3 miles, chronic low-level deposition likely occurred throughout operations

3. Shoreline Erosion of Industrial Fill (1970s-Present)

1970s Delta Chemical Actions:

  • Began dumping highly acidic bauxite tailings onto shore
  • Created filled shoreline containing industrial waste
  • No proper containment or capping

1998 Maine DMR Study Findings:

  • Approximately 1 acre of contaminated intertidal flats
  • Sediment: off-white creamy color, discolored patches up to 1 meter square
  • Depth: few millimeters to 10 centimeters
  • Below: typical anoxic (black) sediment
  • Source: "historical spills and slumping banks and chemical piles"
  • Eroding embankment of filled land containing "creamy/light rose colored bauxite"
  • Beach and flats contain same material

Ecological Impact (1998):

  • Abundance of benthic invertebrates "far lower" near facility
  • Compared to control area across Stockton Harbor
  • Clear link between eroding wastes and low species abundance

4. Buried Building Materials (Late 1990s-Present)

The Quonset Hut Collapse:

  • World's first industrial-scale laminated wood arch Quonset hut
  • Built 1940s-1950s with 4-foot thick laminated arches
  • Late 1990s: Ron Huber photographed derelict building
    • Arches still structurally sound
    • Tarpaper roof collapsing
    • Materials sinking into intertidal flats

2015 Findings (Friends of Penobscot Bay Report):

  • "Large quantities" of tarpaper roofing materials in intertidal mud
  • Depth: 6-12 inches below mud surface
  • Prevents softshell clams and invertebrates from reaching preferred depths
  • Unknown extent throughout cove

5. Pipeline Infrastructure

1998 Sampling Expedition (Ron Huber, Paul Schroeder):

  • Offshore platform marks "discontinued intake for industrial chemicals"
  • Pipeline from platform to shore
  • Used for importing bulk chemicals (likely ammonia from Trinidad per 1965 plan)
  • Potential contamination from:
    • Pipeline leaks/ruptures
    • Loading/unloading spills
    • Residual chemicals in abandoned infrastructure

IV. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE HISTORY & FAILURES

Documented Violations (1983-2025)

Spills:

  • 77 spills documented between 1983 and 2020 (Maine DEP database)
  • 20 spills since GAC took ownership (1994-2020)
  • Average: more than 2 spills per year for 37 years

Water Quality Violations:

  • pH violations identified in 4 of last 12 fiscal quarters (per ECHO database)
  • Chronic, ongoing problem

Legal Actions:

  1. 2002: Conservation Law Foundation v. GAC Chemical

    • Filed February 11, 2002 in US District Court, District of Maine
    • Civil Docket No. 00-CV02-24-B-5
    • Alleged violations of:
      • NPDES Permit terms
      • Multi-Sector General Permits
      • Clean Water Act
    • Settlement reached without finding of violation (common regulatory capture pattern)
  2. 2021: EPA Region 1 Consent Agreement

    • September 29, 2021
    • Clean Air Act violations
    • 2 counts: General Duty Clause violations (Section 112(r)(1))
    • 5 counts: Risk Management Plan regulation violations (Section 112(r)(7))
    • Related to handling: anhydrous ammonia, sulfuric acid, other chemicals
    • Administrative penalty imposed

Pattern of Regulatory Failure

1998: State Agencies Refuse to Sample

  • Ron Huber told to conduct "preliminary, non-scientific samples"
  • State would only act if citizen samples showed contamination
  • Backwards regulatory approach—burden placed on citizens
  • Lack of staff/money cited as excuse

Evidence Tampering:

  • GAC cleaned up saltwater intake house before state visit
  • Ron Huber's video showed before/after conditions
  • State saw sanitized version

Piecemeal Responses:

  • No comprehensive site assessment despite decades of problems
  • Riprap added sporadically, continues to fail
  • Individual spills addressed in isolation
  • No cumulative impact analysis

V. 2025 PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT: CURRENT CONDITIONS

Home Place Team Assessment (Commissioned by Ron Huber)

Project Details:

  • Conducted: April & May 2025
  • Team: Paul Bernacki (Living Shoreline Specialist), Ruby Treyball (Project Manager), Jillian Howell (Environmental Management)
  • Funded by: Ron Huber, "longtime advocate for Penobscot Bay"
  • Scope: 2,050 linear feet of shoreline (½ mile)
  • Access: Limited to intertidal zone below Highest Astronomical Tide line (HAT)

Site Conditions Found:

Physical Instability:

  • Sections 1-8, 10-18: Highly unstable bluffs (per Maine Geological Survey classification)
  • Visible bluff erosion, toe erosion, slumping throughout
  • 4 sections of armored shoreline (riprap):
    • 1 recent structure: appears stable but shows significant plastic liner exposure
    • 3 older structures: overtopped by waves, indicators of downward movement and collapse
    • 2 structures primarily concrete pilings
  • Ineffective riprap—continuing to fail
  • Severe bluff erosion beneath railroad tracks transporting industrial chemicals

Contamination Evidence:

Three Categories of Sediment Contamination:

  1. Pink-colored sediment/fill layer (visible in bluff)
  2. Reddish layer on intertidal sediments and rocks near old discharge pipe (western side)
  3. Grey, powdery substance at multiple locations (Sections 4-6)

Industrial Debris Throughout Intertidal Zone:

  • Concrete fragments
  • Several hundred feet of inactive pipeline (Sections 10-14)
  • Rebar
  • Bricks
  • Discarded wood
  • Plastic materials
  • Demolished facility components
  • Abandoned building
  • Sections 12-14: Industrial debris fills foundational layer of bluff, topped with soil/vegetation that has become unstable, washing ~50 feet into Stockton Harbor

Sampling Results (May 16, 2025):

10 Sediment Samples analyzed for:

  • Total aluminum
  • Total mercury
  • Total sulfur
  • pH
  • Volatile Organic Compounds (9 samples)

2 Water Samples (from culvert, Section 16):

  • Total aluminum
  • Total mercury
  • Total sulfur
  • pH
  • VOCs

4 Building Materials Samples:

  • PCBs detected
  • Lead detected
  • Asbestos detected

Key Finding: "Ongoing releases of industrial contamination into Penobscot Bay and intertidal sediment from highly acidic fill containing sulfur and aluminum, and building materials containing lead, asbestos, and PCBs."

Drainage Concerns:

  • Industrial railroad infrastructure adjacent to HAT line with severe bluff erosion beneath tracks
  • Freshwater wetland on upland with no apparent culverts
  • Section 9: sloped upland runoff with distinct channels from rain events
  • One active outfall pipe (Section 16)

Overall Assessment: "½ mile of shore and coastal resource is highly unstable bluffs with industrial contamination subject to erosion from the upland into Stockton Harbor. Visually, the adjacent coast and adjacent resource is polluted, and biologically compromised due to exposed industrial waste, and hydrological migration of upland contaminants."


VI. RON HUBER'S CITIZEN ADVOCACY TIMELINE (1998-2025)

26+ Years of Persistent Documentation

1998: Early Documentation

  • May 22, 1998: Organized sampling expedition
    • Vessel: Island Institute's Raven (Ken Lantz, skipper)
    • Crew: Herb Hoche (Penobscot Bay Marine Volunteers), Paul Schroeder (UMaine observer)
    • Mission: Sample seafloor near offshore chemical import platform
    • Method: Improvised—canister bound to anchor with wire/duct tape, dragged across bottom
    • Purpose: Force state action after agencies refused to sample due to "lack of staff and money"
  • Created video documentation showing:
    • Cache basin overflows
    • Toxic landfill soils eroding into bay
    • Saltwater intake building conditions
    • Before/after of GAC cleanup (evidence of sanitization before state visit)
    • Historical maps showing century of industrial use
  • Paul Schroeder's observation: Video showed pollution "much more dramatic" than portrayed in Bangor Daily News

Late 1990s: Quonset Hut Documentation

  • Photographed deteriorating world's-first industrial laminated wood Quonset hut
  • Documented structural arches still sound but roof collapsing
  • Observed tarpaper and materials sinking into intertidal flats
  • Preserved visual evidence of building material contamination pathway

2015: Formal Restoration Proposal

  • Led Friends of Penobscot Bay organization
  • Drafted "Penobscot Bay Intertidal Habitat Restoration Plan"
  • Purpose: "Survey and remove contaminated mud and debris from approximately one acre of an intertidal flat of Stockton Harbor"
  • Referenced 1998 Maine DMR study (state knew about problem for 17 years)
  • Documented GAC response:
    • Agreed to recontour eroding bluff
    • Began removing ceramic wastes from different defunct operation
    • But no comprehensive remediation of bauxite tailings or tarpaper
  • Proposed actions:
    1. Core sampling throughout intertidal area
    2. Aerial mapping to demarcate contaminated areas
    3. Remove contaminated sediments via intertidal dredge
    4. Probe for and remove buried roofing materials
    5. Transport to appropriate landfill

2024-2025: Professional Assessment Commissioned

  • Used inherited money to fund comprehensive professional evaluation
  • Home Place Team conducted April/May 2025 assessment
  • Secured laboratory analysis of samples
  • Documented current conditions with drone footage, photography
  • Goal: Provide irrefutable evidence forcing comprehensive state action

Organizational Philosophy

As described to Paul Schroeder in 1998:

  • Focus on "determining conditions on the ground" vs. just holding meetings
  • Independence from corporate funders with potential conflicts of interest
  • Direct action and documentation
  • Distinction from environmental groups with "ambiguous financial relations with funders who in some cases are the corporations who are involved in potentially questionable siting or polluting issues"

VII. ESTUARINE SIGNIFICANCE & ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS

Stockton Harbor's Critical Role in Penobscot River/Bay System

Hydrodynamic Complexity:

Stockton Harbor sits at the interface of:

  1. Upstream: Penobscot River freshwater discharge
  2. Downstream: Penobscot Bay/Maine Coastal Current saltwater influence
  3. Mobile freshwater/saltwater wedge that moves upriver/downriver with:
    • Tidal cycles (moon's gravitational pull)
    • Seasonal precipitation variations
    • Storm events
  4. Brackish zone that expands and contracts dynamically

Impact of Sears Island Causeway (Built 1940s):

  • Solid fill construction blocked water exchange between Stockton Harbor and Searsport Harbor's Long Cove
  • Reduced water circulation to primarily tidal influence
  • Created semi-enclosed embayment west of Sears Island
  • Limited fetch: less than 1.5 miles from south-southeast and southwest
  • Reduced flushing capacity—contaminants more likely to accumulate

Contamination at Critical Interface:

The GAC facility (Kidder Point) is located precisely at the most dynamic part of the estuary:

  • Where freshwater meets saltwater
  • Where the wedge interface shifts with tides
  • Where brackish conditions support unique ecological niches
  • Where fish and invertebrates rely on specific salinity gradients

Ecological Consequences:

  1. Habitat Degradation:

    • 1998 study: "far lower" benthic invertebrate abundance near facility
    • 2015 observation: contaminated sediments prevent clams from reaching maturity depth
    • Loss of intertidal productivity
  2. Bioaccumulation Potential:

    • Heavy metals (aluminum, mercury, lead)
    • Sulfur compounds
    • PCBs in food web
    • Asbestos fibers in sediment
  3. Brackish Zone Function Compromised:

    • Nursery habitat for juvenile fish impacted
    • Shellfish beds contaminated
    • Water quality degradation affects entire harbor
  4. Upstream/Downstream Impacts:

    • Contaminants may be transported upriver during high tides
    • May be carried into Penobscot Bay during ebb tides
    • Affects larger estuarine system beyond immediate area

Climate Change Exacerbation:

  • Sea level rise increasing erosion rates
  • January 2024 storms demonstrated vulnerability
  • Maine experiencing twice the rate of sea level rise compared to century ago
  • Increased storm intensity will accelerate contaminant release
  • 40% of Maine coast is erodible bluffs—this site is worst-case scenario

VIII. RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS

Immediate Actions Needed

1. Comprehensive Site Assessment by Maine DEP:

  • Soil borings in upland area
  • Extensive soil testing in bluff and intertidal zone
  • Comprehensive water quality testing (multiple sampling events)
  • DMR shellfish tissue sampling for contaminants
  • Marine geologist site inspection
  • Public health/exposure assessment
  • Installation of warning signage

2. Emergency Erosion Control:

  • Stabilize areas near railroad tracks (chemical transport infrastructure at risk)
  • Address sections 12-14 where industrial debris is actively washing into harbor
  • Contain freshwater drainage from upland

3. Debris Removal:

  • Complete removal of loose industrial debris from intertidal zone
  • Remove abandoned pipelines
  • Remove collapsing structural supports
  • Clear accessible contaminated soils from shoreland zone (75 feet inland from HAT)

Long-term Remediation Strategy

Nature-Based Solutions (Living Shoreline Stabilization):

Maine Geological Survey classifies majority of site as "highly suitable" to "moderately suitable" for Living Shoreline methods.

Recommended Approach:

  1. Contaminated Material Removal/Capping:

    • Remove contaminated soils where safe and feasible
    • Cap remaining materials in place with clean fill
    • Prevent further erosion and material release
  2. Beach and Bluff Reconstruction:

    • Regrade to establish stable profile
    • Create fringe marsh at base
    • Vegetated bluff above
    • Forested upland buffer
  3. Toe Structure:

    • Cobbles, boulders, coir-encased gravel mimicking glacial deposits
    • Absorb storm wave energy
    • Vegetate with native fringe shrubs and salt-tolerant grasses
  4. Bluff Stabilization:

    • Soil deposited in natural stratification pattern
    • Stabilized with coir fabric
    • Planted with diverse native bluff and upland vegetation
  5. Buffer Zone:

    • Minimum 10-foot planted buffer above riprap
    • Native species
    • Supplemental stabilization strategies
  6. Phytoremediation:

    • EPA-recommended for industrial waste sites
    • Vegetated caps
    • Buffer strips
    • Riparian corridors
    • Contaminant containment, removal, destruction methods
  7. Adaptive Design:

    • Accommodate 6 feet of sea level rise over next 100 years
    • Allow system to migrate landward naturally
    • Prevent re-exposure of remediated materials

Monitoring and Accountability

Ongoing Requirements:

  • Regular water quality monitoring
  • Sediment sampling program
  • Erosion monitoring
  • Shellfish bed testing
  • Benthic invertebrate population surveys
  • Public reporting of results

Responsible Parties:

  • GAC Chemical Corporation (primary responsibility)
  • Maine DEP (enforcement and oversight)
  • EPA Region 1 (federal oversight)
  • Army Corps of Engineers (wetlands jurisdiction)

Financial Responsibility:

  • GAC/ESOP should bear remediation costs
  • If GAC unable/unwilling, site should be considered for Superfund listing
  • State environmental funds as backup
  • Penalties from past violations should fund remediation

IX. BROADER IMPLICATIONS

This Site as Case Study

What Stockton Harbor Reveals About Industrial Legacy Pollution:

  1. Multi-generational contamination accumulation (1944-2025: 81 years)
  2. Corporate succession shields liability (5 different owners, each claiming limited responsibility)
  3. Regulatory capture (agencies underfunded, reactive rather than proactive)
  4. Citizen science necessity (26 years of advocacy required to generate action)
  5. Climate change as threat multiplier (erosion accelerating contaminant release)
  6. Estuarine vulnerability (dynamic systems concentrate and spread contamination)

The Citizen vs. The Corporation

David vs. Goliath Pattern:

  • Individual with head injury and memory challenges
  • Using inherited money for professional assessment
  • 26+ years of persistent documentation
  • Facing corporate entity with legal/financial resources
  • Dealing with underfunded regulatory agencies
  • Media downplaying severity of contamination

Yet Ron Huber Has:

  • Created comprehensive photographic/video evidence
  • Organized scientific sampling expeditions
  • Written detailed restoration proposals
  • Commissioned professional assessments
  • Built coalitions (Friends of Penobscot Bay, Coastal Waters Project, Penobscot Bay Marine Volunteers)
  • Maintained meticulous documentation across decades despite memory challenges

This demonstrates:

  • Power of persistent citizen advocacy
  • Importance of documentation
  • Value of scientific approach
  • Need for citizen science when agencies fail
  • Potential for meaningful change through individual action

X. CONCLUSION: THE PATH FORWARD

Current Status (November 2024)

What We Know:

  • 80+ years of industrial chemical manufacturing at sensitive estuarine interface
  • Multiple, ongoing contamination pathways into Stockton Harbor
  • Documented presence of aluminum, mercury, sulfur, lead, asbestos, PCBs
  • Highly unstable bluffs actively eroding contaminated material into bay
  • Failing riprap unable to contain pollution
  • Climate change accelerating release of legacy contamination
  • Benthic invertebrate populations suppressed
  • Shellfish habitat compromised
  • 77+ documented spills
  • Chronic permit violations
  • 26+ years of regulatory failure despite citizen documentation

What We Need:

  1. Comprehensive professional site assessment (soil, water, sediment, biota)
  2. Full delineation of contamination extent
  3. Binding remediation plan with enforceable timeline
  4. Financial assurance for remediation completion
  5. Nature-based solutions incorporating climate resilience
  6. Long-term monitoring program
  7. Public access to all data
  8. Accountability for past violations

What's at Stake:

  • Health of Penobscot Bay fisheries
  • Integrity of Penobscot River/Bay estuarine interface
  • Shellfish resources
  • Marine biodiversity
  • Public health (especially for those accessing shoreline)
  • Climate resilience of Maine coast
  • Environmental justice (GAC employees now own contaminated site)

The Underwater ROV Mission

Ron Huber's planned use of tethered marine robot to explore the offshore pier/pipeline platform represents the next phase of citizen documentation:

  • Visual evidence of pipeline condition
  • Seafloor contamination mapping
  • Abandoned infrastructure assessment
  • Additional sampling location identification

This continues the pattern: citizens doing the work regulatory agencies should be doing.

Final Observation

Stockton Harbor embodies the challenge facing estuaries worldwide:

  • Legacy industrial contamination
  • Climate change acceleration
  • Regulatory inadequacy
  • Corporate liability diffusion
  • Citizen advocacy necessity

The question is not whether contamination exists—the evidence is overwhelming. The question is whether Maine's regulatory agencies will finally act comprehensively, or whether GAC Chemical Corporation will continue to pollute Penobscot Bay while regulatory agencies look the other way.

Ron Huber has done his part for 26+ years. The state of Maine must now do its part.


APPENDIX: KEY DOCUMENTS REFERENCED

  1. 1950 Bangor Daily News Article - Summers Fertilizer expansion announcement
  2. 1965 Grace Brothers Appendix 3 - Northern Chemicals plant descriptions for Superfund case
  3. 1965 Najjab Study - NH3 capacity documentation (45,000 tons/year)
  4. 1974 Fernview Collision Court Case - Acid fog incident legal findings
  5. 1998 Maine DMR Study - First state documentation of bauxite contamination (referenced in 2015 plan)
  6. 1998 Paul Schroeder Field Notes - Sampling expedition documentation
  7. Aerial Photo Analysis (1939-1990) - Visual evidence of bauxite mud expansion
  8. 2015 Friends of Penobscot Bay Restoration Plan - Ron Huber's formal remediation proposal
  9. 2025 Home Place Team Assessment - Professional evaluation commissioned by Ron Huber
  10. GAC Company History - Corporate succession timeline from company website

Document prepared by: Claude (Anthropic AI Assistant)
At request of: Ron Huber, Belfast, Maine
Date: November 10, 2024
Purpose: Comprehensive synthesis for report preparation and regulatory agency submission

Note: This summary synthesizes information provided by Ron Huber from his personal archives, historical documents, legal cases, and the 2025 professional assessment. All factual claims are sourced from these provided documents. This summary is intended to support Ron Huber's ongoing advocacy efforts and provide a foundation for formal reports to Maine DEP and other regulatory agencies.

Jul 8, 2025

Kidder's Point , Searsport ME news media coverage 1905 - 1968

Newspaper coverage 1905 to 1968 of  the shipping   that moved  passengers, fertilizer and industrial chemicals  to and from Kidder's Point, a 5 acre promontory jutting out into SW Stockton Harbor.(It was shortened to Kidder Point  to conform to new map rules  in the 1960s . 

This began in the 1960s  due to its sheltered position at the Penobscot River/Bay interface,   This harbor hosted a myriald of wildlif in that  mixing atreas  

1900s  

1905  11/02/1905 Capt Nichols appted agent & treasurer Knyvetta  & American shipping Co. at Kidder's Pt office. Republican Journal

1906

 July 1, 1906 Along the Seaport Railroad    Industrial Journal 

August 16, 1906.  Along the Seaport Railroad Republican Journal 

Sept 20. 1906 The NM Seaport RR Terminal Republican Journal

1907

Development of Searsport and Stockton Springs Jan 18, 1907. Sun-Journal 

1908

April 17,1908. At the Terminal. BDN

October 22, 1908_1st_steamboat To Kidder's Pt.  Republican Journal 

1909

July 24 1909 Pen Bay Steamer Silver Star Bangor - Kidders Pt BDN  

1910  

Bangor & Aroostook RR  new trips to Kidder's Pt. The Commercial unknown exact  date

1920s

1924

Nov 13 1924  Abandoned Kidder's Pt dock to be reused  BDN 

Nov 16, 1924  B&A Railroad  to use  Kidder's Point. PPH 

Nov 23, 1924 Abandoned idder's Point Dock  to beused  by B&A RR BDN  


Dec 23, 1924 Kidder's Pt Docks 

1925

Sept 9, 2025 Liquor shipment seized. Arrived at Kidder's Ptd

1926

https://www.penbay.org/baytowns/searsport/kidders_pt/kp_1920s/1926_120826_bdn_.jpg

July 19, 1926  Steamer Aaro brings fertilizer to Kidder's Pt. PPH

https://www.penbay.org/baytowns/searsport/kidders_pt/kp_1920s/1928_071924_pph_1928_phosphate_july_19_1928.jpg

1930s

1931

Oct 13, 1931 The Commercial . Aroostook Potatoes again to be shipped by the water route

1934  

Aug 5 1934 Evening Express  two foreign steamers bring phosphate to Searsport

August 18, 1934 Ships Delfshaven & Vaga bring phosphates to Kidder's Pt.

Aug 27 1934 Evening Express Kidder's Point phosphate arrives 

Sept 23, 1934  Evening Express Norwegian freighter brings phosphate to Kidders's Point.  

1936

 Jan 24 1936 Shipping News Barge  transfers fertilizer Kidder's Pt to Mack's Pt  BDN 

1938

 January 31, 1938  Evening Express Danish ship Viola brings "full cargo" of fertilizer to Kidder's Pt

July 19, 1838 Evening Express Steamer Aaro  brings 'fertilizer' to Kidders Pt

 July 19, 1938  2,200 tons Fertilizer off loads at  Kidders Pt for Summer's Fertilizer company  PPH 

1939

July 21, 1939 BDN   Fertilizer-laden Norwegian vessel Lysaker piloted by Capt John G Snow  to Summers Fertilizer, Kidders Poin

1940s

1941  

 Sept 11, 1941  Steamer Monroe Unloads fertilizer at Summer's Fertilizer, Kidder's Pt.

1944_

Jan 31 1944. K.J. _Summers Fertilizer to build new superphosphate plant

Jan 31, 1944 Evening Express,. New Searsport Fertilizer plant to open in July

July 27, 1944 The Commercial.  #1 industrial  chemical  in Searsport plant  of Northern Chemical.  (Sulfuric Acid)

Aug 5, 1944  BDN Northern  Chemical seeks employees  

Sept 12, 1944_BDN  Summers Fertilizer seeks men . 

Sept 27, 1944_KJ. New plant makes first sulphuric acid in Maine

Oct 2944_BDN Summers Fertilizer free  workers bus 

Nov 17, 1944_BDN Northern Chem, Summers Fert seek  workers

1949

May 12, 1949. The Commercial. B&A RR expansion Kidders Pt

1950s

1955

May 6, 1955 Lewiston Daily Sun  $650,000 Acid plant for Searsport

May 16, 1955 Chemical Firm to build second Searsport plant

 Nov 10. 1955 BDN  $650,000 plant being planned for Searsport

Nov 10, 1955 BDN  31st anniversary of Stockton Springs dock fire

Nov 10, 1955 BDN.  Air Force asks Searsport fuel depot, pipeline to Limestone

1960s

1963

Aug 20, 1963 bay sport fisheries BDN 

1964

Feb 28,1964  State closes Stockton Harbor shellfishery Feb-April 

1966

Oct 26, 1966 new Searsport pier pt 1 

1968

Jan 27, 1968 Chemical Firm WR Grace serves Industry


[TO BE CONTINUED]























































Mar 30, 2025

Microplastics project for Stockton Harbor. Analytical tools from BC's OceanDiagnostics

On Tue, Mar 25, 2025, 12:35 PM Ashleigh Erwin <a.erwin@oceandiagnostics.com> wrote:
Hi Ron,
Please find below all the resources needed to run a microplastics project in your community:
  1. Illustrated Learning Resources

  2. Community Science Microplastics Beach Survey and Data Analysis Instructional Guide. You may use this for a one-time project or ongoing to monitor changes over time by surveying the same beach(es) monthly or seasonally. This guide also includes instructions for using Saturna and evaluating your data to identify sources and solutions.

  3. Community Science Advocacy Tools. After you have interpreted your data, use these tools to engage local decision-makers and the community about your real microplastic data and potential solutions.

Hardware User Manual

  1. Saturna Imaging System User Manual 2023.pdf

To further assist you, please refer to our training videos:

 

Please don't hesitate with any questions, and do keep in touch - we would love to hear how it goes!



Ashleigh Erwin
(she/her)
Director, Marketing and Communications
Ocean Diagnostics

Microfibers are a Macro Issue: Interagency Report on Microfiber Pollution.                              October 17, 2024

Speakers:
Carlie Herring, NOAA Marine Debris Program
Nizanna Bathersfield, EPA Trash Free Waters Program
Krystle Moody Wood, Materevolve

Microfiber pollution is an emerging issue of environmental concern due to the growing body of research uncovering the pervasiveness and potential ecological and human health impacts of microfibers in the environment. 

In July 2024, the Interagency MarineDebris Coordinating Committee released the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee Report on Microfiber Pollution– a Report to Congress mandated by Section 132 of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act of 2020. This webinar will cover the details in the report as well as some of the ongoing efforts in the United States and beyond addressing microfiber pollution.

==============================================================





























Mar 2, 2025

Bay History. 2021. Third time's the charm. Upstream Watch takes up the Penobscot Water Keeper mantle.

 Penobscot Baykeeper Proposal Rises Again.

In 2021 ENGO Upstream Watch explores Penobscot Baykeeping

BACKGROUND

UW was approached by  Ron Huber executive director of Waterkeeper Alliance affiliate Friends of Penobscot Bay, in April 2021 to inquire about UW’s ability to take over the Baykeeper duties in light of his impending retirement. 

UW’s board has approved a formal exploration of this issue, including financial implications, as the current Baykeeper operates as a self-funded individual. UW’s current scope of service is Little River, Goose River, Belfast Harbor, and coastal Northport. 


PROPOSAL 

We are actively exploring the possibility that UW will take responsibility for protection of Penobscot Bay and its watersheds. While this would significantly expand UW’s geographic reach, the protection of local watersheds is the core of our mission and is well-served by our experiences, knowledge, and existing relationships.


 An additional, strengthening element to this proposal would be a collaboration with an as yet not formed Penobscot Riverkeeper in order to maximize impact, geographic reach, and to take advantage of organizational, fundraising, grassroots support, and advocacy synergies. Ideally the Riverkeeper partner would be identified by the Penobscot Nation and we will create a full proposal collaboratively. 


STRATEGIES 

Our key strategies may include, but are not limited to:

  • Identify, catalog, assess, and plan to address the wide variety of current, legacy, and emerging threats to the Penobscot River system and Bay. This may include:

    • Hiring appropriate scientific and legal support, 

    • Strategizing with legislators to meet our goals and organizing to protect against harmful legislative developments.

    • Initiating and maintaining monitoring, reporting, and documentation programs.  

  • Form an organizational coalition with existing and new ally organizations to identify who can address which priorities, where we can collaborate better, and how to best gather and share resources for maximum impact.


  • Maintain active involvement in permitting, litigation, monitoring, legislation, and all other areas that pose a threat to the health of the Penobscot Bay watershed. 


  • Energize a network of grassroots activists, volunteers, citizen scientists, and advocates to support watershed health.


Possible Staffing Configuration

2 to 4 part-time employees including a Penobscot Baykeeper, Penobscot Riverkeeper, and other communications, administrative, or fundraising support.  


PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS  

Partners may include, but are not limited to:

(gray= not yet approached)

  • Sierra Club, already supportive 

  • Penobscot Nation 

  • Friends of Belfast Bay 

  • Down East Salmon Federation 

  • Atlantic Salmon Federation 

  • Trout Unlimited

  • Sportsman’s alliance of Maine

  • Coastal Mt LT

  • Isleboro Islands Landtrust 

  • Environmental Priorities Coalition Members

  • others 


NEXT STEPS

  1. Invite Penobscot Nation to be involved in the project, shape its development, and name their needs;

  2. Develop mutually agreed upon work plan with specific objectives, resource needs (budget), ideal staffing configuration, and action steps;

  3. Build a wider grassroots and organizational coalition around the draft work plan; and   

  4. Approach funding organizations, individuals, and other types of supporters. 



QUESTIONS 

  • Should Penobscot Bay/Riverkeeper be a project of UW? A coalition? A new 501c3 org?

  •  How will decision making work? 

  • What can the Waterkeepers international organization do to assist these projects?