Penobscot Bay Blog

Nov 25, 2023

BEP annual actions 1972 - 2002

On July 1, 1972, the Maine Commission was re-designated as the Board of Environmental Protection. The Board was created by legislation that also established the Department of Environmental Protection. The Department included a commissioner and three program bureaus:

Air Quality
Land Quality Control
Water Quality Control

The Board of Environmental Protection's address was:

State House Augusta, Maine 04330
Telephone: 207-289-2591

The Board's members included:

Director: William R. Adams
Chief: Frederick C. Pitman II

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

1973

in 1973, the Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) and the Land Use Regulation Commission adopted guidelines for municipal shoreland zoning. The BEP also:

Instituted an action in the Superior Court of York County: In July 1973, the BEP and the Attorney General of Maine filed a lawsuit in this court.
Resumed hearings on an oil refinery application: The BEP resumed hearings on the Pittston Company's application for an oil refinery in Eastport.
Conducted enforcement hearings: The BEP can conduct enforcement hearings at its discretion.

The BEP also adopted the "Maine Solid Waste Management Rules". These rules are in effect under the requirements of the Maine Administrative Procedure Act.

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

1976 The Maine Board of Environmental Protection (Board) did the following in 1976:

Matter of Intern. Paper Company, Etc. :: 1976 - Justia Law

... Board of Environmental Protection ("Board") appropriate applications for approval of a major expansion of International's Androscoggin Mill in Jay, Maine, as well as the issuance, in relation thereto, of a "site" permit and "air emission" and "waste discharge" licenses. Shortly thereafter, the Board allowed one of ...

Justia Law

Sludge Disposal Alternatives - South Paris, Maine - epa nepis

The Board of Environmental Protection concurred that an EIS would be helpful, and urged that the study be conducted immediately in view of the long delays already experienced in choosing a disposal site and method. An initial public workshop was held on July 8, 1976, to discuss the objectives and scope of the study. In ...

epa nepis

MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE

promulgated by the Board of Environmental Protection. § 1312. Retroactive grant awards. The Board of Environmental Protection may pay an amount authorized by sections 1310 or 1311 for expenses incurred subsequent to January 31, 1976, by municipal or quasi-municipal entities for any project that would otherwise ...

MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE

Sludge Disposal Alternatives
The Board agreed that an EIS would be helpful and urged that the study be conducted immediately.
International Paper Company
The Board approved a major expansion of International's Androscoggin Mill in Jay, Maine. The Board also issued a "site" permit and "air emission" and "waste discharge" licenses.

The Board may also pay an amount authorized by sections 1310 or 1311 for expenses incurred subsequent to January 31, 1976.

The Board has also simplified the permit process for certain projects in Great Ponds areas. These projects must have no significant impact on the Great Pond and must meet certain standards.

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

1977

In 1977, the Maine State Legislature passed PL 1977, c. 596, which outlined the duties of the Board of Environmental Protection. The board's duties included:

Prescribing the functions of bureaus and other administrative units
Ensuring that the board's powers and duties are administered efficiently

The board consists of 10 members appointed by the Governor. The appointments are subject to review by the joint standing committee of the Legislature and confirmation by the Legislature.

In 1977, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine instructed the Board of Environmental Protection to reconsider an application and make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is responsible for protecting and restoring Maine's natural resources and enforcing the state's environmental laws.

In 1977, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection took the following actions:

Amended WDL #663: Based on effluent monitoring data, the board reduced the required minimum monitoring frequency for settleable solids to once per year.
Amended WDL #659: Based on effluent monitoring data, the board made an amendment to this WDL.
Adopted a policy on new seawalls: This policy was adopted in May 1978.

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

1978 In 1978, the Board of Environmental Protection issued a five-year permit to the DIFW for the discharge of hatchery wastewater. The permit allowed for a daily maximum of 3.0 MGD of wastewater to be discharged from the DIFW New Gloucester Fish Rearing Station Rearing Pools to Eddy Brook.

The Board of Environmental Protection also simplified the permit process for certain projects in Great Ponds areas. These projects must meet certain standards and have no significant impact on the Great Pond.

The Board of Environmental Protection's duties include:

Prescribing the functions of the bureaus and other administrative units
Ensuring that the board's powers and duties are administered

This is not legal advice. You may want to consult a lawyer about this question.

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

1979

In 1979, the Maine Legislature passed the Maine Hazardous Waste, Septage and Solid Waste Management Act. This act required the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to create regulations for the safe transportation and management of hazardous waste.

The Board of Environmental Protection reviews and signs documents, followed by the Attorney General's office. The Board has also granted environmental permits to the Town of Old Orchard Beach to upgrade their sewerage treatment system.

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is responsible for enforcing environmental laws and protecting and restoring Maine's natural resources. The DEP can trace its roots back to the Sanitary Water Board, which was created in 1941.

This is not legal advice. You may want to consult a lawyer about this question

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

1980

he BEP issued Chapter 855, which established the procedures and requirements for issuing interim licenses for hazardous waste facilities. This rule applied to facilities that existed on April 1, 1980, or on the date they first became subject to regulation

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

In 1981, the Maine State Legislature passed two acts that authorized the Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) to:

MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE

The Board of Environmental Protection is authorized to pay an amount not in excess of 50% of the total eligible expenses incurred by a municipality or quasi- municipal entity for feasibility and design evaluation. Sec. 2. Authorization of bond issue to assist municipalities with solid waste.

MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE

1981. CHAPTER 356. H. P. 995 - L. D. 1183. AN ACT to Allow the Board of Environmental Protection to Authorize and Pay for. Oil Spill Damage Studies. Be it enacted by_ the People of the State of Maine, as follows: Sec. 1. 38 MRSA § 551, sub-§ 5, ~ H is enacted to read: H. Sums, up to $50,000 each year ...

MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE

Chapter 356: Authorize and pay for oil spill damage studies
Chapter 528: Pay up to 50% of eligible expenses for feasibility and design evaluation
In 1981, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine also heard a case involving the BEP:
Board of Environmental Protection v. Bergeron: Argued January 19, 1981 and decided August 18, 1981
This is not legal advice. You may want to consult a lawyer about this question.
MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE

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

1982

In 1982, the Board of Environmental Protection received applications for:

37 residential
20 industrial
2 mining
56 solid waste
16 retail facilities

me coastal program 1983 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CZIC-ht393-m2-m35-jan-nov-1983/html/CZIC-ht393-m2-m35-jan-nov-1983.htm

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

1985

Here are some cases involving the Maine Board of Environmental Protection from 1985:

Annable v. Bd. of Environmental Protection
This case began on July 23, 1985, when the plaintiff asked the Superior Court for a determination that his property was "grandfathered".
Hall v. Bd. of Environmental Protection
This case was published on September 4, 1985, in the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. The full title of the case is *Donald E. HALL et ux. v. BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION*.

This is not legal advice. You may want to consult a lawyer about this questio

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

1987

he case Hall v. Board of Environmental Protection was heard by the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine on July 14, 1987. The case number is 528 A.2d 453 (Me. 1987).

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

1988

he Maine Board of Environmental Protection (MBEP) was involved in the following cases in 1988:

State of Me. v. Department of Navy
The MBEP and the State of Maine filed a lawsuit against the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy. The lawsuit was filed in York County Superior.
Department of Ecology v. Public Utility District No. 1
The Maine Supreme Court rejected the argument that the MBEP exceeded its authority.

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

1989

e case *D & J Assocs. v. Bd. of Env't Prot.* was heard in the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine on June 5, 1989. The case number is 560 A.2d 4 (Me. 1989). The casetext can be found on Casetext. \

Here are some 1989 cases involving the Maine Board of Environmental Protection:

Rubin v. Board of Env. Protection, 577 A.2d 1189 - Casetext

... (1989), which states in part: "In the event of a violation of any provision of the laws administered by the Department of Environmental Protection or of any order, regulation, license, permit, approval or decision of the Board of Environmental Protection . . ., the Attorney General may institute ...

Casetext

D J Associates v. Board of Environmental Protection - Casetext

Jun 5, 1989 — See D & J Assocs. v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 560 A.2d 4, 4 (Me. 1989) (holding that a complaint filed pursuant to… 1 Citing Cases. From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research. D J Associates v. Board of Environmental Protection. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Jun 5, 1989. 560 A.2d 4 (Me. 1989) Copy Citation. Download. PDF.

Casetext

Rubin v. Board of Env. Protection
This case states that the Attorney General may take action if there is a violation of any of the following:
D J Associates v. Board of Environmental Protection
This case was heard in the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine on June 5, 1989.

In 1989, Maine banned new commercial solid waste landfills. The state also authorized the licensing and siting of new solid waste landfills. New privately owned and municipal landfills were permitted, but with certain waste delivery restrictions.

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

1990

https://www.elr.info/sites/default/files/litigation/21.20042.htm

International Paper v. Bd. of Env. Protection
In 1990, the Board of Environmental Protection refused to certify International Paper's sludge/bark dryer as a "water pollution control facility" for tax exemption purposes.

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

1990-1991
In 1990–1991, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) was required to only license landfills that provided a "substantial public benefit". This was defined as a facility that would meet the capacity needs identified in § 1310-0.
The BEP also determined that the groundwater extraction and treatment system was effective. They also determined that withdrawing water from Fish Pond or Hobbs Pond would not draw contaminated groundwater from the Union Chemical Site into the ponds or into private wells in the area
============================================================
- 1991-1992
- In 1991, the state returned to Superior Court in Maine to seek $700,000 in penalties for the company's alleged failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations.
- Groundwater extraction and treatment system
  The BEP determined that the system was effective and that withdrawing water from Fish Pond or Hobbs Pond would not draw contaminated groundwater into the ponds or into private wells.
- S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection
  This case was argued on December 2, 1991 and decided on March 25, 1992. The case addressed whether hydroelectric dams result in "discharge" under the meaning of Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act
============================================================

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

1994

In 1994, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) adopted a revised emergency episode regulation. The Governor's designee submitted the regulation to the EPA on October 22, 1991.

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

1995

Dirty air, dirty water https://snakeroot.net/Julian/Notes.html

he Maine Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) received a memorandum of transmission and introduction of the 1995 15%-Rate-of-Progress Plan (RFG Plan) on July 13, 1995. The memorandum was signed by Donald L. Anderson of the Bureau of Air Quality Control

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

1997

The Maine Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) adopted the following in 1997:

State Chapter 141
This chapter became effective on September 28, 1996. It was certified by the Maine Office of the Attorney General.
Maine's 15% plan
This plan was adopted in July 1995.

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

1998 Generative AI is experimental. Info quality may vary. Learn more

In 1998, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) was considering a rule to reduce NOx emissions at Wyman. The rule would require Wyman to reduce emissions to the same level as power plants built since 1977. The BEP supported the rule in a preliminary vote with a 5-4 margin.

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

1999

In 1999, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) approved Chapter 600 vessel operating regulations. The regulations cover the operation of oil terminal facilities and vessels that transport oil on state waterways. The vote was five to one, with one abstention.

The BEP also approved the following:

Air Quality Implementation: Effective June 1, 2000
Chapter 119 Amendment: Public notice dated December 4, 1999

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

The BEP's policy on NPDES permits was used to set limits for the period between October 21, 2002 and November 20, 2002.

Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and ...

The limits were based on Maine Board of Environmental Protection Policy regarding the certification of NPDES permits and were considered best practicable treatment limitations. This permitting action is expanding the range limit from 6.0 – 8.5 to 6.0 -9.0 standard units pursuant to a new Department rule found at ...

Environmental Protection Agency

STATE OF MAINE

from the Maine Board of Environmental Protection's (the "Board") decision denying their application for a permit pursuant to the National Resource Protection Act (the. "NRPA"). For the following reasons the Court affirms the Board's decision. Background. The Petitioners own waterfront property in Salsbury Cove on ...

files.mainelaw.maine.edu

Board of Environmental Protection: Member Bios - Maine.gov

Maine Board of Environmental Protection · Contact Us; | Sitemap. Search BEP. DEP → BEP → Member Bios. Meeting Materials · Board Members · Reports · Guidance Information · Major Topics. Menu. Meeting Materials · Board Members · Reports · Guidance Information · Major Topics. Member Biographies. Susan Lessard, Bucksport ...

Maine.gov

maine pollutant discharge elimination system permit - Environmental ...

The limits were based on Maine Board of Environmental Protection Policy regarding ... During the period October 21, 2002 and November 20, 2002, the Department ...

Environmental Protection Agency

The Maine Department of Environmen

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

Nov 19, 2023

Penobscot Bay water circulation: through a glass, darkly

Pettigrew 2000
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: (4)

I. The freshening influence of the Penobscot River observed during the spring is clear only on the western side of the bay. Within the western bay, the major portion of the waters of riverine origin flow out of the bay in the channel on the eastern side of Islesboro, and continue on in the channel on the western side of Vinalhaven. Although some of the river water does flow southward on the western side of Islesboro, this flow quite shallow and relatively weak in terms of transport

II. The net transport that enters outer Penobscot Bay west of Vinalhaven appears to split south of Islesboro Island. The inflow that goes west of the island apparently circulates clockwise around the northern end of the Island where it joins the outflow from the Penobscot river. The major portion of the inflow goes to the east side of Islesboro where it presumably converges with the outflow observed at UEB, and is eventually deflected east and south through the island archipelago northeast of North Haven.

III. The directly measured mean surface currents were observed to be outward throughout the bay. Episodes of surface inflow were rare (especially in the outer bay), and appear to be related to wind forcing.

IV. There is some indication that the marked seasonal variation of the circulation, in which the surface outflow deepens significantly is correlated to changes in the EMCC which appears to undergo large fluctuations and even reversals starting in the fall.

Nov 10, 2023

The environmental and ecological impacts of ocean windpower extraction and diversion.

How do floating offshore wind energy diversion arrays affect the natural energetics of the Gulf of Maine? How could those changes, if any affect the Gulf of Maine's biota, which relies on those windborne energies for their survival - at multiple life stages?

The known unknowns are knowable. We know a lot about water movement in the GOM, as the map of scientific drifter buoy trajectories, deployed between 1988 and 2007. Colors = different drift buoy paths.

An offshore wind rush that fails to take note of and answer them could have consequensces that far outweigh the consumer value of the diverted energy piped ashore into the Grid

Will we spend the time and political capital to dispassionately address these questions? This requires

(1) a disinterested review of the impacts that these chronic "energy sinks", which these arrays essentially are), would have on the stability of the water column within waters passing through the geographic site of the floating windturbine array.

(2) studies equally thoroughly examining the effect of the 100+ mile long wind shadows of reduced energy water trailing beyond each turbine within the its floating array, after they shear the seawind entering the array of most of its energy before it reached the water's surface.

These two issues should be informed by data flowing from the small but growing number of operating floating wind turbine arrays in the waters off other continents, and from those presently under construction.

For these impacts are entirely predictable if one considers the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, which notes that when energy passes out of a system, the departed system's internal energy changes. All in accordance with the Law of Conservation of Energy: that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form to another. Ocean wind turbines transform kinetic wind to electrons.

sent ashore to human power grids.

I find most offshore wind boosters well intentioned, by actually or purposely ignorant of physical oceanography. For them wind energy is a wonderful totally free energy supply. Magic energy! So magical that, no matter how much turbines rob a limited natural energy system (an ocean water current) of its motive power and ship it ashore, that current is unaffected! It is thanks to the grace of _________ (insert favorite Diety or Dieties)

But, as noted above, floating wind turbines actually operate according to the limits imposed by the 1st law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Questions that want answering:

Does diverting ocean wind energy from the sea surface causes chronic fragmentation and decelleration of water currents that, so modified, may or may no longer transport the Maine coast's larval lobsters and other organisms to their millenia-old destinations?

Can the loss of naturally produced energy diverted away from the water column and the impact of this energy drop on the Ekman Transfer-powered movement of wind energy into the water column, be accurately calculated? If so, could such calculations be part of the earliest preliminary review process for determining the ecological safety of floating offshore wind applications?

By this we eliminate, at the starting block, those proposals with a predictable adverse effect on the currents that drive the fisheries and marine mammals of the Gulf of Maine.

Those sites that survive the no-harm cut? We may be able to isolate locations where the adverse impacts WILL be negligible. Or even places where an array's energy parasitism might ameliorate a climate change wrought disruption of a current? Stranger thingss have happened.

Why is this difficult? It should be an easy calculation to determine extent of loss of naturally transferred kinetic energy, diverted away from the water column via Ekman Transfer, relative to the tune of as many megawatts as are sent to land.

But of course this is a plutocracy now. Now ENGOs like Conservation Law Foundation have become (presumably well paid if embarassingly hypocritical) shills for Big Energy industries. CLF even scrubbed its website and wikepedia page of its own proud history of agressively defending nature against Power with litigatio,education and negotiation. CLF 2.0 now promotes its financial backers goals. For the sad fact is that when you, like the Conservation Law Foundation, are become a corporate person with a $26+ million dollar annual payroll and overhead to meet, you bow to Big Money or you fall. CLF is a victim of its own success.

So a replacement is necessary, thouigh outside the bounds of this essay. Decentralized defense of the Gulf of Maine, while piecemeal, will at least be unequivocably on the side of Nature.

# # #