Latest news with #MaineDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawmaker seeks to refine ‘overly broad' PFAS definition to allow for some pesticide use
Rather than creating a more limited definition, Maine Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Melanie Loyzim said uses of PFAS that are 'economically important' but don't pose health risks should be evaluated individually. (Photo by Getty Images) After lawmakers couldn't agree on which committee should handle her proposal to regulate forever chemicals in pesticides, Rep. Amy Arata is taking a new, more sweeping approach. The Republican from New Gloucester got approval from legislative leaders to introduce a late-session bill (LD 1982) that would change how perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, are defined in state law. She believes the current definition is overly broad and could include chemicals that don't pose the same long-term health problems as PFAS, which have been linked to cancer and weakened immune systems. During a public hearing Monday, Arata introduced her proposal for Maine to adopt the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's narrower definition for PFAS, which was changed under the Biden administration. The proposal would narrow the definition from any fluorinated organic chemical containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom to substances containing any one of three specific chemical structures. She told the Legislature's Environment and Natural Resources committee that her bipartisan proposal is 'merely a refinement' of the existing definition. Arata is largely concerned with farmers being unable to use certain pesticides that would fall under the state's current definition. She said changing Maine's definition to align with that federal definition would still 'protect the health of Maine citizens while also allowing our farmers and other industries to be competitive nationwide.' However, Commissioner Melanie Loyzim said the Department of Environmental Protection opposes the bill because the state already has a process for people to seek exemptions to use products with PFAS that would otherwise be prohibited under the state ban that will be rolling out in the coming years. Under the state's PFAS products ban, any product containing intentionally added PFAS can not be sold in the state after Jan. 1, 2030. The department's website includes step-by-step instructions for requesting exemptions for certain products with currently unavoidable use. Rather than creating a more limited definition, Loyzim said uses of PFAS that are 'economically important' but don't pose health risks should be evaluated individually. Loyzim also argued that this change wouldn't actually create uniformity with the federal guidelines because the EPA uses different definitions based on the specific regulation, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act versus the Toxic Substances Control Act. Arata said her bill would not precipitate other changes in Maine laws related to PFAS, but Loyzim said that definition is used in multiple areas of statute including those pertaining to wastewater discharge, land application of sewage, food packaging and more. Nancy McBrady, deputy commissioner for the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry, acknowledged that farmers could be hurt by a prohibition on certain pesticides that would fall under the state's PFAS products bans, but warned LD 1982 is too broad. Rather, she suggested the Legislature pursue a narrower discussion on PFAS and pesticides in the next session. However, that conversation would likely need to go before the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee. The Maine State Chamber of Commerce argues Arata's proposal could create greater consistency and clarity for business, especially those who deal with national supply chains. The Maine Potato Board echoed this point when speaking in support of the bill. However, other environmental organizations including the Friends of Casco Bay, Defend Our Health and the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association opposed the bill. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Athletes, environmentalists debate proposed statewide ban on artificial turf fields in Maine
Apr. 9—There is a price to be paid whenever Ben Grassi plays soccer on synthetic turf. The senior Mount View High School defender told state lawmakers Wednesday that his knees and hips ache from trying to start, stop and jump on the slippery, pebble-topped surfaces at rival schools. And because the rubber absorbs heat, turf fields leave him more tired and dehydrated than grass. The varsity co-captain says synthetic turf slide burns are more painful and heal slower than grass burns. "As you consider state policy around artificial turf, it is my hope that you prioritize the health and success of Maine student-athletes, rather than any perceived benefits regarding ease of maintenance and cost savings," Grassi said during a legislative committee hearing on a proposed artificial turf moratorium. The proposed legislation, LD 1177, would pause the installation of new synthetic turf statewide for three years while the Maine Department of Environmental Protection completes a study of its environmental and health impacts. Existing fields could remain in use but could not be patched or replaced. Artificial turf has been a topic of heated debate for years, in Maine and across the country. Critics highlight the environmental and health risks. Synthetic turf contributes to microplastic pollution and often contains toxic chemicals and heavy metals like lead and mercury that can leach into the soil and groundwater. It can become dangerously hot in the summer, posing risks to athletes. Supporters like its durability, low maintenance and year-round usability. Synthetic turf doesn't require watering or mowing, making it attractive to communities looking to save on upkeep costs. It provides a consistent playing surface in adverse weather conditions, like those in Maine. Biddeford Athletic Director Dennis Walton led the charge in defense of synthetic turf during Wednesday's three-hour public hearing. He said synthetic turf had some environmental benefits over grass fields that critics didn't want to admit, like not needing pesticides and using less water. His biggest complaint was about the bill's top-down approach to making community decisions. "This legislation undermines the principle of local control that should govern these important decisions," Walton said. "If the goal is truly to gather information, why not conduct the study without restricting local control in the meantime?" His concerns were echoed by the athletic directors from Lewiston and Sanford high schools, as well the University of Maine — which highlighted student-athlete support for playing on synthetic turf — and a trade group of independent high schools and colleges that include Colby, Bates and Bowdoin. The Mills administration didn't take a position on the bill, which was introduced by Assistant House Majority Leader Lori Gramlich, D-Old Orchard Beach. DEP Commissioner Melanie Loyzim said it was logical to question the use of synthetic turf but warned that her department would need funding to conduct such a study. The number of Maine middle and high schools with artificial turf has more than doubled in the last decade. There are 35 middle and high schools with artificial turf fields, plus another 20 or so at Maine colleges, said Mike Burnham, executive director of the Maine Principals' Association. Many of those projects have met with local resistance from groups worried about environmental damages. But new artificial turf fields have replaced natural grass fields at several high schools in the last five years, including at Kennebunk, Messalonskee in Oakland, Cony in Augusta and Gardiner. South Portland will ask voters to choose whether they want to improve the school's athletic complex with a $4.3 million natural grass option, a $5.1 million artificial turf option or no improvements. Kittery, Cumberland and the Gray-New Gloucester district have all grappled with the issue over the last year. Copy the Story Link
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Democrats and Republicans again at odds over mining laws in Maine
Panasonic automotive lithium ion battieries are displayed at the Panasonic booth during CES 2018 at the Las Vegas Convention Center on January 9, 2018 in Las Vegas, Nevada. () After changing Maine's mining law last year to pave the way for the extraction of a significant cache of lithium, a key component of low-emission energy technology, legislators are again trying to amend it. Democratic legislators want to add additional human and environmental health requirements, while Republicans are eyeing an exemption to sidestep the guardrails established last year. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection is opposed to doing either. Last session the Legislature took up a slate of bills to alter mining laws in the state, sparked by the discovery of one of the world's largest lithium deposits in western Maine, the news of which the Maine Monitor broke in 2021. A lightweight metal, lithium can hold significant amounts of energy, making it a key component of rechargeable batteries and thus the transition from reliance on fossil fuels to renewable energy. But, metallic mining is also one of the most polluting industrial activities. The Maine Metallic Mineral Mining Act is considered one of the strictest mining laws in the country. However, not anticipating the monumental discovery that would come, legislators didn't specify where lithium fell in these regulations, leading to several proposals last session, which saw mixed success. Republican legislators are looking to exempt pegmatite mining, which involves extracting lithium and other valuable minerals from large-grained igneous rocks, from a rule passed last year. That rule now allows for exempting extractions of certain metallic minerals from the state's mining regulations if a developer can prove the operation won't pollute the nearby environment. Conversely, Democratic legislators have put forth a bill to add more requirements to ensure both human and environmental health are protected. More than 80 people submitted testimony largely in support of the legislation. Several said there is a need for state-level assurances in light of the direction the federal government is headed, pointing to the executive order President Donald Trump signed last week invoking wartime powers to increase the production of critical minerals. Sen. Joseph Martin (R-Oxford) pointed to recreational mining when explaining why he wants the Legislature to exempt pegmatite mining activities from the Maine Metallic Mineral Mining Act. LD 795 would allow the Department of Environmental Protection to authorize a person to engage in this mining through a permit by rule, if the mining otherwise satisfies the requirements of the quarrying law and the mining area covers 20 acres or less in total. 'Pegmatite formations often contain beautiful and collectible minerals, like gemstones, feldspar, mica and lithium-bearing rocks,' Martin said. 'This bill recognizes that small-scale mining of these materials, especially on sites 20 acres or less, is fundamentally different from large-scale industrial mining and should be regulated accordingly.' Testifying in opposition to LD 795, Maine Bureau of Land Resources Director Rob Wood said the 20 acre excavation site seems substantial and questioned that the intent is limited to only recreational activities. Regardless, Wood said LD 795 would sidestep the rules the Department of Environmental Protection finally approved in 2024. The Maine Department of Environmental Protections worked with the Environmental and Natural Resources Committee to develop a process to exclude the extraction of metallic minerals from the requirements of the Mining Act when such extractions don't have the potential to endanger human or environmental health. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The Legislature ultimately directed the department to adopt major substantive rules that outline how to make this determination, which the department proposed to the Board of Environmental Protection in the fall of 2023. During the second-half of the last session, in 2024, the Legislature agreed to approve the rules but with several changes, including requiring that an excluded mining activity can only have a pit size up to five acres, following lengthy deliberations about where to set such a cap. Martin said on Monday he thinks 20 acres is a fair cap. 'I know it was put in last year by the people that want to mine commercially,' Martin said. 'I didn't think they put in enough, to be quite honest with you.' Several representatives of environmental groups who testified in opposition to the bill questioned the higher cap. 'If it's about hobby mining, I don't understand why we would need to move from five acres to 20 acres?' asked Eliza Townsend, Maine conservation policy director of the Appalachian Mountain Club. As far as extracting lithium-bearing deposits, Wood said the department's position is that it is appropriate for that activity to go through the new requirements to prove an extraction wouldn't cause harm, however the department would be open to discussing altering the five-acre limit. No one from the public testified in support of LD 795, but the environmental groups that testified in opposition argued the process established last session afforded needed safeguards and was set through thorough, careful deliberations. Townsend raised concern about LD 795 shifting to a permit by rule system, significantly reducing regulatory oversight. Under the bill, an operator would have to notify the DEP rather than seek approval, and the rules to implement the law would be routine technical, meaning they wouldn't be subject to legislative review. Francesca 'Ches' Gundrum, director of advocacy with Maine Audubon, said that while metallic minerals are critical for shifting from reliance on fossil fuels to renewable energies to reduce harmful emissions, the immediate environmental concerns of extraction shouldn't be overlooked for long-term gain. 'We strive to strike a balance between the need for metals in our lives with the protection of Maine's vital natural resources with particular expertise and attention,' Gundrum said. 'Permit by rule is designed for activities that have minimal environmental impact, while the full permitting process is required for more complex projects that could have significant environmental impacts and require detailed review, public input and site-specific mitigation.' Rep. Ambureen Rana (D-Bangor) told the committee on Monday that the idea that Maine boasts the nation's most environmentally protective metallic mining regulations is an untested one 'with significant vulnerability as it does not include clear public health warnings, guidelines and protections.' LD 1073 would significantly expand the scope of the Mining Act, including by requiring a comprehensive baseline health assessment for mining communities prior to initiation of mining operations, requiring adequate monitoring of toxic waste after closure and requiring insurance coverage for any pollution-related health event occurring in the community. Many of these requirements were initially in the bill that established the rule last year, but that bill language was struck late in session to provide a vehicle for the major substantive rule change instead. The reason for this bill, Rana said, is to prevent a disaster before it happens, not after the fact. Wood argued some aspects of the bill would result in redundancies and that the department is not well-equipped to absorb the additional responsibilities that would be required under this bill. The bill would also add smelting and refining under the activities restricted by the Mining Act, which Wood argued are already subject to stringent regulations under other rules. Additionally, Wood said the assessment would require modeling that isn't currently conducted for any other license applications and is beyond the department's expertise. He added that it would also require applicants to provide population health data that isn't publicly available, making it challenging for the department to verify. Wood reiterated, of the existing rules, 'We believe these are probably the most protective rules in the country, outside of an outright prohibition.' Some who testified in support disagreed, including Vassalboro resident David Nishizaki, who pointed to Wisconsin's 'Prove It First' law that requires demonstrating safe operation and closure before permitting. Nishizaki and others also argued Maine should place further restrictions on mining to safeguard health in light of changes likely to come from the federal government. 'The Trump and [Elon] Musk administration has clearly stated intentions to unabashedly pilfer all natural resources possible from all lands and waters in their pursuit of world domination through military force and their dystopian sci-fi dreams of AI dominance, self-driving cars and populating Mars,' said Sasha Nishizaki, also from Vassalboro. 'We have no reason to believe that this resource grab will be done with any care for the harm it will cause to the many communities and ecosystems in its wake.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
17-03-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Unsafe levels of forever chemicals found at Brunswick golf course
Mar. 17—Unsafe levels of forever chemicals have been found in the well water of a golf course about a mile and a half southwest of the Brunswick Executive Airport, the location of Maine's largest documented spill of firefighting foam laced with toxic forever chemicals. The results of a Jan. 23 test at Mere Creek Golf Course — 33.1 parts per trillion of the six forever chemicals that Maine limits in drinking water — has Brunswick and Maine officials calling on the Navy, which operated a naval air base there until 2011, to run more tests. The state thinks this contamination may be a result of the Navy's past activities at the base, not the spill. The 33.1 parts per trillion, or ppt, is 65% higher than the 20 ppt limit allowed by Maine's drinking water standards. New federal drinking water limits cap perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS, at no more than 4 ppt. The golf course's PFOS level is 19.9 ppt. Officials previously have told the public that this area was safe in the wake of the August 2024 spill that sent 1,450 gallons of concentrated aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF, and 50,000 gallons of water into a parking lot, down sewer and stormwater drains, and into nearby retaining ponds. There are two homes located on Harpswell Road within 1,000 feet of the golf course well, and three more just beyond 1,000 feet. To date, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection has concentrated its residential well testing on homes east of the Brunswick Executive Airport. Brunswick Town Manager Julia Henze met this week with the two homeowners closest to the golf course to inform them of the results, which were conducted in January and sent to a lab for analysis. The Maine DEP just released the results to the town this week. The department doesn't believe the golf course well is related to the August 2024 spill because hydrological maps suggest the chemicals spilled at Brunswick Executive Airport's Hangar 4 would flow south and east. It wants the Navy to test to determine if past operations at the base led to the golf course contamination. "Given its proximity to the former NAS Brunswick, the Navy should investigate this area more thoroughly than in the past to evaluate the potential that PFAS from past Navy activities has impacted this well," Iver McLeod, DEP's project manager, said in a Feb. 27 letter to the Navy. The Navy's cursory investigation of this general area of the former base is not enough, McLeod wrote. Despite the state's belief that the August spill didn't cause the contamination, the well is testing much higher now than it was before. In 2015, the well tested at 20.85 ppt for the six forever chemicals Maine limits for safe drinking water. In 2021, the well tested at 19.21 ppt. Built in 1958, the nine holes at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station began as a facility for military personnel, veterans and their guests. When the base closed, the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority was created to redevelop the land. It owns the course and leases it to Harris Golf Company. The well servicing the Mere Creek Golf Course was previously regulated as a public water supply, but it became a private well when the Navy transferred ownership because the facility did not use the water for consumption or food preparation, the Maine DEP said. The MRRA plans to install a water filtration system at the golf course clubhouse before it opens for the season, said Daniel Stevenson, the agency's new director. He said the Navy planned to resample the golf course well and then review its maps and records to determine the source of the contamination and what to do next. "It is critical that we prioritize the health and safety," Stevenson wrote in a March 12 statement. ASKING NAVY TO GO FURTHER Brunswick wants the Navy to go even further and sample the monitoring well at the former Harpswell Road quarry and any other monitoring wells on the western border of the former naval air station. The quarry well hasn't been tested since 2014, and sampling methods have improved significantly since then. "Sampling at this location, and others along the western boundary, would provide us with some indication to assess if any other private residential wells may be impacted south of where the Brunswick Topsham Water District public water line ends," Henze, the town manager, wrote in a March 11 letter to the Navy. According to the federal data, 1,200 spills of firefighting foam containing toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS or forever chemicals, have occurred across the country since 1990. The 2024 Brunswick spill was Maine's biggest and the sixth largest in the country. The foam is used by firefighters to fight high-intensity fuel fires at military bases, civilian airports, fuel terminals and industrial plants that use a lot of chemicals, such as paper mills. The foam forms a film that acts like a blanket over the fire, depriving it of the oxygen it needs to burn. Firefighting foam is the most common source of forever chemical contamination in the U.S., according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, but PFAS has shown up in trace amounts almost everywhere, from Arctic polar bears to Maine dairy farmers. Even trace amounts of some PFAS are considered a public health risk, according to federal regulators. High exposure over a long time can cause cancer. Exposure during critical life stages, such as in early childhood, can also cause life-changing harm. While manufacturers can no longer use two variants of the chemicals, large amounts of "legacy" PFAS-containing foam are still out there. Maine doesn't know how much it has — it estimates about 50,000 gallons — and lawmakers are considering a bill this session to conduct a statewide survey to find out. The Brunswick spill has also prompted lawmakers — led by Rep. Dan Ankeles, D-Brunswick — to introduce a bill to launch a state-funded AFFF take-back program to collect unwanted foam and store it safely until an acceptable disposal method is found. The program has a $5 million estimated price tag. A legislative committee has backed both bills, but neither has reached the House or Senate for a vote. Copy the Story Link
Yahoo
24-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill calls for transparency in climate policy costs but critics say it ignores price of inaction
Passersby observe the floodwaters at Veterans Memorial Park on the banks of the Androscoggin River in Lewiston on Dec. 20, 2023. (Jim Neuger/ Maine Morning Star) While there is general agreement around the need to be transparent about how much Maine's climate policies are costing consumers and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a Republican proposal to collect such data is being panned as redundant while omitting key details. Sponsored by House Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor), LD 495, proposes that the Maine Department of Environmental Protection be required to produce two estimates when adopting any new rules designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: one on the adverse climate effects that would be prevented by reducing emissions and another on associated costs that will fall to consumers. 'LD 495 strikes a necessary balance between environmental responsibility and economic fairness,' said Rep. Mike Soboleski (R-Phillips), who presented the bill Monday to the Maine Legislature's Environment and Natural Resources Committee on behalf of Faulkingham. Specifically, the bill mentions that the analyses should include the impact of new climate rules on the prices of gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity, heating oil and propane. Jeff Crawford, director of the Bureau of Air Quality with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, testified neither for nor against the bill but explained that the department is already required to evaluate the economic impact of new rules, so the bill would not pose a significant new burden for the department. Last June, the department released its 10th Biennial Report on Progress Toward Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals, which analyzed emissions by fuel source and economic sector. That report found that as of 2021, Maine's gross greenhouse gas emissions were 30% lower than 1990 levels. However, Crawford said that instances where the Legislature enacts a law that directs the department to develop new rules should be exempt from the sort of analysis outlined in the bill because those issues should have received a thorough vetting through the legislative process. During the public hearing Monday, Jon Reisman, a former professor of economics and public policy at the University of Maine at Machias and conservative columnist with the Machias Valley News Observer, said Faulkingham submitted the bill at his request. He said the bill would offer an 'infusion of transparency' and help the state move toward more accessible, equitable and effective rules, which he added would 'dramatically improve climate change policy consensus.' Reisman argued that had a similar bill been passed decades prior, the state could have had a 'bipartisan and effective climate change policy.' Climate change policies in Maine often become partisan issues with Republicans concerned with increases to everyday expenses and Democrats focused on the cost of inaction. Multiple environmental advocacy groups testified at the hearing. While they voiced appreciation for the desire to increase transparency, they contended that the proposal wouldn't accurately capture the costs and benefits of climate policy. Cathy Breen, director of government affairs with Maine Conservation Voters, said the requirement to estimate the reduced emissions is not particularly problematic, as it is already being done like Crawford pointed out. However, Breen argued that the second requirement outlined in the bill would be impossible to meet. The costs of electricity and other commodities are subject to market forces beyond the purview of the department and, in some cases such as oil, dependent on international affairs. Additionally, Sarah Nichols with the Natural Resources Council of Maine said the bill presents a 'false choice.' Many efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also reduce costs to taxpayers, she said, giving the example of recycling programs lowering waste management costs for municipalities. Nichols also said the bill highlights why many climate-friendly initiatives receive opposition. The focus on immediate costs fails to see the bigger picture, especially the 'enormous cost of doing nothing,' she argued. Nichols highlighted a 2020 report from the Maine Climate Council that shows Maine and its citizens could incur significant costs if the state did not adapt to climate change. The report looked at the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of costs that could come from doing nothing to address sea level rise and increased flooding, among other estimates of inaction. 'If we evaluate policies based on costs without considering the full range of benefits they provide or based on the cost relative to a do-nothing scenario, we are setting ourselves up for bad analysis, bad results and ultimately, failure to protect Maine's environment, economy and people,' Nichols said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
