V 4 . P W-H 2-1

GOVERN MEM

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT OF 1 972: EFFEC T

ON SMALL COMMUNITIES

Storage

J M E N ’

,_A 2

T h ^ , 

KANSAS S D

iQ7s

s

? YiRSlTt

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

H E A R I N G

m

lom

3~un

BEFORE TH E

s n - WIRONMEN TAL POLLUTION

□□JJ

OF THE

= 3 IITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS 

■ * NITED STATES SENATE

NIN ETY-F OU RTH CONG RESS 

FI RST SE SS IO N

APR IL 5, 1975—G AR DINE R, MA INE

SERIAL NO. 94-H21

Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works '

64-717 O

U.S. GOVERNM ENT PRINTING OFFIC E

WASHINGT ON : 1976
v.-x* c?. •r- \

COM MITT EE ON PUBL IC WORKS

ED MU ND S. MUS KIE, Maine 

JO SE PH M. M ONTOYA, New Mexico 

MIK E GR AV EL, Alaska

LL OY D M. BE NTSE N, Texas 

QU EN TIN N. BURDIC K, North Dakota 

JOHN C. C U LV ER, Iowa

RO BE RT MO RGAN , No rth Carolina 

GA RY H AR T, Colorado

JE NNIN GS RA ND OL PH , West Virginia. Chairman

HOW ARD H . BA KE R, J b., Tennessee 

JAMES L. BU CK LE Y, New York 

ROBER T T. S TA FF OR D, Verm ont 

JAMES A. MCCLURE , Idaho 

PETE V. DO ME NICI, New Mexico

M. B arry Meye r, Chief Counsel and Chief Clerk

Bailey Guard, Minority Staff Director

Leon G. Billings and Richard D. Grundy, Senior Professional Staff Members

Richard A. Hellman, Minority Counsel

John W. Yago, Jr., Assistant Chief Clerk; Philip T. Cummings, Assistant Chief Counsel

Harold H . Brayman, Senior Professional Sta ff Member (minority)

Professional and research staff: Karl R. Braithwaite, James W. Case (Assistant Counsel), P aul C him es, 

T renton Crow, Kath eri ne Y. Cud upp, Paul F. Ebeltoft, Jr. , George F. Fenton, J r.. R andolph G. Flood, Kathaleen R. E. Forcum, Ann Garrabrant, Richard T. Gre er, Richard M. 

Harris (Assistant Counsel), Wesley F. Hayden, Richard E. Herod (Assistant Counsel, Minority),

Veronica A. H olland, R onald L. Katz, John D. K wapisz, Michael McFarland, Larry D. Meyer s, 

Judy F. Parente, John B. P urinton, Jr. , Margaret E. Shannon, Charlene A. Stur bitt s, 

E. Stevens Swain, Jr. , Sally W. Walker

Sub co mmit te e on E nv ir on men ta l P ol lutio n

ED MU ND S.

JO SE PH M. M ON TOYA , New Mexico 

LL OY D BE NTS EN , T exas 

MIKE GR AV EL, Alaska 

JO HN C. CU LV ER , Iowa 

ROBER T MO RGAN , N or th Carolina 

GA RY H AR T, Colorado

MU SKIE, Maine, Chairman

JAMES L. BU CKLE Y, New York 

RO BER T T. ST AF FO RD , Vermont 

JAMES A. M cCLU RE , Idaho 

PETE V. DO MEN ICI, New Mexico

(n)

♦
C O N T E N T S

Muskie, Hon. Edm und S., U.S. Senator from the Sta te of Maine, opening statem ent of__________________________________________________

Page

1

LIST OF WITNESS ES

Cyr, Louis, town man ager, Madawaska, Maine------------------ - -------------- Finnegan, Paul, pla nt manager, A. C. Lawrence Tannery, Paris, Maine— Forster, John, Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Plan ning Commission- Gay, Soloman, sup erin tenden t, Paris Utility D istric t-.------------------------ Herman, Paul, city manager, Gardiner, Maine, and Milton Oakley, plant manager, Yorktowne Pap er Mill--------------------------------------------------- Jacobs, Charles, Guilford-Sangerville Sewer District, accompanied by William R. Adams, Jr. , Commissioner, and Dennis Purington, chief, Division of Municipal Services, Maine De partm ent of Environmental Protection_____________________________________________________ Mitchell, Edwin M., Maine Departme nt of Marine Res ou rc es ..- ........ — Oakley, Milton, pla nt manager, Yorktowne Paper Mill---------------------- - Parent, Eldege J., chairman, Wells Sewer District ------------------------------- Warren, Leon A., town manager, Jackman, Maine------------------------------ Prepared sta temen t___________________________________________

8

17

33

15

25

2

22

27

12

36

38

AD DIT ION AL MA TERIA L

Appendix A: M aterial referred to during the hearing: Proposed variances, municipal pollution abate me nt time schedules— 

State of M aine: Legislative Docume nt No.: 702.................................... - ................. ....................... ....... ......... 951............... ............. ............. ............... .......................................

Appendix B: Letters: Bangor, Maine, city of................ - ................... .......................................... Brewer, Maine, city of------------------------------------------------------------- Brunswick, Maine, town of------------------------------------------------------- Gardiner, Maine, city of------- --------------------------------------------------- Grea t Salt Bay Sanitary District----------------------------------------------- Hussey, Philip W____________________________________________ Lander, Merwin______________________________________________ Payne, Basil T _______________________________________________ Pittsfield, Maine, town of--------------------------------------------------------- Rockport, Maine, town of-------------------------------------------------------- South Branch Lum ber Co------------------- .. .------------_--------------------- Purin gton, Dennis A., chief, Division of Municipal Services, Departme nt of Environm ental Protection, Sta te of Maine, memo fro m-----------------

(n n

55

66

69

73

78

78

79 

79

79

80 

80 

80 

81 

81

40

WAT ER POL LUTIO N CONTROL ACT OF 1972: EFFECT

ON SMALL COMMUNITIES

SATURD AY , AP RI L 5, 1975

U.S. Senate,

Committee on Public Works, 

Subcommittee on E nvironmental Pollution,

Gardiner, Maine.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursu ant to call, in the city council chamber, Gardiner, Maine, Hon. Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senator Muskie, chairman.

Senator Muskie. Mr. Mayor, I think it would be appropriate to express our appreciation to you for making these beautiful facilities available to us. We are delighted to be holding this hearing in Gardiner.

Mayor Shapiro. You are certainly welcome, Senator Muskie, and 

we are privileged to have you and your staff as guests here this morn­ ing to use our facilities. I think perhaps a lot of good can take place 

from what is going to-----

OPE NIN G STATEMENT OF HON. EDMUND S. MUSKI E, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM TH E STATE OF MA INE

Senator Muskie. It is rath er symbolic, as I hope I can indicate at the moment that we are meeting in this municipal building in a small 

town in Maine. That is our concern. I’d like to begin with just a few observations to indicate not only to the witnesses but to those others in the room exactly what the purpose of this meeting is. And I’d like to begin by saying “thank you” to all of you for giving your Saturday, at least this Saturday morning, to the subcommittee for this hearing. I know how precious a weekend can be after a busy week, especially at this time of the year 

when we’re all working on our taxes. We have asked you to come here today to discuss something tha t is of concern to each member of the subcommittee: How smaller communities are coping with the program mandated by the Clean 

Water Act of 1972. In Washington we always hear from the big cities and the organized interest groups. Seattle and Chicago must have contacted us a hundred times, at least, in the last 2 years. But we 

think we need to hear from the smaller places as well and that’s the purpose of this workshop, which isn’t really in the form of a conventional hearing. There are two major areas of concern to the subcommittee, issues that coalesce many of the specific problems that will be raised today.

(1)
2

And I would expect them to form the theme of today’s discussion: 

(1) What should national policy be for an industry which, in all good 

faith, is committed to a stalled municipal system? The deadlines are 

fast approaching. And, (2) what treatmen t options are available to a 

small community to meet its clean water requirements? Big city 

solutions don’t often work in small towns.

We are fortunate to have with us this morning a representative and 

knowledgeable gioim to translate those general issues into the practical 

problems which officials and industries are facing.

During the morning I will call on each of you, in turn, and ask you 

to spend about 10 minutes explaining your specific situation. I will 

then try to ask some questions to stimulate a general discussion.

This hearing will conclude at 12:30. Unfortunately, we cannot 

accommodate every citizen who could make a contribution to the 

hearing but, if there is some time left over, we would be glad to invite 

any comments from citizens in the group.

Bill, I wonder if you wouldn’t like to sit around this table? Mr. 

Adams is the State commissioner in charge of the program in the 

State, and may I say I’m always proud that Maine has progressed 

so well. I think Maine ranks among the top States in the country in 

terms of its response to this program and the problem, and its ability 

now to take advantage of the funds which, thanks to the Supreme 

Court, have been unleashed and are available to us. This is one time 

where two branches of the Government, the court and the Congress, 

combined to implement public policy.

And now if I may proceed to our witnesses this morning, we’ll 

start with the first witness, who holds the rare distinction of serving 

on the Governor’s Executive Council as a Democrat, and I think yo u’ll 

all agree tha t is a rare distinction, indeed. But, this morning he is 

representing the Dover-Foxcroft area, within the Guilford-Sangerville 

Sewer District, and we’re delighted to call on you, Charlie, at this 

point to s tart the discussion.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES JACOBS, GUILFORD-SANGERVILLE SEWER

DISTRICT, ACCOMPANIED BY WIL LIAM R. ADAMS, JR., COMMISSIONER, AND DENNIS PURINGTON, CHIEF, DIVISION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES, MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

Mr. J acobs. Thank you, Senator. If I might, I will speak of the 

current general situation in Dexter, Dover-Foxcroft, Guilford area and 

then deal more specifically with the problems facing these towns in 

meeting the requirements of the 1972 Clean Water Act.

Firs t of all and perhaps most important, this area is a depressed 

economic area of the State. We have a high unemployment rate. In 

Piscataquis County the unemployment is now 15.5 percent. The 

western Penobscot point—in western Penobscot County it is 19.5 

percent. We have marginal industries; tha t is, shoes and textiles, and 

a very low per capita income.

The towns tha t I will discuss, Guilford, Dexter and Dover, with 

particular emphasis on Guilford, are all small towns, ranging from 

2,000 to 4,000 people. Guilford is perhaps the most significant—has 

the most significant economic problems. Guilford Industries, its only
3

major employer, a year and a half ago was employing 500 people. At 

this point in time, they are employing 175. And they also have re­ ceived, or are about to receive, an EDA loan, operating loan of, I believe, $400,000 or $500,000. They are in difficult financial straits. With particular regard to the 1972 Clean W ater Act, there are—at this point in time—no trea tme nt facilities in any of these towns. All of them have a low priority, and it appears now, unless funding is increased, th at none of these towns will meet the deadlines, either the 

State deadline or the Federal deadline of Ju ly 1977. With regard to collection systems, Guilford has no collection system whatsoever; Dexter and Dover-Foxcroft have inadequate collection systems; tha t is, they mix sewage and storm water and therefore don’t meet the Federal or State requirements. The major polluting industries in Dexter are now committed to joining the municipal systems. Dover has no major polluting industry at this point in time. With particular regard to the situation in Guilford, the town of Guilford has obtained a $100,000 loan from FHA. We are planning site selection for the sewage treatment plant. Guilford Industries has also invested $100,000 in planning within its own shop. Just to give an example of how this act will impact on the people in Guilford, and I use Guilford because they don’t have a collection system, the financial impact on the citizens will probably be greater there than in any of the other two towns. If Guilford Industries joins with the municipal district, which is actually Guilford and Sangerville—which is contemplated—and if there is no help from the Federal Govern­ ment in building the collection system, not only the treatment plant but the collection system, the user charges will probably be in the vicinity of $176 per year. This compares with current user charges in Dexter and Dover-Foxcroft of $16 and $27, respectively. The combined user charge and capital payback for Guilford Industries would be 

$40,000 or $50,000 a year. One of the officials of Guilford Industries indicated to me yesterday tha t they could handle the $40,000 or $50,000, tha t would not overly 

burden them, in terms of cost.

Senator Muskie. Th at’s $40,000 or $50,000 for the user charges 

and the payback on the collection system?

Mr. J acobs. No, tha t doesn’t involve the collection system-----

Senator Muskie. I see.

Mr. J acobs [continuing]. Th at’s a user charge and the payback 

to the Federal Government.

Senator Muskie. Wholly on the treatment plant?

Mr. Jacobs. Right. Another factor tha t will impact very significantly on the people in Guilford are the hookup charges which could vary, because of the situation, from $300 to $1,000 for each household. And, currently, there is an EDA disaster relief proposal pending tha t might provide some assistance to Guilford, Dexter, and Dover in 

updating their collection systems. I might just say tha t the projected cost of the collection system is $2.2 million and the treatment plant and interceptors will be approximately $1,066,000. I guess tha t it ’s obvious that the eco­ nomic impact on the people in Guilford is very significant. The combined high user charges and the hookup costs will pose a very 

great burden through that town.

Senator Muskie. What’s the population of Guilford?
4

Mr. Jacobs. Approximately 2,000. They do have a municipal—by 

the way, tha t includes Sangerville—water district.

Tn terms of possible solutions to the problem, I think there has 

to be some Federal help in building a collection system and tha t would 

reduce the user charge significantly. I think they could handle the 

operating costs, and I don’t think tha t would be overly burdensome. 

But I think with paying off the capital on the construction costs 

of the collection system, I think tha t it would be prohibitive. The 

cost would be higher than the property taxes in many cases in 

Guilford.

Perhaps there could be—I think we’ve agreed though—I don’t 

know if there’s anyone here from Greenville today, but Greenville 

had a package of various funds they put together. Perhaps you are 

familiar with it. I think there was some HUD money, FHA, EDA, 

tha t was used to build their collection system and perhaps some 

sort of combination could be put together to assist Guilford in that 

regard.

Senator Muskie. There hasn’t been any HUD money available 

for some time.

Mr. J acobs. There is some, but it is limited, I think. There is 

discretionary grants of 2.2 million for Maine, which, if tha t all went 

to Guilford, it would solve Guilford’s problem, but there is no significant amount of money in HUD right now. And, also, FHA, I don’t 

believe, would assign a high priority to collection systems, at this 

point.

I think, also, perhaps where hookup charges are very high, tha t 

perhaps, the FHA —Pm not familiar with FHA, but perhaps there 

could be some assistance provided where the hookup charges in a 

particular situation are overly burdensome.

Now, perhaps the most serious, or the most significant, issue is 

how Guilford Industries should be treated, given the fact th at Guilford 

will not meet either the State or the Federal deadline because of 

their low priority. It seems to me tha t the most obvious alternative 

would be to increase Federal funding, and even if tha t were done 

immediately, it’s doubtful if they could meet the deadline, either 

deadline, even if funds were made available immediately.

So it seems to me there has to be something done that either would 

extend the deadlines or grant some sort of variance in certain situations. I can’t believe tha t anyone is very anxious to enforce those 

deadlines on a municipality, particularly when the delay results 

from lack of Federal funds. So tha t I guess the question is whether 

Guilford Industries, or industries in general, should be treated the 

same as—in the same manner as municipalities or granted the same 

waiver or extension.

I guess my preferred action in the particular case of Guilford 

would be tha t the industry should be treated the same as the municipalities in either granting waivers or an extension of the deadline. It 

seems to me that if they were treated differently, it would encourage 

the industry to build its own—encourage or force the indu stry to 

build its own treatmen t plant which, in the case of Guilford would 

result in higher user costs for the people within the town, higher 

construction costs-----

Senator Muskie. When they finally build the municipal treatmen t 

plant.
5

Mr. J acobs. Right. In other words, they wouldn’t be sharing the operating costs or the costs of capital construction, so both the industry and the townspeople would be penalized from tha t situation. So, I think, by treating them the same, we would be encouraging Guilford Industries to join with the town and would thereby result in whatever economies of scale tha t would result from a joint venture. I think there is—the argument raised against tha t is there is—an equity argument tha t—what about those industries who have in good faith gone ahead and constructed their plant, their treatmen t plants, and does that put them in a less competitive position with regard to industries who have been slower to either join in with a municipal district or construct their own plant? I think the answer to th at perhaps is that it may well be inequitable b ut there are already inequities in the system. Those industries tha t got in before the 1972 amendments, for instance, aren’t contributing to the capital costs of the treatment plant, if they joined with a municipality, so they are in a different position than industries who are attem pting to build their plants now or join with a municipality. So there are some 

inequities anyway. And I think also the Federal Government has established a policy encouraging industries to join with municipalities and it would seem unwise to reverse that at this point in time. In terms of granting either a waiver or an extension, I’m not sure which is the bette r alternative. I think it would depend somewhat on what percentage of towns and industries will not be ready on July 1, 1977. If there is a very high percentage tha t have already built their plants, then perhaps a waiver would be the best alternative, because it recognizes the varying situations throughout the country. And it would allow the Government to impose some sort of standards, for instance, in terms of where a waiver would be granted. You mentioned, Senator, alternatives to the general collection, interception and secondary treatm ent facilities. I ’m not a technologist. I don’t know—I’m not familiar with what alternatives there might be, but I will say this, that the people in our area aren’t aware of any alternatives. They’re moving ahead with the traditional systems and they are either not exploring or not aware of any cheaper alternatives at this point in time. I think that’s perhaps all I would say, at this point Senator Muskie, unless you have any questions-----

Senator Muskie. All right, then. I want to make sure I understand everything you said. All of the polluting industries in your county have made or are willing to make a commitment to join in the-----

Mr. J acobs. I’m talking about the Dexter, Dover, Guilford-----

Senator Muskie. Those three.

Mr. J acobs. Those three towns.

Senator Muskie. And they’ve all made that commitment?

Mr. J acobs. Th at’s my understanding, yes.

Senator Muskie. But, of the three towns, Guilford is the only one 

without a collection system?

Mr. J acobs. Th at’s right.

Senator Muskie. And it is that problem which you have emphasized 

in your testimony. Is it exclusive to Guilford?

Mr. Jacobs. Th at’s right.

Senator Muskie. As a result of tha t, I gather, no application has 

been made to the State for treatmen t plant money?

54 -7 17 0 - 75 - 2
6

Mr. Jacobs. I think they have made application, but I believe 

we’re low on the priority list. I think the reason is, in part, because 

of the pollution problems in those towns and on the Piscataquis River 

and the Sebasticook River are less than in other areas of the State 

and for that reason, in part, I think, we were assigned a low priority. 

The commissioner might be able to elaborate on that.

Senator Muskie. The question I would put to the commissioner, 

if he could answer it, is: The priority list therefore, in effect, mandated 

tha t towns in this situation could not meet the deadline, isn’t tha t 

right, Bill?

Mr. Adams. The priority list depends on a series of factors, and 

where a community places on it. The area involved is on the priority 

list. The final plans, or the commitment to final plans, has not been 

made because there has been some indecision in studies from the 

industry and the town as to whether or not they should join the town. 

I think it’s only the last study which indicated they definitely should 

go in with the town.

Senator Muskie. Have you made judgments in the case? Has the 

commission made judgments on these particular towns, on the desirability of a joint system?

Mr. Adams. Well, we leave that to the areas themselves rather 

than the Commission deciding whether or not it should be a joint 

venture. Basically, the departm ent feels that joint ventures are 

helpful. In this particular case, it means lower user charges for both 

the industry and the citizenry, and so the commission is willing to 

allow that and hopeful that it will come to that.

Senator Muskie. Now, I take it that even though all Federal funds 

authorized in the 1972 act have now been released, tha t they would 

not be sufficient to fund the projects in Guilford and Piscataquis 

Counties.

Mr. Adams. We have them scheduled for some step 1 and 2 grants, 

design for construction.

Senator Muskie. So t ha t a solution to the problem tha t Mr. Jacobs 

has described must await further congressional action, in other words?

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.

Senator Muskie. Do you have any knowledge a t all of the money 

available, about the money available for collection systems?

Mr. Adams. The department, Senator, has given interceptors and 

treatmen t plants priority. We are not funding collection systems at 

the moment. It ’s just tha t we don’t have enough to go around. We 

put a higher priority on cleaning up rivers where towns already have 

a collection system.

Senator Muskie. And the HUD money is processed directly from 

HUD to the community, I take it? It doesn’t go to a State agency; 

is tha t correct?

Mr. Adams. No; HUD money does not go through us. I t’s in addition to anything we put in. FHA also participates, as you know. I 

believe Ellsworth received some FHA money.

Senator Muskie. Yes, and that’s a direct Federal municipal line. 

Have you been in touch with HUD on these questions?

Mr. J acobs. I don’t believe HUD has been contacted, no. I was 

only made aware th at there was some money available yesterday.

Senator Muskie. Are you ready to make tha t contact? I mean, do 

you think you are far enough advanced in your thinking about i t and
tha t the county could approach HUD on the availability of collection 

money?

Mr. J acobs. I think it’s appropriate to make the contact but at the level of funding now, as I understand it, there is only $2.2 million available for the whole State, for discretionary grants.

Senator Muskie. If nobody else grabs for it, you ought to! [Laughter}

Mr. J acobs. I assume tha t others are.

Senator Muskie. I wouldn’t make that assumption.

Mr. J acobs. This $2.2 million isn’t designated specifically for sewage collection systems. In other words, it is a broad discretionary grant tha t is available for all sorts of community developments.

Senator Muskie. Oh, I see.

Mr. J acobs. So the chances of getting tha t money in any significant 

amount are probably low.

Senator Muskie. To w hat extent has the problem of lack of collec­ tion systems been an obstacle to the development of the treatm ent 

program?

Mr. Adams. In several communities, very serious because it drives the user charges beyond the reach of the normal householder.

Senator Muskie. Have you got an analysis of that, so we could get 

a picture of the total need in this respect, the total cost?

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. We have a breakdown by the categories that are established, EPA established five, of all of those needs and we can 

make those available to you.

Senator M uskie. Would you see that the material is made available 

to the staff? How do you respond to the suggestion that has been made, Charlie, that perhaps in order to eliminate potential inequities, if an industry in this situation is given a variance or an extension, how do you re­ spond to the suggestion tha t maybe user charges could be negotiated and payments started and put into escrow, looking toward the time 

when the plant is constructed?

Mr. J acobs. I think there are some problems with that. For one thing, it seems to me tha t it is taking money out of circulation, putting the industry’s money out of circulation, which is a serious problem 

for a marginal industry like Guilford. Whatever amount tha t would be, $40,000, $50,000 a year, if it’s going to be 10 years, or 8 years before they build a plant, they would have a significant amount of money tied up tha t wouldn’t be used.

Senator Muskie. Without benefit.

Mr. J acobs. To anyone. I think that’s the most serious problem with tha t proposal. As I said before, I think tha t money could bette r be used by the industry in other ways. For instance, in improving the economic situation, providing more jobs or perhaps in the meantime reducing some of the pollution. For instance Guilford Industries have already reduced their pollution from 800,000 gallons a day to 250,000 gallons a day.

Senator Muskie. How have they done that? By process changes?

Mr. J acobs. I assume so. I ’m not familiar with the details. But anyway, I think that’s one of the major obstacles to that proposal. And I’m not sure the equity argument is a very significant one. I think as I said, I think there are inequities anyway. I’m not sure it really greatly affects the competitive position of the various industries.
8

Senator Muskie. Thank you, Charlie. Let me turn to the next 

witness to make sure we cover everybody before we get involved in a 

lot of questions.

Our most distant witness, Mr. Louis Cyr, is town manager of Madawaska. I apologize for bringing you down through all this weather.

STATEMENT OF LOUIS CYR, TOWN MANAGER, MADAWASKA, MAINE

Mr. Cyr. It is quite all right, Senator, and I certainly want to 

thank you for inviting me here today.

I think, if I make no other point here, I would like to make one, 

and impress this very much on you, is the fact tha t most big city people forget what Maine is composed of. And Maine, in my opinion, is 

composed of small towns, and I think we lose sight of that sometimes.

And I can best illustrate tha t by saying tha t Madawaska is a 

town of 6,000 population. We rank 49th in the State in population. 

In valuation we rank 13th in the State. And we are a State of about 

495 communities, which means there is about 450 communities with 

less than 6,000 people, and believe me, Senator, there are a lot of 

communities with less than 1,000 people. I know you know this but, 

sometimes, we lose sight.

And in talking regarding water quality in small towns, I can best 

illustrate that by a meeting we had in Augusta a few months ago, and 

we had some experts testifying about the surface treatment of water, 

surface runoff. The guy was highly educated and, I am sure, highly 

knowledgeable, but he was not relating to the State of Maine. He was 

talking about Los Angeles, he was talking about New Jersey, Indianapolis, and here he’s testifying in the State of Maine, trying to relate 

to our problem, which is unlike a big city—they don’t have the same 

problems. Especially in my town.

And, by the way, I might add here that our area is doing considerable work in cleaning up the St. John River, which is an international 

boundary between Canada and the United States. Fort Kent, which 

is about 20 miles north of Madawaska, has a treatmen t plant, which 

was put in operation, I believe, 2 years ago. Coming down river, 

Frenchville does not, but it has plans.

Senator Muskie. How big is Frenchville?

Mr. Cyr. About 1,500 people. I might point out Fort Kent is about 

4,000; Frenchville, 1,500. St. Agatha has a treatment plant, which 

was polluting a beautiful lake up there, which is Long Lake, and this 

has been cleaned up. There are no more industrial wastes or town 

wastes going into the Long Lake area.

Madawaska has completed its final application and we have been 

funded, I understand, for our treatm ent plant, which will cost about 

$2.2 million. Our share of this will be about $550,000. We also are in 

the process of—or the problem, I should say-----

Senator Muskie. Could you explain that, Louis? Th at’s 25 percent.

Mr. Cyr. Well, this is what we were told, Senator. We were told 

tha t the system actually cost $2,291,000 and our share is roughly 

$550,000.

Senator Muskie. Does th at include some collection money?
9

Mr. Cyr. Well, yes. This is what I was going to add, there. Since we are extending our collection system, we have to pick up about an extra mile and a half, maybe, which will cost the town 

$250,000.

Senator Muskie. All right.

Mr. Cyr. We have the same problem as the Guilford area. This is going to be borne 100 percent by the town, we were told. We were told this was not—could not be funded.

Senator Muskie. Not unless we can get some more money into 

tha t HUD program.

Mr. Cyr. Right. So, what 1 am trying to say here is that our area is cleaning up the St. John River, and Madawaska, hopefully by 1977, 

will be in operation. Now, going down river, the Grand Isle area is talking about a trea t­ ment system, and that’s a town of about 800 people.

Senator Muskie. Is there an industry in Grand Isle?

Mr. Cyr. No industry. It’s mostly composed of farmers and people who work in our town, in Madawaska, at Fraser Paper, Ltd. It is a large paper mill. It employs about 1,200 people, and they contribute highly to the pollution in the St. John River. They dump about 200 to 300 tons of solids in the river every day. But there, again, they are cleaning up their problem. A clarifier system is being constructed, which should be in operation, I hope, early next year, which will remove about 200 cubic yards of solids every day, mostly fiber and 

clay.

Senator Muskie. Is tha t the biggest industrial pollutant in this 

whole group of towns?

Mr. Cyr. Yes; it is. So that by 1977 the St. John River from the Allagash down to Van Buren—and I might add, Van Buren already has a system which is operating, and tha t’s a town of about 4,000 people, it is operating and there is very little waste going into the river. So that by 1977, that river will be pretty clean, hopefully We’ll probably get salmon back up tha t river somehow.

Senator Muskie. Do you have ice fishing derbies up there?

Mr. Cyr. No ; we have this on Long Lake. But to come back to the small town concept, you see, Madawaska is 6,000 population, yet we’re continuously referred to as a small town, which in my opinion, if we relate it to the State of Maine, we are not. And, sometimes I feel we are forgotten because we are a 

small town. Madawaska, by the way, pays the highest county tax in Aroostook County and that includes Presque Isle, Houlton, and Caribou, which are about double our population, so I sometimes question this deal where we are continuously referred to as small towns and sometimes 

forgotten, because we are small towns.

Senator Muskie. And charged as though you were a big town?

Mr. Cyr. Yes. A funny one happened with the State, the depart­ ment of transportation. They claim tha t if a town is over 5,000 population, we have to maintain our main street, U.S. 1, going through the town. Yet there was some funds available the other day and it was available to all towns over 5,000, so I applied for it and I was told we were too small, because we didn’t have 5,000 people in the urban area. And sometimes, you know, it gets irritating.
10

But, to come back to pollution, Senator, I feel, personally, tha t 

the St. John Valley, which I come from, is doing, or has done considerable work to clean up the St. John River.

The only concern I have is small towns—again I’m going to use 

the words, “small towns”—like Frenchville, which is mainly composed of—the whole town is on U.S. 1 and it stretches for about 6 

miles. So how do you construct something that will clean up their 

problem? Economically, I think it is very costly for a town like that, 

yet unless they get almost 100-percent Federal money, they just 

can’t afford it.

I might also add here tha t sometimes we feel the pollution is a lot 

worse than it is. To illustrate that, we, even before Fort Kent had a 

treatm ent plan t (they are only 20 miles up river from us) 20 miles 

downstream where we live, we’re drinking the water. In other words, 

our water treatment plant pulls water from the river, treats it and 

it is drinkable, and I understand tha t it is good quality.

To illustrate a point tha t Mr. Jacobs said, our user charge for our 

treatment plant, I understand, will be between $60 and $80 a year. 

I think the townspeople can afford this. But a town like Grand Isle 

or Frenchville, where the user charge jus t would have to be higher 

because of the operating costs and the very few connections tha t 

would be made on this svstem.

That’s about all I have, Senator, unless you have questions.

Senator Muskie. What kind of a user charge will the Fraser Paper 

Co. be paying, do you know?

Mr. Cyr. Fraser has elected to maintain a system by itself. They 

will not be connected, except for their sanitary wastes, and they will 

be charged by the amount of waste tha t they have on this system. 

But they are going alone. They are not going with Madawaska.

Senator Muskie. You know, you talked about these small towns 

like Frenchville with no industrial pollution.

Mr. Cyr. No.

Senator Muskie. I guess most—there are others here tha t—St. 

Agatha doesn’t have any industry.

Mr. Cyr. No.

Senator Muskie. You know, in Vermont they are exploring the 

possibility of using septic tanks for clusters of houses, with the State 

assuming the responsibility for proper construction. I don’t know 

whether tha t will work, or not, but it seems to me.

Mr. Cyr. I think-----

Senator Muskie. I t’s an idea worth pursuing.

Mr. Cyr. Yes.

Senator Muskie. Then you can be sure that proper standards are 

set, site selection takes the water table, the contour of the land, all 

other factors into account.

So I think that’s worth exploring and developing. There is another 

idea, of course tha t is being slowly developed in some parts of the 

country, and tha t is the use of—what do you call tha t—it’s land 

treatment or spray irrigation tha t converts the effuents and the 

nutrients in the effluents into effective fertilizer. It seems to me that 

might be worth exploring for an area like Aroostook County.

Mr. Cyr. Yes; bu t the only comment I have to make on that, 

Senator, is again, the fact they don’t realize where we live and I 

have-----
11

Senator M uskie. I do. I ’ve campaigned up there.

Mr. Cyr. I have problems with Augusta all the time because, in the winter, and I’m sure many of your communities have the same problem but maybe not quite as bad—you see, we have frost 4, 5, and 7 feet deep in the wintertime. The State health and welfare says you can’t dump this stuff on frozen ground. Now, they’re not thinking right, because anywhere north of Houlton you’ve got this problem. And where do we dump the stuff in the wintertime? He says, “Well, put it in holding tanks.” And I kind of smile on that because that’s not practical at all, in an area where you have 30 and 40 degrees below zero, you see, and 5 or 6 feet of snow. In fact, there’s still 5 or 6 feet of snow up there right now. And so this idea you have is very 

good in summer, but very impractical in winter.

Senator Muskie. How do they deal with that in Michigan?

Mr. Freshman.

1

 Well, they jus t store it. In Michigan they have a 

great big lagoon.

Mr. Cyr. Yes; but what are the temperatures there? What are the 

below temperatures in Michigan?

Mr. Freshman. Well, it goes substantially below zero in Michigan. 

I don’t know if you’ve ever been there, but it ’s very cold. It takes a 

lot of land.

Mr. Cyr. I’m sure tha t in Michigan their winters are probably 3 

months long, where ours are 6.

Mr. Freshman. I t gets pretty cold in Michigan.

Senator Muskie. Well, Michigan’s pretty cold.

Mr. Freshman. Michigan is where they always register the oldest 

temperature in tha t—what’s t ha t town in Michigan?

Senator Muskie. Well, they don’t go up to Madawaska. It ’s too 

small to send the temperature gages up there. [Laughter.]

Mr. Cyr. Th at’s right.

Senator Muskie. I’m curious. Why do you pay the highest county 

tax?

Mr. Cyr. Because, I believe, of Fraser, and th at’s a point tha t nobody knows or even most of Aroostook towns don t know this. And I always like to point this out because every chance I get, when somebody’s listening, I always pu t out that point. We pay the highest county tax, Senator, because of the Fraser Paper, Ltd. The complex is very valuable and they rate this as part of our town. So we pay about $110,000 a year to the county government.

Senator Muskie. How much of th at does Fraser pay?

Mr. Cyr. About 66 percent, but we get back in services, I feel 

about $10,000 worth, which is not correct.

Senator Muskie. Well, I hope tha t the window is open so tha t the 

legislature in Augusta can hear what you say.

Mr. Cyr. I hope so. There is already talk about abolishing the 

county government and maybe it s time.

Senator Muskie. Well, thank you very much, Louis. I think I’ll 

turn to the next witness and we’ll come back, probably, for other 

questions. Before I do, I’d like to acknowledge tha t Mr. Leon Warren has driven down today from Jackman. He’s not on the list of witnesses, but you submitted a statem ent for the record and we’re most appreciative of that. (See p. 38.)

Mr. Warren. Thank you, Senator.

1

 National Commission on Water Qu ality staff member.
12

Senator Muskie. Mr. Eldege J. Parent, chairman of the board of 

the sewer district, Wells, Maine—we’re a t the other end of the State, 

now.

STATEMENT OF ELDEGE J. PARENT, CHAIRMAN, WELLS SEWER 

DISTRICT

Mr. Parent. Thank you, Senator. Our town is mostly recreational, 

as you know, also the shell-fish industry.

In 1968 our clam flats were closed by the Sea & Shore Fisheries 

and shortly afterwards we got a directive from Mr. Gormley of the 

DEP, pertaining to cleaning up the clam flats and also the marshes. 

And, at the annual town meeting of 1969, a sewer study committee 

was elected and the committee interviewed four engineering firms 

and picked Hayden, Harding & Buchanan of Boston to look into the 

most economical and feasible aspect of sewage waste collection and 

also a treatment plant. After the study, all the things were turned 

over to Federal and State agencies. They all agreed to our plan.

Preliminary plans and specs were drawn up and presented to the 

DEP and the citizens of Wells a t a public hearing, and no objections 

were raised to the plan. Maps were also displayed and everybody 

approved the site. We had two sites—site 1, and an alternate, 2, 

and nobody raised any objections to site 1, so a special town meeting 

was held at the annual town meeting—no, a special town meeting 

was held in November 1970, and a sanitary district was formed. 

Also maps were displayed again and nobody raised any objections. 

The citizens of Wells voted to proceed with the construction of the 

sewage collection and treatment plant.

A certificate of organization was presented to the board on December 2, establishing the Wells Sanitary District under title 38, section 

1105, statutes of the State of Maine. A letter dated March 17, 1971, 

was received and signed by Mr. Peterson of the EPA, for Federal 

approval for Federal funding. All agencies at this time had agreed 

on the project, including the Department of Sea and Shore Fisheries 

and Wild Life, et cetera.

On June 8, 1971, the trustees and officials met with the banks of 

the area and on the strength of the approval from these different 

agencies, and we presented the banks with everything and asked them 

for a schedule, we discussed interest, repayment schedules, and also 

refinancing. On the streng th of all of these approvals, Sanford Trust 

loaned us $400,000 to s tart with the planning.

The board of trustees had all of the approvals and was thinking 

the redtape was all over.

Senator Muskie. This was 1971?

Mr. Parent. This was 1971, in June. And the State planning 

agency gave us $130,000 of funds for a planning g rant to help us get 

started. Afterwards objections were made to the DEP by Mr. Brad 

Sterl, coordinator of the Coastal Wetlands, or Sea and Shore Fisheries, 

objecting to site 1. The trustees had to drop site 1 location and pick 

up site 2 and had the plans all revised for a treatment plant on site 2. 

And also Mr. Sterl had made certain specifications. The effluent from 

the plant going into Stevens Brook was changing saltwater marshes 

into freshwater marshes. Well, to this date we have no data confirming 

such.
13

After several meetings with the Southern Maine Regional and a few other agencies, the board of trustees agreed to go to an ocean outfall, which added another cost of about $1 million. Due to various postponements, furstrations, et cetera, delays have soared the cost of the original project from approximately $5,200,000 to $13 million. Originally, start of construction had been targeted for the fall of 1972, so you can see how many delays we have had. Now, as you know, we have quite a shellfish industry, or did have. The financial impact of the shellfish industry, clamming, et cetera, would bring revenues to the town of approximately anywhere from $250,000 to a half million. And, also, issuing of licenses would be quite a revenue for the town and also permits for the State. Last year the town issued clamming licenses, we issued 328, so you see there were quite a few. Of course, they are not all commercial, some families might come down there for 2 weeks and want to go dig a mess of clams;,you know that, yourself. So, there it went again. So, as we stand now, we’re almost ready to go to construction and the only hitch right now th at I can see, we started with a tertia ry plant, and when we decided to go to an ocean outfall, some of the members of the State agency wanted us to change to a secondary treatment plant. But being recreational and with beaches on both sides of us—we have good swimming beaches, and about the best on the east coast, which 

you know, Senator-----

Senator Muskie. Every morning, 6:30 a.m.

Mr. Parent. Th at’s right. You’re right across the bay. We can’t see having a secondary plant, because I don’t think the people at Wells and Moody Beach, nor the fishermen, nor the lobstermen, would stand for it. So we’re asking to keep our tertiary plant with the ocean 

outfall.

Senator Muskie. What is the difference in cost?

Mr. Parent. About $80,000; isn’t it, Bill?

Mr. P urington. Well, altogether it is $160,000. You could eliminate those sand filters. The sand filters aren’t really required. What you’re trying to do is kill the bacteria. Sand filters don’t do anything to bac­ teria. They polish the effluent, clean up the BOD and the suspended solids. It really isn’t required to dump it into the ocean. So you are actually—you’re wasting $160,000. You could use some of it in the 

community.

Mr. Parent. Well, t ha t’s the only argument we have now, but-----

Senator Muskie. I may have a conflict of interest here!

Mr. Parent. What’s that?

Senator Muskie. I may have a conflict of interest here! [Laughter.] How much—Wh at’s the size of the population to be served?

Mr. Parent. Well, the summer population—I mean, the winter population is about 7,500. Of course it balloons in the summertime to 

40,000.

Senator Muskie. Now, is all of th at 40,000 a sewered population?

I mean, are they all-----

Mr. Parent. All, probably, but about 2,000 up in the back country 

west of Route 1.

Senator Muskie. So all the summer cottages are on the sewer?

Mr. Parent. Yes. And we have a very bad situation on the beach because of the low water table and the ground is saturated from the effluent of septic tanks and water.

54 -7 17 0 - 75 - 3
14

Senator Muskie. Is the funding available for your plant?

Mr. Parent. Yes.

Senator Muskie. It ’s been approved?

Mr. Parent. It ’s been all approved.

Mr. Purington. Funding for the interceptors and the treatment 

plant. They have to build a whole new collection system.

Mr. Parent. Yes.

Mr. Purington. There aren’t any funds from EPA or DE P for 

the collection system.

Senator Muskie. A whole new collection system?

Mr. Parent. Right. We have nothing.

Senator Muskie. How much is that?

Mr. Purington. $5 million.

Mr. Parent. Five, well, the whole—yes. About 5 million.

Senator Muskie. And the town is funding that?

Mr. Parent. Yes.

Senator Muskie. Is Wells the only town involved?

Mr. Parent. Th at’s right.

Senator Muskie. The district just covers Wells?

Mr. Parent. Th at’s right. And we’re really up against it because,

with all the delays and everything, we started with a user charge of 

about $52 and now it’s up to $130.

Senator M uskie. $130 for every year-round citizen?

Mr. Parent. Approximately.

Senator Muskie. Well, how many homes are involved in that? 

How many units?

Mr. Parent. Let’s see, residential would be 2,128, and commercial 

193, a total of 2,321 units.

Senator Muskie. Tha t would include summer?

Mr. Parent. Yes.

Senator Muskie. And will the summer residents pay the same user 

charge as the year-round residents?

Mr. Parent. Yes, they would have to because the service is available, just the same as the water district.

Senator Muskie. Yes. Well, I just wanted to get the town’s share 

of the treatment plant cost?

Mr. Parent. The town’s share of the treatment plant will be about 

$500,000.

Senator M uskie. So the cost to the town in all, is $ 5^ million?

Mr. Parent. J ust about.

Senator Muskie. Have the citizens accepted this?

Mr. Parent. What’s that?

Senator Muskie. The citizens accepted this?

Mr. Parent. Well, it hasn’t gone through public hearing yet for 

the whole thing.

Senator Muskie. Oh, I see. Th at still has to be done?

Mr. Parent. All that has been through public hearing now has

been on the wetlands permit, ocean outfall permit, and the hearing 

we should have pretty soon is on the treatment plant.

Mr. Purington. It has got to be advertised for a 30-day period. 

Mr. Parent. Yes.

Mr. Purington. It could be, when the outfall is located, over here. 

They have got to know where the outfall is.
15

Mr. Parent. We know where the outfall is now. We’ve had the 

meeting on that.

Senator Muskie. Well, I appreciate tha t detail. Let’s go on to still another situation: Mr. Solomon Gay, superintendent of the Paris Utility District in Paris, and accompanied by Paul Finnegan, plant manager of the A. C. Lawrence Tanning Co.

STATEMENT OF SOLOMAN GAY, SUPERINTENDENT, PAR IS UTIL ITY 

DISTRICT

Mr. Gay. Thank you, Senator. What I am going to try to do is just explain, as near as I can, how the industry and the district arrived at the proportionate costs in construction ami also in operation.

Senator Muskie. As we all know this is a situation in which the 

tannery and the town have gone into a joint venture.

Mr. Gay. Tha t is right. I was just going to say, we were asked to clean up pollution as much as possible so at tha t time the industry, which is a tannery—we do have a cannery there, but they are small, compared with the tannery. The tannery and the district got together, made quite a thorough stud y of whether it would be better for the industry to go on their own and the district on their own, or whether to make a joint plan. After studying it out, in order to find, for sure, which was the best way, through some EPA money, the tannery did set up a pilot plant, a test plant, on a real small scale. And in order to do that, they had to have the domestic waste, the town sewage, 

to help in treating the tannery waste. The tannery has two different types of waste—one has a high pH and one has a low pH. But, after doing this, the way they got their domestic waste, as you know, probably, Norway and Paris are two towns right close together, and they had a system all in operation, so they hired a tank truck, or one of those trucks tha t they pump out septic tanks with—they hired one of those to haul, if I remember right, there was three loads a day of raw sewage from the town of Norway brought over and used in treatment of this tannery waste. Well, of course they took a lot of tests and studies. They ran this plant for 6 months, I believe. So these tests, and the information tha t they found, was all sent in to the EPA and, from different things tha t I have heard in the past, I guess they have treated tannery wastes for some time but it hasn’t been satisfactory. So by this pilot plant and tests, after the EPA received the information that they got, they 

approved it. So, after they approved it, then the district hired Whitman & Howard as engineers and the law firm of Berstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, in Portland, to work up an agreement between the district and the industry, which they did do. They had to work up several because—or at least three or four, because apparently the first two or three that they did, the wording wasn’t just right. But they finally came up with an agreement tha t both the industry and the district agreed upon. A similar agreement was made for A. L. Stewart, which 

is a cannery. Now, after this was signed by both parties, then we started con­ struction, and what this turned out to be—the basis on which this was figured, was on flow and biochemical oxygen demand and sus­ pended solids, from both parties. And roughly speaking, I haven’t
16

gotten any exact figures, but roughly speaking, the tannery will be 

paying approximately 75 percent of part of the construction of the 

plant and also on the operation costs. The cannery, I believe, is only 

about 5 percent.

Now, to go along with all that, I might say that we had—when 

we started out, we had actually three different contracts and it ’s 

what we call one, two and three. Number 1 was on the treatment 

plant alone; No. 2 was on the interceptor lines, picking up, because 

we had three outfalls from the old system tha t we had, going into the 

river and we picked those up ; and No. 3 was new laterals, streets, and 

the pumping station.

But just to give you an idea, the plant alone was bid at $4,514,480. 

The three contracts, together—it so happened tha t the same contractor got all three bids, three contracts—the total overall bid on all 

three was $5,775,272.50. I might add, along with this, tha t of course 

we could only go so far; you always have to have a stopping point. 

And on these laterals you come out on a street and you stop here, and 

the next house says, “why can’t we have it?” Well, we had so much 

controversy over this tha t now we have already got specs out, which 

our bids will be opened up next Monday, to extend these laterals out 

farther in the town which, the job itself, will run just under a million 

dollars.

I’ve heard FHA funds here mentioned. In order to do this, I don’t 

think wre would have done it, if it hadn’t been tha t we did apply to 

FHA for grant money, so we got approximately 50 percent grant 

money to do this job, this is what we call No. 4 contract.

Senator Muskie. From FHA?

Mr. Gay. From FHA. We just got tha t—I don’t remember the 

exact date, but somewhere around a month ago when we received 

approval of it. So, with this contract four, when we get this completed, 

we think that our user rate will be approximately $112 a year, per 

unit. I think that’s about all I can say unless there’s-----

Senator Muskie. Do you know what the tannery and the cannery 

pay for user charges? You said about 75 percent.

Mr. Gay. I can’t-----

Senator Muskie. Well, maybe, Mr. Finnegan can-----

Mr. Finnegan. We have agreed t hat we would pick up something 

like 81 percent of the operating costs of the sewerage treatment plant 

and this, I guess, will be our user charge. Will it?

Mr. Gay. I feel tha t th at ’s the way it will be. Yes.

Senator Muskie. Well, w hat does tha t amount to?

Mr. Finnegan. Roughly, I think—we have rough estimates now 

since the plant won’t be in operation until June 15, hopefully 

th at ’s our target date. At tha t time we have rough figures right now 

it will be about $184,000 a year, total cost. Our contribution will be 

up around $138,000.

Senator Muskie. Does th at include the pay-back on the investment?

Mr. Finnegan. No; this is just operating cost.

Senator Muskie. Operating cost.

Mr. Finnegan. Our involvement in this thing takes-----

Senator Muskie. Why don’t you go ahead and make your 

presentation?
17

STATEMENT OF PAUL FINNEGAN, PLANT MANAGER. A. C. LAWRENCE TANNERY, PARIS, MAINE

Mr. Finnegan. All right. I guess I ’ll probably go over some of the 

things tha t Solly already has gone over. About 20 years ago, A. C. Lawrence Leather Co. replaced an existing tannery with a completely new facility which opened for 

business in November of 1955.

Senator Muskie. I was there.

Mr. F innegan. Yes. Not long after that, the Sta te legislature began to act in the direction of upgrading and providing cleaner water in all State streams. The first action was the classification of rivers by segments. And in the early 1960’s, it became very clear tha t waste water treatment would have to be provided for all discharge sources of contamination. The town of South Paris was discharging all waste water without treatment, and our technical people recognized th at the tannery waste water would respond to treatment better if the two 

waste streams were combined. In order to provide guidance and assurance tha t a combined treat­ ment system would properly respond to treatment when completed, a Boston consulting nrm was asked to design and build a pilot plant. This was accomplished with the help of a research and development grant, with which I am sure you are familiar, through the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. This resulted in a report document which has received wide circulation throughout our par­ ticular industry, the tanning industry. Upon completion of the pilot plant work, designs and specifications—Senator Muskie. I would gather that tha t report, now, ought to be useful throughout the country in dealing with this line of work.

Mr. Finnegan. It has. It has been distributed to other tanneries, 

in particular. Yes. Upon completion of the pilot plant work, designs and specifications were prepared for a full size treatment plant which would function for the town, the tannery, and the cannery. Construction began in late 1973 with the assurance of substantial State and Federal funding 

assistance. Today this plant, as I say, is—we expect it to go on stream on June 15 of this year, 1975. This is a secondary treatmen t facility, which will receive the raw tannery waste from the A. C. Lawrence Leather Co. next spring—or at this time, in June, actually. Our financial commitment to the Federal and State aide project is estimated to be $1,758,000 of a total estimated cost of $6,800,000. We have also agreed to—since this is a little different than the normal municipal-industry treatment plant, in that we will supply, if you want to use that word, about 75 percent of the effluent going through the treatment plant. Consequently our share is higher. We have also agreed to supply the funds to operate the plan t on the same basis of introducing the effluent into the plant, and, as I said earlier, this cost is estimated, right now, at $184,000, of which we pay $138,000. We will also supply to the plan t our flue gas which is necessary in the flocculation and treatmen t of the waste.
18

Initially, we agreed to quitclaim a certain parcel of land which we 

have, in order to dump the solid waste generated by the treatment 

plant. However, with the change in regulations, this land is no longer 

acceptable for this purpose, so the utility district had to go out 

and purchase another plot of land where we’ll dump the solid waste.

We’re assuming, of course, we say June 15, but pilot plant production sometimes requires some maneuvering so perhaps the effectiveness of the thing won’t be 100 percent, or 98 percent, until we’ve 

worked out some of the problems, you know, when the plant goes on 

stream. That’s about all I have to say.

Senator Muskie. I have one question I’d like clarification on. 

The treatment plant existed before this, did it?

Mr. Finnegan. No; it did not. Norway—the town of Norway, 

had a sewage treatm ent facility which is-----

Mr. Gay. A lagoon system.

Senator Muskie. Oh, I see.

Mr. Finnegan. Quite primitive and, eventually, I’m sure tha t 

they’ll be asking to join in the Paris Utility District’s treatment 

plant.

Senator Muskie. They are not now part of it?

Mr. Finnegan. No; they are not. They are downstream from it.

Senator Muskie. Is there capacity built into this tha t would take 

care of all this?

Mr. F innegan. Yes.

Mr. Gay. Oh, yes.

Mr. Finnegan. We can absorb them quite easily, the Paris Utility 

District can. We found some of the problems in connection with this 

from its infancy to its actual accomplishment. Our initial involvement 

we estimated to be about $375,000 but, due to the change in requirements and inflation, our involvement now has gone from $375,000 up 

to $1,750,000. We’re not sure, either at this time tha t—the present 

requirements for clean water are strictly temporary; I mean, these 

could change again in 1977 or 1978, and if they do, why, perhaps this 

will require some financial investment on our part inside our p lant or 

in addition to the sewage treatm ent plant prior to our effluents 

going into the treatm ent plant, but we won’t know tha t yet.

Senator Muskie. Have you been able to make any process changes 

tha t would reduce the effluent?

Mr. Finnegan. Well, since our direction has been toward this 

joint venture, we have not. There are some things tha t we can do. 

One of the things that we do introduce into the stream is the chromium 

which is poison, literally, to most of the enzyme action and also the 

fish, in the stream. Right now, I think the State of Maine requires, 

or allows, a license which permits you to dump one part per million 

chromium into the stream. I have a rather vague uneasiness that this 

will be decreased even further. If that happens, then we will have to 

make some definite arrangements either to change process—we’re 

doing some investigation anyway as an economic thing, but it will 

also require a process change or possibly the creation of holding tanks. 

Right now, we currently exhaust all day long out of the plant there, 

but we may have to have holding tanks and time our exhaust. I 

don’t know.

Senator Muskie. Well, of course, the fact is that, in a sense, you’re 

being a guinea pig for tanneries across the country.
19

Mr. Finnegan. Actually, there are others involved, Senator. Hartland is involved in their own treatm ent plant. S.B. Fort, where we visited also has a Government grant. So we’re not unique in tha t we are one of perhaps four or five who are-----

Senator Muskie. But all of you are in sort of an experimental 

phase?

Mr. Finnegan. Yes; th at’s so.

Senator Muskie. And converting from a pilot project into a fullscale commercial project.

Mr. Finnegan. Actually S.B. For t has already done this, however, the quality of the water is not, I don’t think, suitable yet. So they are going to have to do some work, even though they are on a production level.

Senator Muskie. Let me ask you this: Are you going to be able to absorb all this, within the economics of your operation?

Mr. Finnegan. Certainly the increased cost we are already starting to build into the cost of our product, and it hurts. This is a product in which a penny a foot is quite important, and this is going to be, 

perhaps, more than a penny a foot. So a result of this, we have to circumvent this by making produc­ tion changes where we can save in other areas in order to absorb this cost and still remain competitive.

Senator Muskie. You carry the lion’s share of this plant. Why is it economical for you to do it this way, rather than have your own separate system? I’m curious because in Madawaska it was not.

Mr. Finnegan. I’ll have to pass on that because I wasn’t in on the original studies and meetings and discussions a t tha t time.

Mr. Gay. I think I can answer part of that.

Senator Muskie. Yes?

Mr. Gay. Not wholly, but one of the factors is tha t by using the domestic waste in the treatment does help treating chemical-----

Senator Muskie. From a chemical standpoint?

Mr. Gay. Right. That way, I mean, if it wasn’t for the domestic waste, then they would have to be spending money for other chemicals

Senator Muskie. Yes.

Mr. Cyr. I have a comment, too, on that, Senator. The main reason Fraser did not go with Madawaska was the fact tha t at tha t time, and I don’t know how it is now, but at tha t time, whatever money they would have contributed toward the cost of financing the plant, the Federal money tha t would be allocated to the town would be—you know, we would be reimbursed 85 percent. And whatever share they put in, they would have had to pay back. So this was not attractive to them at all.

Mr. Gay. Paris does not. Paris is under the old law.

Senator Muskie. Oh, I see. I set. You would have been under 

the new law.

Mr. Finnegan. I think so.

Senator Muskie. I know. Th at’s true. Under the old law, there 

was no payback required.

Mr. Cyr. Th at’s the main reason Fraser did not go.

Senator Muskie. Well, we wrote tha t in the old law in order to try to stimulate this kind of joint venture, but then when we began to see it escalating, we could see enormous costs to the country and then we wrote the payback provision in. So the only advantage,
20

1 guess, is having the Fed eral Government pu t up the cap ital rather 

than going out into the marke t and maybe some ad va nta ge in inter est costs. So it is less of a b argain . No que stio n. Bu t I was intere sted 

in the fac t th at the chem istry of the pla nt ma y be------

Mr. Finn ega n. We can describe a few of the thin gs. We di dn ’t 

wa nt to bore y ou, bu t perha ps if I read a few lines------

Se nator M us kie . Yes, do.

Mr. Finn egan. Th e design of this facility, which inc orp ora tes 

da ta from a pilo t pl an t stud y, is based on a modified second ary 

activ ated sludge tre atmen t process.

Because of the qu ality of t he specific ind ust rial was tes being tre ate d, 

this modified process will em plo y some u nco nvention al un it ope rations , 

includ ing the use of ro tary screens, equ alization tan ks, carbonation 

tan ks, upflow clarifiers, and special pH mo nitoring and control 

eq uip ment to facilitate the trea tm en t of complex ind ust rial wastes.

Three separate pipelines will convey flows to the trea tm en t facility . 

One pipeline will tra ns po rt combine d sewage and stormflo ws from 

the town of Paris and wastes from the A. L. Ste wa rt & Sons can nery.

Th e othe r two pipelines will carry beamhouse wastes and tanhouse 

was tes from the A. C. Law rence Leath er Co. These two was tes, 

which drastic all y differ in com position and pH level, will be ke pt 

separat e to ma intain pH con trol .

Initial trea tm en t will occur w ith in the head works where t he sewagesto rm -ca nn ery flow will pass thr ough a mechanical bar rac k, aerated 

grit cha mb er, and flow me asu ring devices. The tan house waste, 

which is rel atively low in sus pen ded solids, will byp ass pr etreatmen t 

and be mixed with the pretreated beamhouse flow in the equ aliz ation tan ks.

Pr im ary clarifica tion will follow equ aliz atio n of the control ledcom bine d tan ne ry flows, where solids— essent ially chromium hy ­

droxide form ed by the acid-base rea ction—will be removed.

In the carbo nation tank , flue gas will be distr ibuted in the was tewa ter to remove the high calc ium conte nt of the beamhouse waste. 

An upflow clarifier will collect sludge and employ the sludge-b lan ket - 

filtra tio n-s ett lin g tech nique, whi ch is requ ired by the un sta ble settlin g 

chara cte ris tic s of this sludge floe.

The oxygen req uir em ents of the was tes will be ab ou t three times 

the biochemical oxygen dema nd if sulfides prese nt in the tan nery 

was tes are to be oxidized to an unobjec tionable sulfate form.

Se na tor M us kie. I find it curiou s th at this plan t cost $4% million—

Mr. Gay. Fo r the—for the three------

Se na tor M us kie. [continuing] No t incl uding the laterals and the 

inter ceptors. It is $4% million for the------

Mr. Gay. I believe it ’s alm ost th at . Yes; the bid was $4,514,480.

Se na tor M us ki e. And it sou nds like a very complex process. And 

the Wells plan t, which has no indu str y, ind ustrial efflu ent, was 

wh at, $8 million?

Mr. Par en t. The tre atmen t pl an t was well ove r $2 million.

Senator M us ki e. Oh, the tre at m en t was $2 million. All rig ht.

I go t th at o ther figure in m y mind, and I could n’t figure it.

Mr. P ar en t. And $3 m illion includ ing the outfall.

Se nator M us kie. Rig ht. So it’s your colle ction syste m th at is 

expensive------
21

Mr. Parent. Right.

Senator Muskie. [continuing] In your case. All right. The two 

together go up to $8 million.

Mr. Freshman. Is tha t right, Bill?

Mr. Adams. Yes.

Mr. Freshman. That $8 million includes the collection system. 

Mr. Adams. Yes.

Mr. Purington. No. It includes the interceptor system and the trea t­ ment plant. It does not include any collection system. It includes the treatment plant and the interceptor system only. It’s long lines in Wells. I t’s spread out all over the place. T ha t’s why it cost so much.

Senator M uskie. What is the plant, itself? Two million?

Mr. Freshman. Two million.

Senator Muskie. Then the plant, itself, is more than half of it? I appreciate tha t addition. I’m impressed by the complexity of this problem that you are now trying to tackle in tha t plant. Was tha t 

unusual? I ’ll ask-----

Mr. Adams. It was, at the time, Senator. It must be one of the 

first on record.

Mr. Gay. They tell us it ’s the only plan t in the United States.

Senator Muskie. You are all going to have your fingers crossed 

to see if this works, I would sav! [Laughter.]

Mr. P urington. I was hoping you wouldn’t say that! [Laughter.!

Senator M uskie. Well, no. I compliment you all on making this effort and trying it. If it doesn’t work, then you have to do something else, but that’s quite a complicated process.

Mr. J acobs. Senator, 1 might point out tha t the chemical com­ patibility of sewage and the waste from the Guilford Industries plant is a similar—similar situation so there was furth er incentive 

for them to join together.

Senator Muskie. My staff says tha t money for collection sewers was once available under the Farmer’s Home program, under HUD and under economic development programs and they were all stopped by the impoundments President Nixon invoked several years ago. I 

guess tha t’s been the problem.

Mr. Cyr. Is there any chance they might come back?

Senator Muskie. Well, I guess tha t they are now covered by the community development money and it would be necessary to expand tha t program. Th at’s the trouble with these consolidated grant pro­ grams. Then the community decides its priorities and whether or not your community wants to use your community development money for this purpose is the question. 1 would guess that there may be higher priorities to begin with and then they become the dominant factor 

in the use of that money.

Mr. Adams. Senator?

Senator Muskie. Yes.

Mr. Adams. Because of the fact tha t they are small towns, as pointed out by Mr. Cyr, the FHA program was most beneficial to the State of Maine. Most of our communities, as pointed out by Mr. Cyr, would qualify on population requirements for tha t program.

Senator Muskie. Is tha t still available?

Mr. Adams. There is some money, yes.

54 -7 17 0 - 7 5 - 4
22

Senator Muskie. Should we sic Charlie Jacobs onto tha t program?

Mr. Adams. I believe i t’s too late for this year. [Laughter.] •

Mr. Freshman. They had $1|^ million for Maine so far, the FHA.

It was money, as I get it, tha t was released by some Supreme Court 

decision.

Senator Muskie. Than k God for the Supreme Court.

Mr. Adams. That won’t go very far. )

Mr. Freshman. No, that won’t go very far.

Senator Muskie. Well, let’s turn to our next witness, Mr. Edwin 

Mitchell of the department of marine resources. He’s going to tell us 

the story of Thomaston, Maine, which is sort of a plus, a positive note.

STATEMENT OF EDW IN M. MITCHELL, MAINE DEPARTMENT OF 

MARINE RESOURCES

Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Senator. Indeed it is a positive note.

The problems here, I understand, are of an economic nature and of 

funding. And one of the nice economic results of sewage treatment 

facilities in this locality is looking at it from the resources point of i 

view. And the St. George River, in Thomaston, has proven out to be 

just one of these niceties. We did a cooperative study, the departm ent 

of marine resources, with the Food and Drug A dministration in 1967, '

in Thomaston, after the sewage treatment plan t was in operation.

And through a great deal of hydrographic, sophisticated, comprehensive studies in the river, we were able to reopen shellfish areas down 

there tha t had been closed for a long time, as you well know, and in 

fact, probably, in that particular river, nearly doubled the size of the 

available resources from what it was prior to the sewage treatment 

plant.

We have established a cooperative program with the sewage 

treatment facility in Thomaston whereby if there are malfunctions 

in the plant, they will immediately notify us and we can introduce a 

temporary closure in the area, and we’ve also learned how long it 

takes after a period of malfunction before the area—to clean up, 

usually 48 hours in the case of the Thomaston area and St. George ' 

and reopen it again. And this has worked beautifully.

In fact, to say something for the plant—initially, after the plant ' went into operation, they had several malfunctions which you’d 

expect in any piece of machinery. Like your automobile, it tends 

to fail now and then. And so we did have some initial problems with 

the operation of the plan t but after it got underway, and since 1967 

we have only had two occasions when we had to close the river, and 

those occasions were for, I think, 2 and 4 days, respectively.

One of the problems, initially, was with the State prison. They ' 

were putting some waste into the treatmen t plan t tha t we couldn’t 

handle, and it plugged up the pumps and what have you. But they 

resolved that. They put in some screening devices, and what have 

you, in the prison.

Getting back to your economic problems, your particular economic 

situations regarding waste treatm ent, tha t I notice in my work along 

the coast, tha t seem to be cropping up everywhere, is individual 

waste treatm ent problems, where towns—people living in outlying 

areas on the coast, particularly, on tidewaters, are finding it very 

difficult. Some people can’t afford to pay $5,000 or whatever it might
23

cost to put in a treatment facility and maintain it. And their first argument is, “Well, if I lived in the town, then I would be paying 

$20 or $30 a year for sewage treatment. But I ’m not, and so I’ve got to pay for my own, and there’s no Federal money,” or appears to be they believe tha t there is no Federal money and I’m not sure whether there is or not, to support their own treatment. But many of them have gotten together in clusters, in the areas where there are several summer homes or year-round homes in an area and created their own association and their own sewer district, including one 

package p lant to take care of this. The gentleman from Wells—they have their specific problems down there with the ocean outfall and I might point out that, here again, is another economic situation. Which is more valuable—the resources, weighed against the cost of an ocean outfall, and this is a hard argument because you may find th at there is an indication tha t in the Thomaston/St. George area it was valid, tha t it was worth the 

, money, in addition to the laws and the esthetic value, in changing the water quality of the river. It was also worth money in terms of the employment and resources maintained. < In Wells you are involved in another specific environmental problem there. Had they not gone to an ocean outfall, it is questionable whether or not they would still be able to use the resource. This has happened in other States and it ’s been an embarassment to a lot of people. They have put in concentrated sources of pollution tha t were distributed up and down an estuary into one large outfall and, for public health purposes, you’d still have to have some kind of closed area as far as the shellfish or other resources around these outfalls, just as an assurance tha t the plan t is functioning at its maximum ability, and when they did this, they concentrated all these sources into one large one at the head of an estuary, the hydrographic situa­ tions were such tha t they made the situation, in effect, worse than it was before, as far as reliability. So, lots of times, a lot of thought and z study has to be p ut into these things to determine where the outfall goes. And it may result in a very costly change, such as the ocean outfall at Wells. Then the question arises, is i t worth tin additional $1 million for the ocean outfall to make available our resources? Th at’s about all—I didn’t have any prepared state ment on that, and if anybody has any questions, I ’d be happy to try and answer 

them.

Senator Muskie. Prepared statements are unnecessary.

Mr. Parent. A comment on the ocean outfall: We were forced to 

put in the ocean outfall. Dennis will verify that.

Mr. Purington. What happened, Stevens Brook doesn’t have the 

flushing capacity to pu t in 1 ^ million gallons a day sewage-----

Mr. Mitchell. Right.

Mr. Parent. Right.

Mr. Purington [continuing]. Which the system was designed for. We did some flushing studies down there which indicated it stayed in 

there something like 14 days.

Mr. Mitchell. Right.

Mr. Parent. Right.

Mr. Purington. It ended up, the only alternative we had, if they were going to have a discharge, they would have to go to the ocean.
24

Mr. Mitchell. I used tha t as an example. That is the situation. 

It is very costly.

Mr. Parent. I’m still saying tha t would change that area from a 

saltwater marsh to a freshwater marsh.

Mr. Mitchell. And you would actually be putting more fresh 

water in there than the salt water tha t was already there.

Mr. F reshman. Which would also kill the shellfish, wouldn’t it?

Mr. Mitchell. Well, I’m not—To kill it is another thing. It would 

kill it as far as being an available resource and a source of economic 

revenue for the town; yes, indeed, it would.

Senator Muskie. Well, now, the Thomaston plan t was built in 

1967?

Mr. Mitchell. No; prior to 1967.

Senator Muskie. Prior to 1967.

Mr. Mitchell. 1967 was the year tha t we did the Food and Drug 

Administration, then the Public Health Service. And, incidentally, 

I’m curious as to whether or not funds are still available for these 

type of studies. We have called on the Public Health Service, Food 

and Drug Administration in years past to do these cooperative studies 

because they have the facilities—tha t is, the equipment and techniques available for them, t ha t the State does not have. And they have 

done these, are more than willing to do these cooperative studies and 

come up with the answers. And since shellfish is this Dep artm ent’s 

particular interest, in order to maintain interstate shipment of shellfish, then we have to meet the Food and Drug Administration’s 

regulations, and since they are the ones th at are putting regulations 

on us, they are more than willing to cooperate with us with the State, 

that is, in helping us evaluate some of these areas that have sewerage 

treatment plants.

Senator Muskie. One of the first gentlemen to visit me when I 

took office as Governor—I won’t say how long ago, was the regional 

director of HEW in Boston, to go over the program, the Public Health 

Service program on clam flats along the coast. It was a constant 

headache.

Well, now, since that was built prior to 1967, does Thomaston have 

a user charge?

Mr. Mitchell. Now, there again, you are getting into economics 

of the situation and I can’t answer that. I ’m sure they do, but I 

don’t live in Thomaston, I live on Southport Island, and I don’t know 

whether they have a user charge, or not. I’m sure they do.

Mr. Purinqton. Senator, I think tha t they do it on a basis of taxation mostly, down there in Thomaston. There may be some sort of 

user tax involved b ut it’s n ot set up like what we have today.

Mr. Mitchell. In Boothbay Harbor the user charge is based on 

the water—it is tied in with the water district. And depending on how 

much water you use, that’s how much-----

Senator M uskie. Th at’s true in Waterville, too; isn’t it?

Mr. Purington. Boothbay has a sanitary district, but Thomaston 

isn’t a district, it is a municipality, and I think they use mostly 

taxation.

Senator Muskie. Well, thank you very much. At least we see 

something about the economic benefits of these programs. They’re 

not all cost.

Well, now we come to Gardiner: Paul Herman, city manager, and 

Milton Oakley, plant manager of Yorktowne Paper.
25

STATEMENTS OE PAUL HERMAN, CITY MANAGER, GARDINER, MAINE, AND MILTON OAKLEY, PLANT MANAGER, YORKTOWNE 

PAPER MILL

Mr. Herman. Well, do you want me to go first? Senator, in 1967, we completed plans a t the cost of $67,000 with the benefit of the 701 program for a primary treatme nt plant, ready to go to bid. After some agitation on the part of the DEP, or the EIC at the time, we had two paper industries, one, the S. D. Warren, which has been destroyed; and the Yorktowne Paper, which is still in operation— they are represented here today—it was decided i t would be best if they came into the system. So those plans were set aside and, at a cost to the city of $75,000, and plans were developed for a secondary treatment plant, the plant to be located in the same place down here, known as the Municipal Wharf. And in the process of one thing and another, we were not quite satisfied with the plans as meeting all the criteria. The upshot of it is that a third set of plans was completely drawn up on more of a regional basis, and tha t was done in 1971-72. And believe me, we have met every deadline, and the only line we get back is t hat you’re dead, but I ’ll illustrate that point. We have gotten together with the towns of Farmingdale and Randolph and for the purpose of this contract, it is a municipal con­ trac t allowed in the State of Maine to gather together and to meet 

some of these problems. The purpose of this contract is to provide an agreement whereby Farmingdale and Randolph will participate with Gardiner in the cost of constructing a water pollution control facility, along with certain common sewerage collection facilities for use for the collection and transmission of sewerage from Gardiner, Farmingdale, and Randolph, the water pollution control facility constructed in Gardiner. In addition, Gardiner, Farmingdale, and Randolph shall construct independent sewerage collection systems to connect with the common facilities above. The resulting water pollution control system shall collect and treat sewerage generated in Gardiner, Farmingdale, and Randolph including some portions of Pittston and South Gardiner. Th at was a first for us, and we got that, and tha t was consummated in 1971 and we went on to conclude the final construction plans which met the deadline of October 1, of 1972, and those are on file. To give you some idea, people have given you costs, and these figures here are old 1971 figures, so you’ll have to apply a rath er large correction factor. This total cost was $4,532,000, and to support that, it was divided between Gardiner, Farmingdale, and Randolph: $3,398,000 for Gardiner; Farmingdale, $556,000 and $578,000 for Randolph. And, at the time, I reported to the council, a recommendation for sewer rates to support this business which will make a—I might say tha t we have a contractual arrangement with Yorktowne which Mr. Oakley will go into later. But basically, we were looking, at that time, at $75 a year, or $15 per quarter, $60 for each residential unit, and $10 for each additional unit. Th at wasn’t adopted, but tha t gave me some idea of what this was going to cost, because we understand this thing had to be paid by user charges and we worked out the cost a t the time. I haven’t brought those figures up to date—well, we haven’t been faced with tha t particular problem for reasons that have already been 

cited.
26

Our problems in Gardiner are twofold. As stated, we have one main 

industry and then we have a problem that’s quite common to the rest 

of Maine communities, and it was brought out very acutely at the 

time we had a real estate development building some very fine homes. 

And it came to a problem whether he could hook onto the municipal 

sewer system known locally as the Lincoln Avenue extension or go to 

independent septic facilities. And we ran aground on I guess perhaps 

some State laws, as well as—they have State laws t ha t were put on 

the books to comply with the Federal laws as well, and it got down 

to the specific point tha t we were denied the request because the 

particular outfall we were going to connect with, the flow would 

increase, perhaps, 80 or 90 percent, and they were allowing 20 percent as a sort of an administrative allowance from the DEP. They 

were handling it tha t way and the gentlemen here will verify this 

thing. But they are faced with the problem of complying with their 

own laws, interpreting them, and hopefully this legislature will get 

back to that particular problem.

But that leads us into the very vitals of the city. If we cannot 

normally add some homes to our city, why, you are going to put 

Gardiner on the “no-no” list, and this is what I said, the deadlines 

are met, and even then the only line we get back is, “You’re dead,” 

you cut our growth and there is no tax money, in addition to which 

we have to meet our increased costs, which seems to be a way of life. 

But also the home building industry, we would like to have that 

active around here, as well as elsewhere, and tha t industry is severely 

handicapped. And I thought this, although legally I can’t criticize 

Mr. Adams and Mr. Purington—I mean, they are wrestling with the 

law as much as I am, but-----

Senator Muskie. What is the nature of that problem?

Mr. Adams. The problem is, Senator, the State law requires tha t 

any new discharge must receive the best practicable treatment, and 

the Attorney General’s office has indicated tha t the variances, or the 

grandfather right, of the municipalities do not hold for this type of 

expansion.

There was a hearing last week in the Legislative Committee and 

there is no doubt there is going to be a change in that procedure, 

and the Department is going to be allowed to grant variances and the 

question of the inequities of th e charges and Mr. Jacobs mentioned is 

one thing tha t is being discussed, and I think everybody there, including the committee, felt that we’ve got to change that. We can’t 

stymie development.

Mr. Herman. We’ve been working together on that, but nevertheless these—this is where an industry, now, you say the home 

building industry is very fundamental, and—but we have had three 

sets of plans ready to go to bid. The first was $67,000, which the 

Federal Government footed most of tha t bill through the 701 program; the $75,000 was right out of our tax money, and, hopefully, the 

last paym ent will be made next year. And then, at present, now, we 

are engaged in another $144,000, we’re ready to go to bid possibly, 

with the exception of the inflow/infiltration study, which I don’t know 

the exact effects of, but th at’s in process. And we’re arranging for an 

interest-free loan and tha t is being put through the council next 

Monday night, and again with the cooperation of the State environmental protection, that’s another $144,000.
27

We are into our secondary treatment plant. I think that we’ve got it well located now. Wev’e got i t out of the flood zone. We had a few other problems, but we’ve got it out of the flood zone and we are now taking care of the large p art of the city up here, where we’re located now and in South Gardiner. The other areas and the outlyings will have to come in at a later date, although the council wrestles with that periodically. But the amount of money involved would be substantial. So at this time, without further comment I ’d like to introduce Mr. Milton Oakley, who will give a statement from Yorktowne.

Senator Muskie. Mr. Oakley.

STATEMENT OF MILTON OAKLEY, PLANT MANAGER, YORKTOWNE 

PA PE R MILL

Mr. Oakley. Senator Muskie, perhaps you will want to know a little about the company that I represent. Yorktowne Paper Mills of Maine is a manufacturer of paperboard, the main end use of the product being various types of industrial packaging, more of it going into paper tubes and cores than any other single product. Our operation is similar in principle to other papermills except tha t our raw material consists exclusively of wastepaper rath er than pulp. We consume approximately 80 tons of wastepaper per produc­ tion day so that to tha t exten t we are contributing to the solution of the solid waste disposal problem. We have been m the business for 30 years and it is gratifying to us to find that recently we are being credited with performing a social service by doing precisely what we 

have always done. With 70 employees we are the fifth largest employer in the city of Gardiner. Our annual payroll is approximately $700,000. We recognize fully that when compared to much of the Nation’s businesses, these figures are not large, but we do take pride in the fact that in a commu­ nity the size of Gardiner and in a local economy th at can hardly be described as robust we are a significant and constructive factor. As is true of all business, our primary purpose is to make money and ours has been consistently profitable, but it is im portant to us t ha t we are providing the means of suppo rt for 70 families. As I understand it from the gentleman from your office who invited me to participate in this meeting, you are interested in our problems and ideas concerning existing requirements for water pollution abate­ ment and I want you to know tha t we very much appreciate this 

opportunity to express them to you. A brief history of the situation as it applies to Yorktowne is in order. In 1967 Yorktowne acquired Gardiner Paper Mills which had been in operation since 1947. We recognized at the time of the acquisition t hat treatmen t of our effluent was a necessity and i t was also evident tha t the city of Gardiner would have to treat its domestic sewage. Talks with the city authorities were begun at once based on the idea tha t the most efficient, least expensive and common sense approach was to design the city’s municipal treatment plant to accommodate our effluent. There was immediate agreement tha t this was the proper approach and neither the city or the company has expressed any doubt in the intervening years that such a cooperative effort was the only practical way to accomplish our common purpose.
28

Since then the city of Gardiner has gone through a number of 

stages of planning. To me the cost of this planning has been made 

excessive by changes in the law tha t required revisions in already 

completed plans. This is regrettable but perhaps it was necessary. 

In any event the city now has approved plans tha t meet the requirements of existing law. The plans specifically provide for the tre atment of effluent from Yorktowne based on established daily flow 

and the types and amount of pollutants contained in our effluent. 

I should add tha t within the past 6 months we have completed the 

installation of a prim ary treatment facility tha t has very substantially 

reduced the volume of flow and the amount of solids. We have an 

NPDE S permit and are in full compliance with its terms.

So what’s the problem? If the city of Gardiner has approved plans 

for a sewage disposal plant tha t includes treatm ent of this company’s 

effluent, if the condition of the company’s effluent when it is delivered 

to the city system meets all of the city’s requirements so tha t it can 

properly treat tha t effluent, is there really a problem?

Well, as I ’m sure you know, the problem for us lies in the fact 

tha t Maine State law requires tha t we be connected to the city system 

by October 1976, and Federal law requires tha t we do so by 1977, whether the system exists or not. We are in the distinctly uncomfortable position of having done all tha t we can do to comply with 

the law b ut until Federal funding is provided to the city we will be 

in violation of the law. Further, we are aware tha t if we are legally 

and technically in violation tha t we can be ordered to cease all operations. We have found it difficult to believe tha t under the circumstances the law would be tha t strictly enforced, but tha t is the way 

it reads and we worry about it.

About a year ago we concluded tha t a capital expenditure running 

well into six figures was necessary for us to maintain quality and 

quantity of production. It was extremely difficult for us to make 

such a commitment when we knew tha t within 2 years we would be 

in violation of S tate law and within 3 years in violation of Federal 

law and tha t the price of such violation could be a court order tha t 

would put us out of business.

We decided to go ahead with the project and are now in the midst 

of construction. It was essential to go ahead with it if we were to 

retain our competitive position and we felt that some how, in some 

way, we would be able to overcome or circumvent the ultimate penalty. 

It is profoundly uncomfortable to make an expensive decision in 

the face of such circumstances. We hope that we did not make a 

mistake.

The reason tha t I am so pleased to have had your invitation to 

participate here today is the opportunity tha t it gives me to lay 

the problem before you and ask for your help in its solution. Certainly 

the best solution is prompt Federal funding so tha t the city’s treatment plant can be built and so that we can tie into it and hence there 

will be no violation. However, since further delay in funding appears 

to be inevitable, a relaxation of the law would seem to be a practical 

interim solution.

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection is sponsoring 

legislation tha t will gran t that department permission to extend 

the time limit for private industry as it now does for municipalities.
29

This is certainl y a step in the righ t direction altho ugh there are points in tha t legislation that we find ve ry objectionable. Wi tho ut going into the pros and cons of tha t particula r piece of proposed legislation, it is significant tha t the D E P recognizes the problem and 

the need for a solution. We know tha t our effluent is poll utin g the stream. We don’ t like it. In the form of our primary trea tme nt system we have spent a good deal of mon ey in reducing tha t pollution. We are willing, eager, to further reduce it to an acceptab le level by discharging into the municipal syste m and are fu lly prepared to p ay our share of the capital cost of tha t syste m and our share of the operating cost. Bu t the cit y can’ t construct it with out Federal dollars. To us it seems necessary tha t the law be changed so tha t we are not required to perform until the wherewithal is provided to perm it us to perform. Yo u could logically ask whether it is in fac t necessary for us to wait for the construction of the municipal plant. Is it feasib le for us to construct our own system? We think not. Our engineers tell us tha t the cost of such a project would so far exceed our share of the cost of a municipal plant tha t we would not want to consider it. We have not squarely faced the question as to whether we would be forced to cease operation ent irely rather than bear the cost of the construction of our own treatme nt fac ilit y and we feel tha t it should not be necessary to face it. Ra the r we would hope tha t the dollars would be made available as soon as possible and tha t we, and we assume many others in the same situation, would be perm itted to proceed as we have been doing until the dollars are available. We have no wa y of know ing how many other businesses there are throu ghout the coun try tha t face the same problem, but we assume tha t there are a great many. We are not so presumptuous as to ask the Congress of the United Sta tes to pass a law for the benefit of a single employer of 70 people, bu t to ask it for a large number of employers and employees seems eminently reasonable. In summing up, I would repeat tha t we are in no wa y attempting to evad e our responsibility to abate pollution. On the contrar y we are anxious to do our part. We recognize and are prepared to pay our share of the cost of accom plishing it. Our plea is to be permitted to do it in the most prac tical and least expensive wa y possible with out the threat of being forced out of business. Th ank you.

Senator M usk ie. I appreciate that presentation, Mr. Oakley. I might make some obse rvations at this point in order to respond. Fir st of all, when we enacted the 1972 act, we prov ided sufficient funding, $18 billion to catch up with the back log. A t least, tha t was our objective. Two things hav e happened since, of course, the im­ poundment of half tha t mon ey and inflation, and both of those have enorm ously distorted the fund ing of plants as they came off the draw­ ing boards, and second, the deadlines whic h the law established in conju nction with tha t funding and we’ve been aware for sometime, of course, tha t we faced both problems. The impoundment led, of course, to the litigation which ultimate ly reached the Supreme Court , and the Supreme Co urt finally handed down a decision this yea r. Bu t while tha t litigation was pending, the Congr ess was in a difficult position to do any thin g to supplemen t the the 1972 act. We didn ’t kno w wheth er the $9 million which had been

54-717 0 - 75 - 5
30

impounded would be made available or if it would be made available, when and how it should be programed, th at ’s an uncertain question. 

So, until the Supreme Court acted, we were really in a state of suspended animation, knowing all the time that the deadlines were 

rapidly approaching and were likely to be slipped, tha t projects were 

ailing up on the shelves, creating frustration in every community 

ps we have witnessed here this morning. And so, at this point, we are 

faced with these kinds of questions which Mr. Oakley has raised and 

which others of you have raised, and the Congress hopefully this 

year will make some decisions. I can’t anticipate what they are, 

but I would expect Congress to be realistic. You may not think of 

Congress as a realistic body most of the time, but I do think there is 

an effort to be. I would hope tha t we can respond to the questions 

tha t you have raised, and we have no desire to shut down industry 

or to repeal it or to repeal civilization, so I hope we can do it.

Now, it is interesting that in the State legislature there is some 

legislation to deal with this question. I think we ought to include in 

the record a staff document from DE P which is described as An 

Informational Report on Proposed Variances in Municipal Pollution 

Abatement Time Schedules. [See appendix A, p. 55].

Senator Muskie. And then two legislative documents—one, which 

I gather, represents your legislation, L.D. 702-----

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.

Senator Muskie [continuing]. And L.D. 951, which has been introduced by Mr. Hall. (See appendix A, pp. 66 and 69.) Both of those, 

of course, are addressed to the question that you have raised here, 

Mr. Oakley. And my own personal judgment is that it was perfectly 

appropriate for industries and municipalities to consider the possibility 

of joint ventures and to make commitments and to proceed on tha t 

assumption. And if, because of these developments which I have 

briefly described, they find themselves caught in a squeeze on time and 

funding, I don’t think they ought to be penalized for it. Th at’s my 

personal view. I t doesn’t give you an answer to the present problem.

It’s interesting tha t here this morning we have heard tha t Guilford 

Industries for the very good reasons which have been described by 

Mr. Jacobs is doing nothing at the moment about proceeding with 

the plant. It’s paying nothing for reasons that have also I think been 

well described.

A orktowne Paper, involving the pretreatment process, of its own 

construction, primary treatment, are paying nothing toward a plant 

and are worried about w'hat to do; and A. C. Lawrence, which is now 

in a system and has already started making full payment, as I understand—

Mr. Finnegan. We’re on the verge.

Senator Muskie. On the verge of it.

Mr. Finnegan. Yes.

Senator Muskie. And they have the funding and are ready to go 

ahead. So, three different circumstances. Are you going to be slipping 

a deadline a t all, on this plant? I gather not.

Mr. Finnegan. Just the same one that applies to Yorktowne 

Paper.

Senator Muskie. 1976?

Mr. Finne ga n. 1976. Yes.

Se na tor M us ki e. 1976, then. I forgo t th e Na tio nal 1977.
31

Mr. Finnegan. No. We will meet it. No. I’m sorry.

Senator Muskie. Oh, you will be meeting it?

Mr. Finnegan. We will meet it, yes.

Senator Muskie. What is the-----

Mr. Adams. October 1, 1976.

Senator Muskie. October 1, 1976. Well, you’ll be meeting it.

Mr. Finnegan. Yes, we will.

Senator Muskie. Now, there is one other development underway tha t ought to be brought to your attention. The 1972 act created a National Water Quality Commission of which I am a vice chairman, Vice President Rockefeller is chairman. There are 15 members, 5 public and 5 from each House of Congress. And it is the responsibility of that Commission to look down the road 10 or 15 years to give us a more definitive picture of what the problem is and what the difficulties are and what the challenges are in meeting this goal of clean water. And that report should be available by the end of this calendar year, I would think. And tha t may give us some insights, too, upon which the Congress can build new policy and to which you can respond. Now, I understand your frustration about changing of requirements. But the set of circumstances we have listened to this morning indicate why sometimes, requirements have to be changed. And I would hope that they will be minimal but you do have to build on developing knowledge and changing circumstances. Sometimes those changes are convenient as required by some municipalities and in other cases they are just a frustration and a nuisance. Tha t happens when you try to write national legislation which applies to so many different 

kinds of situations. Well, with those observations, let me ask all of you to think with the perspective of the whole morning’s discussion in mind, that you will try to pinpoint the sticking points, the problems, with the legisla­ tion th at you try to live under, with the problems tha t have developed, with the problems we are now struggling with, what kind of a critique would you make? You know, 1 would like to get a frank discussion of 

that.

Mr. Herman. One, you are going to have to extend the deadline. Now, whether you want to do tha t carte blanche—you might want to develop some guidelines on that. Th at might be, in itself, unfair, but you have an emergency situation. At least, extend the deadlines x-times and then I think, probably, from there on, you should work in some guidelines as to what to do and as is cited by Yorktowne, well, you can go, “your license will be renewed but, maybe, certain—such- and-such will be done.” Either tha t or you just have to limit them to continual revision. I’ll limit my remarks to say you’ve just got to 

extend those deadlines.

Senator Muskie. How about using the variance? I think the State 

legislature would use variances for this purpose.

Mr. Herman. Well, then, if it was permissible to get that. I ’d have to ask Bill on that. Your variances—Are you allowed to grant variances under the present law? Or under the one tha t would be 

amended?

Mr. Adams. The amendments that are before the legislature will allow us to gran t variances to the industries. We now can to the 

municipalities.

Mr. Herman. I see.
32

Mr. Adams. The proposals will include industries, but tha t won’t 

solve the special questions.

Senator Muskie. No; all you could give would be a 1-year variance 

under State law, unless the Federal law were changed. Th at’s the 

point you’re making, Bill?

Mr. Adams. Yes.

Senator M uskie. So that throws the ball back into our court.

Mr. Herman. Well, Senator, the thing is to make it so they are 

given reasonable criteria to grant a variance, and I’m sure that, under 

the circumstances, the board will listen to all the facts. Now, to give 

them carte blanche extension, that’s the simplest, administratively, 

but I think they’ve gone into this extensively, why, perhaps a combination of 1-year or 2-year blanket extension and, then after that, 

variances may be done under the guise of the various State boards 

and the EPA, et cetera. But there should be some legal method for 

them to consider all these factors in granting them.

The fact tha t it was done, say, in the first place, you didn’t anticipate 

these things, you perhaps wouldn’t be gathered today, they’d feel 

competent to, all right, I can give you a variance up to such-and-such, 

but you’ve got to do so-and-so by x years. But you’ve got to build 

in some legal flexibility there and then I think the good judgment of 

the various boards and State governments will take over from there.

Senator M uskie. Charlie?

Mr. J acobs. Senator, I’d also make another point to add to that, 

tha t I think we have got to do something tha t can give industry 

some assurance tha t they can come into a town like Guilford or 

Dexter or Dover without facing a penalty 2 years down the road. 

Mr. Oakley mentioned that Yorktown took a chance, really. They 

assumed that the Federal Government would do something. But perhaps a company might not come into Dexter, for instance, knowing 

tha t they would meet a deadline and without assurance that there 

would be some way of—well, they might be very hesitant to come into 

Dexter or those towns. Th at’s the problem, maybe one problem with 

the variance procedure is tha t a company that might be prepared to 

move into a town, unless they could get their variance in advance, 

in some way, might not be willing to do that.

Senator Muskie. And you are stating the situation where there 

isn’t a treatment plant in existence with the capacity to absorb-----

Mr. J acobs. Th at’s right. There will be no treatment plan t by 

1977.

Senator Muskie. Yes.

Mr. J acobs. It makes it very difficult to a ttra ct industry.

Senator Muskie. Th at’s an important-----

Mr. Jacobs. It is difficult enough as it is.

Mr. Freshman. I jus t make the observation tha t—and I know th at 

there are some problems with it, really, but the land treatment system 

in the State of Michigan has worked out some of its mechanical bugs 

and they are at the point of attracting industry. In fact, they can’t 

accommodate all the industry tha t wants to come there during a 

national peiiod that is obviously recessionary, simply because of 

the capability and flexibility of their waste treatment systems. To a 

certain extent, a good system which is designed properly can actually 

serve to attract industry and Muskegon was the poorest area in 

Michigan.
33

Mr. Herman. My next point was going to be, we’ve been ta / ing 

about survivial rights of our existing industries.

Senator Muskie. Yes.

Mr. Herman. We’ve been so much concentrating on survival. It ’s a no-no subject when you get into something new. Moving something new into a town and the first question is, what is your waste? I don’t know about where we stand on that. If we were to bring in new industry tha t would cause pollution, I ’m a little bit rusty on that, but I think tha t would be a very, very severe hurdle. There’s no doubt tha t once you’ve got this thing, wonderful. But there, again, that just compounds the problems that I just mentioned with our housing industry. We like to attr act good quality housing to provide the people and now, when we are acting with the concoction of the laws we were stopped. But hopefully we have got that—we’ve overcome that, but the delay is also lethal in timing.

Mr. Herman. We’ve lost an up to 70-odd house development of the very exclusive variety, which would have been a tremendous asset 

to the town.

Senator Muskie. Legitimate-----

Mr. Herman. Survival. Now you’re talking a new one. You’ve got 

a new ball game.

Senator Muskie. Anyone else like to comment? What’s the word 

from the St. John River Valley?

Mr. Cyr. Well, I only point out tha t the availability of money for loans, you know, for towns. Right now the best we can do is probably FHA and th at’s 5 percent. And maybe some towns can afford that, but I know there are a lot tha t would find tha t relatively high over a number of years and I think the Federal Government should look into the problem of maybe allowing loans with a lower interest rate for municipalities. I think tha t would help the situation some.

Mr. Jacobs. If I may add to that, Senator, I think, at least in our area, we need—Guilford needs more than loans to help with our collection system. They simply can’t afford to pay off tha t principal.

Senator Muskie. Tha t seems evident.

Mr. Jacobs. Whether it ’s 5 percent or 2 percent, they still can’t 

do it.

Senator Muskie. Any other observations?

STATEMENT OF JOHN FORSTER, SOUTHERN KENNEBEC VALLEY 

REGIONAL PLAN NING COMMISSION

Mr. F orster. My name is John Forster from the Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission, and I didn’t know about this 

meeting. I heard about it yesterday. It seems to me that one of our problems in dealing with this whole issue is the process problem. When we get a law like the amendments of 1972, I don’t feel we get enough information as to how the process is going to work so tha t we can explain it. Have it explained to us first, and then can translate it, and we get into problems of not understanding how it all fits together or how individual communities are run through it. And tha t gets us into a lot of nonproductive con­ versation where everybody has got some ideas of what’s going to happen and nobody really knows what is going to happen.
34

As an exam ple, in the Ga rdine r situatio n where they were rea dy to 

go to construc tion and then found ou t that, because of a chan ge in 

priorities, which we agreed with, they were no t going to go to construction on the ir timetable, it raised a whole group of new questions 

for the three towns. How do they sta y tog eth er for a decade if they 

are continua lly asked to mak e changes in the ir plan or con tinually 

told th at they can’t build?

It seems to me th at in the process of develop ing thes e things, if 

som ebody could work through all the differen t situatio ns th at could 

arise and pu t them all tog ether, we wouldn’t be flou ndering around 

in midstrea m, trying to satisfy every body’s req uest for inform atio n, 

and I guess wh at I am coming dow n to is a proposal th at if y ou are 

going to review the 1972 am endm ents, th at somebody be the re to 

draw the process lined rig ht throug h th at act and come up with 

answ ers th at we can give ahead of the problem s ra th er th an behind.

I would also like to mentio n th at the 208 process, which has no t 

been discu ssed tod ay, we feel can be extremely valuab le in answering 

some of yo ur questions ab ou t new tech niqu es, because this is the first 

time th at we have ever had an op po rtu nity to spend money for 

pre ser vation and for alterna tives. Un fortu na tel y o ur poor communities 

here are all rea dy past that. Th ey really know the y need facilities 

and every time the y slip a year, they see an increase in costs and th at 

brin gs lots of heat, anger, which I think is understandable , given the 

fac t th at they were told, in no uncerta in term s, to meet some deadlines. And they sta rte d the ir process and are now told to pu t it into a 

holding pa tte rn . So I thi nk th at’s basic, wh at I ’m com mentin g here ; 

I ’m questio ning.

Senator Mus kie. Well, th at , of course, is wholly due to the fact 

we had a Presi dent who didn ’t recognize the fac t his veto had been 

overridd en! [Laughter.]

Mr. F resh man. I might add on that, add itio nal ly, the Senat or 

referred to the Commission on W ater Quality, and I know th at one 

of the ir conclusions is going to be th at the inform ation on how t» 

cope with the new program w’as no t diss eminated to the people 

th at a ctu all y hav e to do it. The in- depth stu dy of the i mp lem ent ation 

of the constru ction gr an t pro gra m and the imple me nta tion of the 208 

program have, you know, unc overed that, over and ove r again. I 

think th at will provide more inf oim ati on for the sub com mittee to 

use on th at sub ject.

Senator M us kie . Yes; we have great hope s for the 208 prog ram, 

and we’re delighte d th at it has help ed some of the main init iative s 

of this bill.

Mr. Adams. Senator, it mi gh t be wise to tell everyone, as I ’m sure 

you know, th at Maine was chosen one of the eig ht State s for the indepth stu die s for the W ate r Qu ali ty Commission investiga tion, and 

th at should bring to ligh t the ve ry problems th at have been discussed 

here tod ay.

I would— I hav e two or three othe r points on which------

Senator M us kie. Yes.

Mr. Adams [continuing]. You have asked for inform atio n. I think 

ma ny of the fru strations th at have been voiced tod ay are n ow behind 

us. The change in the State reg ula tions are now beh ind us. The De ­

pa rtm en t doesn ’t see great changes needed in Public Law 92-50 0. We 

see some da ted to be slipp ed, but I think yo u’ve got to look at the
35

problems of industry and how they can be accommodated into it, and perhaps the answer to tha t is tha t variances would be issued to in­ dustries that are a part and have valid contracts with municipalities. I think tha t the real problem tha t has been voiced here today, and at the hearing when I appeared before you in Washington, is funding, pure and simple. Everyone of the problems voiced here today, the State could solve if we had dollars, Federal dollars. We see a need for something like $40 million, on a regular basis—Federal funds given to 

the S tate of Maine for this program. One other item tha t you might consider is the previous act allowed prefunding. This gave communities tha t had unusual problems the opportunity to go ahead in anticipation of funds. I know of one com­ munity th at is not represented here today which was more than willing to prefund 100 percent of a very worthwhile project which would solve a pollution problem. Th at might be something you would want to investigate. I understand the problems of prefunding, but it certainly was a useful tool and gave Maine a real headstart on this problem. You know, in a nutshell, it ’s just tha t we need dollars, that’s all.

Mr. Finnegan. Are the national standards of water quality in agreement with the States’ standards of water quality? I mean, as­ suming tha t we have overcome all the obstacles which have been voiced here this morning, then when we finally do discharge into the stream, are the national standards in agreement with the State, or are the States more stringent or—I was jus t curious about that.

Mr. Adams. No; I think they are in step, but say, keeping in mind the goals of Public Law 92-500 which is for fishable, swimable waters.

Mr. Finnegan. Yes.

Mr. Adams. And I think the State and the Federal goals, standards, 

are walking hand in hand.

Mr. Finnegan. Yes.

Senator Muskie. May I say this about the Maine situation. I—I understand all the problems, frustrations, and the tone of pessimism tha t permeates so much of what has been said this morning, b ut Maine really is ahead of the rest of the country. We were the first State to provide State matching funds in 1957 for this program, the year after the program was created. And Maine, as far as I know, is the only State in a position to take full advantage, at once, of the release of the impounded funds. We have got projects ready to go, and Bill testified in Washington that the full amount of tha t money should be in the construction phase within 12 months. So that, to a certain extent, many of these frustrations are behind for so much of Maine tha t it could well become the situation tha t attracts people to come into this State, because you’ve got your base pretty well in a position to be laid. So now, what you need is to build on that. There are other States that haven’t advanced this far, so they are going to have to grow through some of those frustrations tha t Maine has already gone through. So there is some reason to be optimistic. The rest of the responsibility is ours in Washington to provide the funding and we’ll try to do that, now that we’ve got all of the uncertainties generated 

by the impoundment out of the way. The only other uncertainty now is the Federal budget. And we’ll have to deal with that, or we’re going to find ourselves spending deficits instead of spending dollars. But I guess th at’s unavoidable. Well, are there other observations? Yes, Mr. Warren, from Jackman, who has been nice to come down and submit a written statem ent. Would you 

care to comment, Mr. Warren?
36

STATEMENT OF LEON A. WARREN, TOWN MANAGER, JACKMAN, 

MAINE

Mr. Warren. Thank you. I have the impression tha t our problems 

are somewhat different up to this point than most tha t I’ve heard 

discussed this morning.

We are, and have been for some little time, No. 1 on the funding 

list, until ju st recently when, because of the decision tha t we were not 

ready to go to construction, we are now backed off, that’s until next 

year. But I think the impressions of our people in our small communities are im portant.

I agree with Mr. Cyr tha t perhaps the umbrella, the engineering 

umbrella, I might sav, tha t is put over the whole country could be 

revamped. I feel confident, for example, that our own D epartment of 

Environmental Protection, their engineering expertise, is as good as 

tha t which might come from far places. And, if that were true, if it 

were recognized, Jackman would perhaps already be in construction.

These things in small towns, ours is only 850 people, and I shudder 

to think tha t we have not yet arrived a t the point where many of these 

people are, concerning funding. But we are the first town over the 

border, coming from Quebec. And whether they mean it or not, their 

attitudes, their impressions of government, are transmitted to visitors, 

to tourists, as they come into our town. And they face an unusual 

situation which is not directly related to pure water or clean water. 

It ’s true that we discharge into the headwaters of the Kennebec 

River, Holeb Pond, Big Wood Lake, and Attean Lake are the headwaters and Moose River, and we discharge directly into these waters. 

We also discharge at certain times of the year when p art of the septic 

system is flooded by the lake into Big Wood Lake, a hundred yards 

from were we take our water supply. This is important. This has to do 

with clean water.

But there are other areas. Our whole collection system has deteriorated to the point where it is breaking up. And 25 to 30 percent of the 

town is without a septic system, in any event, septic systems which 

do not function. The soil will not—has not the capability, in that area, 

to take care of septic systems. I think this is true in Madawaska to a 

large extent. And actually on some of our streets, the ditches are the 

septic systems. And these people read the papers, and they recently 

have read tha t they will no longer be allowed to discharge directly 

into the river, and what is the alternative? Septic systems in a territory that’s not capable of taking them, which means gravel banks or 

gravel beds, at a cost of anywhere from $1,500 to $7,500, they read. 

They are not quarreling with a $150 or more a year as a user fee because in the long run i t may cost them many times that. And so, we 

are in a community with a high rate of unemployment. We can see 

and can be frustrated by the fact tha t bureaucracy, which they are 

impatient with in a small town, far removed, because they are people 

who work in the woods, and when they swing an ax, something 

happens.

Senator Muskie. The ax isn’t swung very often in Washington. 

[Laughter.]

Mr. Warren. But being used to action and being used to being 

perhaps quite independent, getting things done. For example, recently, Bill, they laid 1,000 feet of their own sewerline without help
37

from anybody. This impatience is transm itted to our guests who come into the country. But, more than that, they are unemployed, they see tha t immediate construction could, perhaps, take care of the total unemployment situation in our small town. They know th at they 

have been at it since 1969. In a small town they hear many reasons for these things, most of which are not accurate. I ’m not sure tha t this contributes to this meeting, at all, except that I think that impres­ sions are important, I think they should be recognized. In your town you must have some of this same type of thing, Mr. Cyr, and certainly we are all in favor of clean water, but much closer to us is our own sanitary situation, our own unemployment expense annually of rebuilding inadequate sewer systems to begin with. I have no answers. I think we perhaps have had delays tha t were not necessary, but most of us who are uninformed are likely to make inaccurate statements, so I wouldn’t want to do that. But I do see a need for immediate action in the smaller communities who are willing to do things. If that adds to this conference, it has been worthwhile to come from Jackman and, in any event, I appreciate the opportunity.

Senator Muskie. Well, it is, indeed, appropriate. It m ight interest you to know tha t I heard these same arguments made in the Senate Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, not so long ago. Now tha t the Supreme Court has spoken, maybe we can get some of these things moving. And since we are in a recession, it is a good way to make jobs. And where it is frustrated with the fact tha t the bureauc­ racy doesn’t seem to carry out our intentions rapidly as you are. So we’re on both sides of th at great divide, but I hope we come to grips with tha t problem. We may not still act as fast as you would like, we still may not move as fast as you would like, but I think it ’s going to move faster. I think we are going to do the job, I really do. Do you have something, John?

Mr. Freshman. I was just going to say tha t we recognize and heard of those at the hearing where I also was with the Senator, tha t these construction grant funds are about the only real Federal funds available to the towns any more, with the programs tha t were dried up under the Nixon administration. The highway program is phased out in most places and the unemployment indication is rather high, especially in a town like Jackman. We want to get them going for tha t reason, as well as to clean up the water. In other words, both purposes—the fact tha t we have a rathe r high unemployment rate which was just announced yesterday as getting higher, and we have a serious w ater problem, can come together here. For tha t reason, we want to move them as fast as we can now, too.

Senator Muskie. We so often seem to be getting involved in make- work projects to put people to work in a time of unemployment, when here is something that needs to be done. And it seems to me now is the time to do those things and create jobs and also serve a more useful, you know, a long-term purpose. It makes so much sense. The economists, you know, don’t like public work projects to meet a recession because, they say, it takes too much lead time and you waste a lot of time. I think this is the best kind, to put people actually 

to work on something useful. I drove into Rumford, which is the town where I was born, recently and those of you who know Rumford know t hat the business section

54-717 0 - 75 - 6
38

of the town is on an island in the Androscoggin River. And, periodically, we are troubled by floods. And there was a big one in 1936 and a few of you are old enough to remember it, with me, bu t I drove across 

the bridge onto the island recently and there was this big concrete 

butter and the workmen had scrawled on it “WPA, 1936” . Now, there is a permanent public work that has protected tha t island, that 

business section, almost 40 years now. That is the kind of thing tha t 

has lasting value and it created work at the time.

So we are very conscious of that, Mr. Warren, and the desirability 

of doing that. Whether we can get the money down to Jackman, just 

like that, I don’t know. We’ll have to depend on Bill Adams to carry 

it when we—if we can get it to him.

Mr. Adams. I think Jackman is No. 1.

Mr. Warren. You said something a few moments ago, tha t we are 

ahead of a great part of the Nation in our efforts. I would hope that 

that’s because of the people we have working, and I think tha t goes 

back again to the idea of the engineering umbrella over the complete 

country, when our own folks who, in this instance, know Jackman, 

know the size of it, know the soil conditions, know what infiltration 

and inflow means in tha t town, how much it has to be tested, the 

criteria they might establish might be much more valuable than the 

criteria created at a national level.

Senator Muskie. Well, it’s a question of balancing, Mr. Warren.

I agree. I’m all for getting these decisions down as close to the local 

level as possible. The fact is, of course, that if you have the national 

programing, you have to have some national standards. Flexibility 

within those standards ought not to be too detailed. But they have 

to lay down the objectives. We have really been all involved in a 

learning process here for the last 10 years. I hope we’ve reached the 

point now where we can be a little loose, and a little more flexible and 

delegate authority to get the thing moving. I ’m all for that.

I don’t think Washington is very good in actually doing the detailed operation of these programs. Washington is the policy setting. 

Down here is where you get it executed, I think. At least, that’s my 

feelings on it.

[Mr. Warren’s statement and a memorandum from Mr. Purington 

follow:]

Statement of Leon Warren, Town Manager, J ackman, M aine

To share with you “the experience of your community in dealing with the law” 

is to share with you a record of frustration.

In 1969, a Sewer District was created in Jackman. Since that time one might 

get the impression that our federal government does not really want to clean 

up the water, a t least not the waters of the Kennebec. The waters of the Kennebec 

River originate in Holeb Pond, Attean Lake, Big Wood Lake and the Moose 

River. The sewer disposal for Jackman is direct discharge into Big Wood Lake 

and the Moose River. Further, the domestic water supply is taken from Big 

Wood Lake only a few hundred yards from the sewer discharge and only about 

one hundred yards from the leachfield serving about twenty homes; said leach 

field being only a few feet from the lake shore and always flooded by the lake and 

non-functional in the spring of the year.

Since 1969 there have been constant road blocks and delays for one reason or 

another, not the least of which was the impoundment of funds.

It was not until 1974 that Jackman arrived near the top of the priority list 

even though the situation of discharge into both our domestic water supply as 

well as into the headwaters of the Kennebec had been a fact since the Sewer 

District had been created in 1969.
39

Apparently it was assumed tha t because we were not in line for funding, there was no urgency with design of final treatment, an assumption, incidentally, with which I do not agree. When we did reach the top of the list in 1974, final design, according to our engineer, was delayed by new and additional criteria. Now final design is dealyed once again because E .P.A., contends that the engineer did not comply with requirements— requirements which an engineer on the spot determined were met from a practical point of view, with certification from D.E .P. This determination not to accept flow-gauging from the engineer, was made by the Regional Administrator who, I venture to guess, has never been to Jackman and who I suspect, has a work load sufficient to keep him in a Boston office where he must make judgments from statistics rather than from first hand, practical knowledge of a situation such as our own D.E .P. and engineer do have. For the record, I present with this statement, a letter from the Regional Director which outlines the position of the E.P .A. I assume D.E.P. must also have a point of view to express. Certainly the engineer who by this letter from E. P. A. , is accused of not fulfilling requirements, must have a statement. However, nothing at this point is as important as beginning construction on this sewer project immediately. Six years would seem to be ample time in which to design a sewer treatment plan t to the satisfaction of all concerned, especially 

for a town the size of Jackman. Clean water is even jnore important than it was in 1969. The need for adequate sewers is not less important than it was in 1969. Unemployment in Jackman is a very serious situation, and this one project, started now, within this month, could perhaps virtually wipe out all unemploy­ ment here. If other funds are not available, then we suggest money earmarked to relieve unemployment could be made available. Whatever construction is begun now, could not progress so far as to seriously affect the cost of final design before the required infiltration and inflow tests could be made and necessary adjustments to final design determined. Finally, I realize th at testimony such as this from the uninformed and frustrated citizens of any community, may only serve to further complicate an already confusing situation. In any event, there must be a way to meet this immediate 

need.
40

4 * 1 * * -

STATE OF MAINE

"> 01

W IL LIA M II. A llA M S, Jit.

COMMIS SIONE R

/D e p a rtm e n t of En vironm en tal Protection

MEMORANDUM

A D M IN IS T R A TIO N

289-28 11 March 21, 1975

BUREAUS OF:

A IR Q U A L IT Y CONTR OL

289 24 37

LA NO Q U A L IT Y CONTROL

28 9-37 62

W ATE R Q U A L IT Y CONTROL

289-25 91

TO:

FROM: unngton , In le f, D1v of Municipal Services, DEP

M A IN O FFIC E:

STATE HO USE

AUGU STA 04 33 0

SUBJECT: Municipal P ri o ri ty Point System Revision and FY 7fi Construction 

Grant Program

R EG IO N AL OFF ICES :

BANG OR

31 C E N T R A L ST RE ET

BANGOR 04 401

94 7- 674 6

PO RTLA N D

415 CO NGRES S ST REE I

PO RTLA N D 04101

775-65 87

PR ES QU E ISLE

63 4 M A IN ST REE T

PR ES QU E ISLE 04 769

76 4-37 37

The DEP w il l hold a public hearlnq on April 7, 1975 at the Augusta 

Civic Center at 10:00 am to present it s Continuing Planning Process 

pursuant the Federal Water Pollutio n Control Act Amendments of 1972.

Part of the hearing w il l present the construction pr ojec t lis t that 

w il l be funded with the released Impounded funds fo r Fiscal Years 

1973, 1974 and 1975. These pro jec ts were picked from our p ri o rit y 

11st established at the pu blic hearlnq on March 15, 1974. These projects were picked from our p rio rit y 11st on the basis of being able 

to proceed to construction with in a six months period.

A lis t of te nta tive pro jects fo r Step One (F a c ilit ie s Planninq) and 

Step Two (Final Design) w il l be presented at the public hearlnq.

Projects to be funded with future Fiscal Year Federal allottme nts w il l 

be determined from the revised p rio rit y 11st presented at the hea ring. 

P ri o ri ty 3 (Severe Environmental Nuisance) has been redefined to attempt 

to make the DEP’ s in te nt cle arer and to separate I t from P ri o ri ty Six. 

The "most upstream source" category has been deleted from this p rio rit y 

po int system. The Add-on Category B (EPA P rio rit y Basin) has been In ­

creased from one po int to three po ints.

The following Items are enclosed with th is memorandum:

1. Construction Project Lis t.

2. Supplemental Construction Proje ct L is t.

3. Proposed Step One and Two Proje ct L is t.

4. Revised P rio rit y Poin t System.

5. Revised State Municipal Discharge Inv entory.

DAP:j1g

Enc.
41

PROPOSED PROJECTS

MUNIC IPA LITY

M illin o c k e t 

W e lls S.D .

York S.D .

Madawaska 

El 1s w o rth *

W est bro ok 

P o rtl a n d * *

Old Town

M ilf o r d

P i t t s f ie l d

Topsham S.D .

B ru nsw ic k S.D . ( I n t . )

W il to n

TOTAL:

ELIGIB LE CONST. COST

$ 5 ,6 4 6 ,0 0 0 

8 ,7 0 5 ,0 0 0 

3 ,4 3 6 ,0 0 0 

2 ,1 9 9 ,0 0 0 

2 ,8 0 0 ,0 0 0 

1 5 ,8 0 0 ,0 0 0 

4 4 ,2 0 0 ,0 0 0 

3 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0 

350,0 00 

2 ,9 0 0 ,0 0 0 

2 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0 

9 70,0 00 

2 ,7 0 0 ,0 0 0

$ 95 ,3 0 6 ,0 0 0

E .P .A .

$ 4 ,2 3 4 ,5 0 0 

6 ,5 2 8 ,7 5 0 

2 ,5 7 7 ,0 0 0 

1 ,6 4 9 ,2 50 

2 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0 

11 ,8 0 0 ,0 00 

3 3,1 5 0 ,0 0 0 

2 ,4 7 5 ,0 0 0 

262,5 00 

2 ,2 0 0 ,0 0 0 

1 ,7 0 0 ,0 00 

730,0 00 

2 ,0 2 5 ,0 0 0

$7 1, '432 75 00

♦ E ll s w o rth - FHA and EDA fu n d in g com m itte d

* * P o rtl a n d - WWTF, Back 

In d ia S t. P .S . to Maple

Cov e, o u t f a l l, I n d i a S t. P .S ., Fore R iv e r I n t . from 

S tr e e t and fo r c e main fr om In d ia S t. P .S . to WWTF.
SUPPLEMENTAL PROJECT LIS T FOR PROJECTS TO TAKE PLACE OF PROJECTS ON 

PRIMARY LIST THAT CAN NOT PROCEED TO CONSTRUCTION IN CALENDAR YEAR 1975

MUNICIPALITY ELIGIBLE CONST. COST

/Me

/ j a

D ix fie ld Lf,1? '

xic o S.D.

Gard in e r

armingd ale

Randolph

Bangor (Kend In t . E x t. ) 

H a llo w e ll W.D.

Augusta S.D.

Cape E liza b e th (S ou th) 

Brun sw ick S.D . (WWTF) 

Cumberland

TOTAL

E.P .A .

$ 400,0 00 $ 30 0,00 0

600,0 00 40 0,0 00

, 5 .3 0 0 .OOP, 3,97 5

1 ,02 5,00 0 768,7 50

1,00 0,00 0 750,0 00

1, 00 0,00 0 750,0 00

1, 00 0,00 0 750,0 00

6, 00 0,00 0 4, 500 ,0 00

5, 50 0,00 0 4,1 00 ,0 00

3, 63 0,00 0 2, 722 ,5 00

3,90 0,00 0 2, 900 ,0 00

$2 9,35 5,00 0 $ 21 ,916 ,250

STEP 1 & 2 PROJECTS

Ste p 1

Dex ter U.D.

Corinna S.D .

A .P .T .D . (Presque Is le )

Ba yside V il la g e Co rp. (N o rt h p o rt ) 

Mechanic F a ll s S.D.

Lin co ln S.D .

Ve azie S.D .

D over- F oxcro ft 

Gre at S a lt Bay S.D .

Patte n

Sears port

Hampden

Howland

W in te rp o rt S.D .

Buc ks po rt

Ste p 2

Jackman S.D.

A .P .T .D . (C aribou) 

Sca rborou gh S.D .

B rid g to n

E lls w o rt h

G u il fo rd -S a n g e rv il le S.D. 

Newport S.D .

L in c o ln S.D .

Me chanic F a ll s S.D .

Ea st M il li n o c k e t 

Grand Is le 

Norrid ge woc k W.D.

S to nin gto n
43

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

MUNICIPAL PRIORITY POINT SYSTEM

The Department of Environmental Protection as part of its Annual State Strategy has to prepare a Municipal Priority Point System to place proposed construction projects in relative priority that take into account national and Maine problem 

areas.

The system contains eight (8) basic priorities grouped into three broad categories; serious water quality problems, treaties and statutes, and minor water quality 

problems.

The first group, serious water quality problems, contains three priorities, Water Supply and ShelIfisheries Protection, both with 20 points, and Nuisance with 19 points. The second group has two priorities, U.S. Treaty Obligations with 17 points, and Statutory Time Schedules with 16 points. The last group contains three 

priorities ranging from 14 to 12 points.

In addition to these eight basic priorities, there are six (6) add-on categories with points values ranging from 10 to 2. These add-on categories are identified 

as A through F.

This system is used to develop both the one year construction project list and also the Municipal Discharge Inventory list, or long term construction project list.

All eight priorities and the six add-ons are discussed in detail below:

BASE POINTS

Priority 1 Water Supply Protection 20 Points

The project to be funded will eliminate a source of water supply contamination. This priority denotes that a potential public health hazard does exist and that without such project, alternative sources of water would be required or additional 

water treatment would be necessary.

Priority 2 ShelIfisheries Protection 20 Points

This priority denotes that the project will eliminate a source of shelIfisheries contamination. The project will eliminate sources of waste that are partially or wholly responsible for a shellfishery area which is presently closed.

Priority 3 Severe Environmental Nuisance 19 Points

This priority denotes that a serious problem exists in the proposed project area, such as large municipal waste loads discharging into small bodies of water which cause a substantial lowering of the dissolved oxygen content of the waterway, a substantial portion of the project area is on malfunctioning subsurface disposal facilities causing potential severe health hazard or pot?ntial economic losses in recreational areas because of untreated or inadequately treated sewage wastes. 

Priority 4 Treaty Obligations 17 Points

This priority indicates that the project is located in .in area covered by the Boundary Waters Act of 1909 which states that both Canada and the U.S. would not 

dirty the waters of the other country.
44

P rio rit y 5 Statutory Time Schedule 16 Points

This p rio rit y denotes that the pr oje ct is on a st at ut or y time schedule enacted 

by the Maine Le gisla ture. These schedules include the Kennebec River, the 

Penobscot River, Hancock County, Waldo County, the Mousam River, and Section 451 

of the Maine Revised Statutes, Annotated. (Hereto referre d to as the "451" 

Schedule).

P rio rit y 6 Mi sc. Water Qua lity Problems 14 Points

This p rio rit y denotes that the problem is not as severe as those in P ri o ri ty #3 

but w il l requ ire abatement or co rrect ive ac tio n. This p rio rit y takes in to 

account local problems such as lim ited area of pr ojec t is on ma lfunctionin g 

subsurface disposal systems.

P rio rit y 7 Necessary to Maintain Water Qua lity 13 Points

This p rio rit y is given to problems which are not creating a nuisance or serious 

conditio ns oth er than vio la ting an assigned water qualit y standard. This would 

be ap plica ble to a small discharge located on a re la ti v e ly large ri v e r where 

ba cterial pollu tion may be a problem.

P rio rit y 8 Upgrading F a c ilit y 12 Points

This p rio rit y is assigned projec ts which require ad ditio na l fa c il it y cons turctio n. 

This would be applied to a primary treatm ent fa c il it y being upgraded to secondary, 

a secondary fa c il it y being upgraded to te rti a ry , or any fa c il it y re qu irinq 

expansion, co rrec tiv e ac tio n, or other renovation.

ADD-ON POINTS

A. Order and Directive 10 Points

A pr oje ct which has been ordered by a Federal Court, a Maine Court, or the Board 

of Environmental Protec tion, w il l rec eiv e ten (10) points in ad ditio n to its base 

po int to ta l.

B. EPA P ri o ri ty Basin 3 Points

A pr oje ct located in an EPA P ri o ri ty Basin w il l receive three ad ditio na l po ints. The 

St. Croix and the Androscoggin River Basins in Maine are EPA P rio rit y Basins at 

the present time.

C. Located on a Class I Segment 4 Points

Any pr oje ct located on a Class I Segment as defined by DEP in it s Segment Classif ic a ti o n System developed pursuant to T it le 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

Part 130.41, (40 CFR 130.41), w il l rec eiv e four (4) ad ditio na l po ints.

D. Located on a Class II Segment 3 Points

See C above fo r definitio n

E. Location on a Class I I I Segment 2 Points

See C above fo r d e finitio n.
45

F. Discharge Effects Lake System 4 Points

I f the proposed pr ojec t discharges in to a lake system or tr ib u ta ry thereo f, four (4) ad ditio na l points are added to the Project s p rio rit y po int to ta l.
* oo ">j cn <-n c o See DEP Segment C la s s if ic a ti o n

c —• cv i/> —• n

-J. Q) Qj

a

“D r+

“5 O)

O -J

CT

§

IZ>

—• O

iz»Cb=3r>fD

-D CO T ZX O fl> <~+ —' fD —• n -b

o zx 

=5 fD

ro

co

co

co-f* Co(Jl

• 3 —- CD

vo

CO CO -£>

00 o

n>in

-S Cb O r~+ 

c* CD a> -s 

n

<-* Go C O -O 

za -a 

•<*

ro ro

o o

P R IO R IT Y

BA SE PO IN TS

ORDER AND 

D IR E C T IV E 

+ 1 0

EP A P R IO R IT Y 

B A S IN +3

CLA SS I 

SEGMENT 

+4

CLA SS I I 

SEGMENT 

+3

CLA SS I I I 

SEGMENT 

+ 2

PROJECT LOCATION

DISCHAR GE EF FE CTS 

LA KE SY ST EM +4

TOTAL MA XIMU M 

PO IN TS
47

STATE MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE INVENTOR/

29 P oin ts BAS£ ADD-ON

Sab attu s 3 B.D .F

27 P oin ts

Ma nc he ster S.D . 1 D,F

Monmouth S.D. 1 D,F

26 P oin ts

Jackman S.D . 1 E,F

23 P oin ts

A ro o s to o k -P re s ti le T.D. (C aribou) 3 C

Old Orcha rd Beach 3 C

P ort la nd (P o rt la n d Wa ter D is t.) 3 C

Sc arbo roug h S.D. 2 D

Westbrook (P o rt la nd Water D is t.) 3 C

22 P oin ts

B ridgto n 5 E,F

Br un sw ick S.D . ( I n t . ) 5 B,D

Cape E liz a b e th (N o rt h )( P .W .D .) 3 D

Dex ter 6 C,F

D ix fie ld 5 B,D

E lls w o rt h 2 E

Fre eport S.D . 2 E

Gre at S a lt Bay S.D. 2 E

Is la n d F a ll s 5 E.F

Mechanic F a ll s S.D. 5 B,D

Me xico S.D . 5 B,D

Ba yside V il la g e Corp. (N o rt h p o rt ) 2 E

Pat te n 5 E,F

Sears port 2 E

South P ort la nd 3 D

Topsham S.D . 5 B,D

W ells S.D . 2 E

W in te r Ha rbor 2 E

York S.D . 2 E

21 P oin ts

A ro o s to o k -P re s ti le Tr ea tm en t D is t. 4 C

(Presq ue Is le )

Grand Is le 4 C

Madawaska 4 C

Washburn 4 C

20 P oin ts

Corinna S.D . 8 C,F

D anfo rth 7 B,F

Ea st M il li n o c k e t 5 C
'4 8

Mi 11inock et 5 C

Newport S.D. 5 C

Pi tt s fie ld 5 C

Sanford S.D. 8 C,F

Winslow 5 C

19 Po ints

Bangor (Kenduskeag In te rc epto r Extension) 5 D

Bangor (Penobscot In te rc epto r) 5 D

Farmingdale 5 D

Frenc hv i1le 4 E

Gardiner 5 D

Hallo well W.D. 5 D

Hampden 5 D

Howland 5 D

Lin co ln S.D. 5 D

M ilfo rd 5 D

Norridgew ock W.D. 5 D

Norway 8 B,C

Old Town 5 D

Peru 7 B,D

Randolph 5 D

Veazie S.D. 5 D

W i 1 ton 5 D

W inte rp ort S.D. 5 D

18 Po ints

Bidd eford Pool 5 E

Brunswick S.D. (WWTF) 5 D

Bucksport 5 E

C lin to n W.D. 6 C

Dov er-F ox croft 5 E

G uilfo rd -S angerv i1le S.D. 5 E

Islesb or o 5 E

Kezar F alls (P orter & Pars onfie ld ) 5 E

Medway 6 C

Stoning ton 5 E

Tremont 5 E

Vassalboro S.D. 5 E

17 Po ints

Cape Eliz abeth (So uth) (P or tla nd W.D.) • 6 D

16 Po ints

Bro wnvilie 6 E

Cumberland 7 D

E nfield 7 D

Gorham ( L itt le F alls) (PWD) 5

Limerick S.D. 6 E

Milo W.D. 6 E

North Berwick S.D. 6 E

Roc kport 6 E

Kennebunk S.D. 8 C

Mars H il l U.D. 8 C
15 Po ints

49

Augusta S.D. (Sec.)

Bangor (Sec.)

B a yville V illa ge Corp. (Boothbay)

Boothbay 

C herr yfield 

Eas tport 

E li o t 

K in g fie ld 

K it te ry 

North Anson 

North Haven 

Phi 11ips

Richmond U.D. (Sec.)

St. George 

Saco (Camp E ll is )

S quirre l Island V illa ge Corp. (S ou thpo rt)

Vin alhaven

Warren

14 Po ints

Ashland W. & S.D.

Blaine

Boothbay Harbor S.D. (Sec .)

Bowdoinham

Canton

Eagle Lake W. &. S.D.

Gorham (P.W .D.)

Harris on 

Monson 

M onticello 

South Berwick S.D.

13 Po ints

Mattawamkeag

North Windham (P.W.D.)

12 Points .

Limestone W. & S.D.

8

8

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

8 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7

8

6

8

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

8

7

7

8

8

D

D

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

D

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

The fo llow in g pro je cts have not been assigned sp e cific f r io r it y numbers but are 

conside red needs:

A lfre d

Andover

Auburn

Belgrade

Blaine

Buxton

Carmel

Cornis h

L it tle to n

Lubec

Minot

No rth Yarmouth

Poland

Oxford

Rome

Sherman
50

Buck fie ld

Burnham

Eus tis

Falmouth (P ortla nd W.D.)

Fryeburg

Gray

Greenwood

Harmony

Herman

Hiram

Holden

H o llis

Lim ington

S in c la ir

Sidney

S m ithfield

Orring ton

Union

Wayne

Woolwich

Woodstock

Mercer

Developed from D.E.P. Mun icipal P rio rit y Point System
51

Senator Muskie. Well, I appreciate again, all of you attending 

this morning. I t has been very helpful to me with respect to the fact 

th at we didn’t advertise this as broadly as might be. We weren’t 

really looking for a big public turnout. Wha t we were looking for is a 

chance to get a selective presentation of the problems affecting small 

towns and so we did select our witnesses and select the situations so 

that we could get a sort of a mosaic tha t was meaningful. If we wanted 

a big public meeting, we could have gone, perhaps, to the Portland 

City Hall, but I thought we would come to Gardiner City Hall instead and have a more selective group. So it has been very helpful to 

me and I ’m most appreciative and we’ll see if we can’t do something 

to be helpful to you in re turn. [Thereupon at 12:30 p.m. the hearing was recessed subject to the call 

of the Chair.]

APP EN DIX A

MATERIAL REFERRED TO BY SENATOR MUSKIE

In fo rm a ti o n a l R ep o rt

PROPOSED VARIANCES

MUNICIPAL POLLUTION ABATEMENT TIME SCHEDULES 

(Ame ndme nts to T i t l e 3 8 , S e c ti o n 451-A )

S t a f f Docume nt

D epart m ent o f E n viro n m e nta l P r o te c tio n 

F e b ru a ry , 1975

l

(55)
56

REPORT ON

POLLUTION ABATEMENT TIME SCHEDULE PROBLEMS 

(Proposed Amendments to T it le 38 , S ection 451-A )

HISTORY

The f i r s t le g is la tiv e tim e sche dules were e s ta b lis h e d fo r th e Kennebec R iv er 

in 1961 and re q u ir e d tre atm e nt o f a ll waste s on th a t r iv e r by Octob er 1, 1976. A ll 

subsequent s ta tu to ry tim e sc he du les endorse d th e com ple tion da te fo r S ta te -w id e 

cle an-u p as Octob er 1, 1976. As th e S ta te 's w ate r p o ll u tio n c o n tr o l laws 

continued to be de velo ped, th e lic e n s in g p ro v is io n s o f T it le 38 foun d in Sect io ns 

413 and 414 c u rre n tly re q u ir e th a t a ll dis ch arg es mu st be re c e iv in g best p ra c ti c a b le 

tr eatm ent by Octob er 1, 1976.

In ord er fo r m u n ic ip a li tie s to meet th e ir w ate r p o ll u tio n abate ment re sp ons i b i l i t i e s , th ey have re li e d h e a v ily on g ra n t assis ta nce which has been pro vid ed a t 

bo th th e Fe de ral and S ta te le v e ls . The m unic ip al pro gra ms moved alon g w ell and many 

commun ities now have o p e ra tin g treatm ent p la n ts w it h oth ers un der c o n s tr u c ti o n .

U n ti l appro xim ate ly th re e ye ars ago, i t ap peared th a t th e re was s t i l l a cha nce th a t 

a ll m u n ic ip a li ti e s wo uld be able to meet th e Octobe r 1, 1976 d e a d lin e . Since th a t 

tim e because o f Fe de ra l impoundment o f w ate r p o ll u tio n c o n tr o l fund s co up led w it h 

d ra s ti c in cre ases in th e cost o f p ro vid in g p o ll u tio n abate me nt f a c i l i t i e s , i t has 

become e vid e n t th a t th e 1976 d e a d lin e , i f co n d it io n e d upon th e re c e ip t o f Fe de ral 

and S ta te g ra n ts , could not be me t. The L e g is la tu re chose to ad op t th e th e o ry th a t 

m u n ic ip a li ti e s could not be expe cte d to proceed w it h o u t Fe de ral and S ta te g ra n t 

assis ta nce an d, th is be ing th e ca se , re cogniz ed th a t th e '76 deadlin es were not 

go ing to be met. On th e o th er hand, in d u s tr ie s and a ll oth ers had not h is to r ic a lly 

been e lig ib le to re ce iv e Fe deral and S ta te g ra n t assis ta nce an d, th e re fo re , th e ir 

programs were not depend ent upon th e a v a ila b ilit y o f thes e fu nds. C onsi dering 

thes e two fo re go in g fa c to rs , th e L e g is la tu re in 1973 passed a s ta tu to ry p ro v is io n 

now foun d in T it le 38 , S ection 451-A which wou ld a llo w a m u n ic ip a li ty a varia nce fro m
the October 1, 1976 completion date if the municipality had done everything 

that they could do towards meeting their pollution abatement obligation with their 

only hold-up being the lack of availability of Federal construction grants.

PROBLEMS

Situations have recently come to light which may warrant a broadening of 

the variance provisions as they now exist. The first circumstance comes about as 

a result of recent interpretations of the statutory language which indicate that 

the municipal variances should apply only to the municipal system as it existed 

on October 3, 1973. Rigid interpretation could result in the following: Every 

individual home not connected to a municipal system on October 3, 1973 whether it 

be an existing home or a new home would have to provide its own treatment system 

prior to October 1, 1976. All new subdivisions no matter how small or new sewer 

extensions even if only considering single streets, could not be connected to an 

existing municipal system unless treatment of the waste was provided immediately in 

some cases, but in all cases no later than October 1, 1976. The existing interpretation of the law would also preclude individual home owners waiting to connect 

to a municipal sewer system that has been planned for them by their community. The 

interpretation concludes that if the sewerage system and treatment facility is 

not going to be available on October 1, 1976, then all that might have connected 

to this planned system would have to be providing their own treatment by that date. 

It would appear that this interpretation would completely destroy the concept of 

municipal systems for it would not seem that individuals would be willing to pay 

from two to five thousand dollars for their own treatment systems and then be 

willing to abandon those systems when a municipal sewer is provided for them. From 

the standpoint of the State's regulatory agency, it would mean that thousands of 

individual systems would have to be routinely inspected instead of the 150-200 

municipal plants that ultimately would be built to serve these same individuals.
58

In ad ditio n to the individu al home, su bd ivision , commercial establishmen t 

type of problem, there are some in dustr ia l proje cts that may warran t special 

conside ration in regard to th e ir inclus ion under waiver prov isions . One type of 

example is the small industry which has planned fo r years to jo in with the 

m un icip al ity in providing jo in t treatm ent fa c il it ie s and, in fa c t, in some of 

these cases, the fina l planning has been completed and the pr ojec t would have 

been constructed with in the st atu to ry time lim itations i f Federal gran t funds had 

been av aila ble . A case in po int here is the City of Gardiner and th e ir re la tive ly 

small Yorktowne Paper Company pl an t. A second type of example is the indu stry 

and town who want to jo in tly bu ild fa c il it ie s and irreg ardles s of the fa ct that th is 

may have been a very la te decision on th e ir pa rt, there are ce rtai n advantages to 

the part ic ula r projec t to both the m unic ip alit y, the indu stry and the State. For 

example, in the case of one pr ojec t i t appears very pos sible that ne ith er the small 

indu str y nor the small community can afford to bu ild th e ir own separate fa c il it ie s ; 

however, by jo in in g tog eth er, they can take advantage of economies in scale and i t 

is possible th at the projec t would then be economically fe asibl e. A second type of 

example are indu strie s which want to jo in in the municipal system in which case 

i t would benefit from a standpoint of economics both the indu stry and the town; 

however, in these cases the indu stries do have the financial capacity to bu ild th eir 

own plan ts. In these cases, from the Sta te 's water pollu tion co ntrol program 

standpoin t, i f the indu strie s bu ild th e ir own plan ts, th e ir ou tf a lls w il l be to 

c rit ic a l small waterbodies where even the treate d discharges, although meeting State 

standards, w il l always have a detrime ntal impact on these small waterbodies. In both 

cases, i f they joine d with the mun icipal systems the wastes would be transp orted to the 

regional treatme nt plan t with the fi n a l discharge going to , in one case, a major 

in dustria l ri v e r and, in the second case, an ocean o u tf a ll . In these la tt e r cases,
59

there is an advantage to the industry, to the municipality and to the State in 

the long term benefits to water quality.

PROPOSED SOLUTION

Although the practicality of expanding the variance provisions is recognized, 

there is concern, especially in the industrial cases, in creating an inequitable 

situation between the industry that has gone ahead and complied with the '76 

deadline and the one that may be allowed to delay its project while waiting for 

a municipal project to be funded. The industries that are treating cannot produce 

their product as cheaply as those who are allowed to discharge raw, therefore, there 

is created an unfair marketing advantage to those allowed to delay providing treatment. In order to erase the possibility of this inequity and, in fact, the 

inequity that would exist between all of those who have met their 1976 State 

obligations and those who might be allowed to discharge raw beyond the 1976 com ­

pletion date, the proposed Section 451-A amendment includes a provision whereby 

those receiving a variance would be required to start paying for capital, operation, 

and maintenance charges based upon estimated cost in the same manner that others 

are actually paying for meeting their obligations. The funds collected and s ubsequent interest earned thereon are to be placed in escrow by the municipality or 

sewer district and are to be used as needed for the local share of planning and 

constructing sewerage and waste treatment facilities. It would seem that the 

suggested approach may have some appeal to municipalities, for it would allow them 

to build up sewerage and wa ste treatment construction accounts and would place them 

in a much better financial position to go forward with the project at the moment 

Federal and State grant monies are made available to them.

CONCLUSIONS

The existing problems outlined above are having an adverse effect upon the 

administration of the State's water pollution control program. The uncertainties 

on the individual homeowners position where they have a municipal system available

to them or one planned for them leaves confusion in the licensing approach to these
60

in div id uals . The in du strial/m un icip al problems, although cle ar, do not necessarily 

seem to provide the most pra ctical and logica l so lutio ns . I t is fo r th is reason 

th at le gis la tive changes are being proposed with subsequent ac tio n to give the 

State agencies administering these laws a statute that can be administered and 

pursued with confidence. I t is fe lt that the proposed amendments to Section 451-A 

both recognize the e ff ort s of those persons who have fu ll y complied with the law 

and at the same time, allow some variances to make the law more pra ctical under 

the cu rre nt situation. Proposed changes attempt to make the law equitable by 

providing that those who have fa ile d to meet th e ir time requirements be assessed 

to the same extent as they would have been i f they were, in fa c t, pro viding the 

necessary fa c il it ie s . The proposed amendments aff ect only mun icipal sewerage and 

waste treatment systems and those persons and other e n titie s th at would be served 

by an exist in g municipal system or the system that is planned to be constructed 

immediately upon the a v a il a b il it y of Federal cons tru ction gra nt funds. The 

st atu to ry requirement of prov iding best prac tic ab le treatment by October 1, 1976 

remains in aff ect fo r a ll persons, commercial establish ments, indu strie s and a ll 

others having waste discharges to waterbodies inclu ding coastal waters which 

w il l not be served by a mun icipal system as described above. Appended to th is 

repo rt is a copy of the Department of Enviromental Pro te ction's preliminary dra fts 

of the proposed amendatory le g is la tio n .
61

AN ACT TO ALLOW THE BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO GRANT VARIANCES 

TO STATUTORY TIME SCHEDULES

Be i t en ac ted by th e Pe ople o f th e 'S ta te o f Ma ine , as fo ll o w s :

38-M .R .S .A ., S ection 451-A as en ac te d by P.L . 1973 cha pte r 423 

s e c ti o n 8 is re pe aled and th e fo ll o w in g en ac ted in pla ce th e re o f.

1. The Board o f Env iro nm en tal P ro te c ti o n may g ra n t a v a ria n c e fro m

any s ta tu to r y w ate r p o ll u tio n abatement tim e sch ed ule to any muni c i p a l i t y 

o r q u a s i- muni c i p al e n tity (h e re in a fte r "mun ic ip a lit y " ) upon ap pl_ ic a ti o n _ b £ 

i t . The Boa rd may g ra n t a variance o n ly upon a fin d in g th a t:

A. Fe de ra l fun ds fo r th e c o n s tr u c ti o n o f m u nic ip al was te w ate r 

treat rn en t f a c i l i t i e s are not a v a il a b le fo r th e p r o je c t, and

B. The m u n ic ip a li ty has de mon stra te d th a t i t has de mon stra te d 

th a t i t has co mpleted p re li m in a ry pla ns accepta ble to th e De pa rtm en t o f 

Enviro nm enta l P ro te c ti o n fo r th e tr e a tm e n t o f m unic ip al wa stes and f o r 

cons tr u c tio n o f th a t p o rti o n o f th e m u n ic ip al sewage syste m in te nded to be 

se rved by th e plan ne d m unic ip al tr e atm e nt p la n t when th a t p la n t f ir s t , be gins 

o p e ra ti on s, and

C. Begin nin g on Octob er 1 , 19 76, th e m u n ic ip a li ty w i l l co l le c t 

fro m each d is ch a rg e r in to it s sewage system and each d is ch a rg e r no t 

conn ec ted to th e sewage syste m which has signe d an ap proved ag reem ent w it h 

th e muni c i pa 1i t y purs uant to sub secti on (2 ) o f th is s e c ti o n an an nu al j fge_

su ff ic ie n t__to_e qu al t he pro sp e cti v e an nu al c a p it a l a m o rt iz a ti o n and o p e ra ting 

costs of th e was te tre atm e nt p la n t and th e sewage syste m fo r which p re li m in a ry 

p ln n s ji a v e been co mpleted and appr ove d purs uant to pa ra gr ap h B o f th is _ 

subsecti o n ; p ro vid e d , ho we ver, th a t in lie u o f such annual f ees paid by
dis chargers oth er than in dustr ia l discharg ers , the muni ci p a lity may 

appo rti on an appro priate amount from general revenues to cover that share 

of fees to be paid by non-ind ust rial discharg ers. The funds c o ll ected 

o r apportioned pursuant to th is paragraph and in te re st collect ed thereon 

sha ll be invested pursuant to the pro vision s of T it le 30, Chapter 241,

Maine Revised Statutes and sh all be placed in an escrow account by the 

m un icip al ity to be used as needed by the municipal i t y in plan ning and

cons tru cting it s sewage system and waste treatme nt fa c il it y .

Variances sh all be issued fo r a term cert ain , not to exceed three 

yea rs, and may be renewed, except that no variance sh all run longer than

March 1, 1979 nor beyond the time sp ec ified fo r completion of the municipal 

waste treatment fa c il it y . Upon no tic e of the a v a il a b il it y of Federal f unds,

the m un icip al ity sh all present to the Department of Environmental Prote ction

fo r approval an implementation schedule fo r desig nin g, cons tru cting and

placing the waste collection and treatme nt fa c il it ie s in op eration.

Var iances may be conditio ned upon terms re la ting to a p p ro p ria te ______

in terim measures to be taken by the m un icip al ity to mainta in or improve

water q u a lity.

2. Any person, othe r than a m unic ip alit y, main tainin g a discharge 

subjec t to the requirements of sections 413, 414,and 414-A of th is subchanter 

sh all be exempt from the requirements of section 414-A-l-D (E fflu ent

L im ita tio ns and Best Prac tic ab le Treatment) i f , vzlthin 90 days of the

enactment of th is le g is la tion, or on the commencement of a lice nse d 

dis charg e, which ever occurs la te r, such discharg er presents to the Department 

°L Environmental Pr otection and receives approval of an agreement with the 

munic ip alit y t o connect to the exis ting or planned mun icipal sewage system 

as soon as i t i s av aila bl e. The Department sh all approve such an agreement 

exempting the discharge from the requ ire ments of section 414-A -l-D only
where the Department determines that :

A. In th e case of a new d ischarge, th at such new discha rge wil l not 

cause se rious water qua li ty problems, includ in g but not lim ited to downgrading the re ceiving waters so as to make them unsuitable fo r currently 

existin g uses For the purposes of th is section a "new discharge" is a

di scharge wineh commences or a discharge which changes chara cte ristics or 

in creases licensed volume by more than 10 percent on or afte r the date of

enactment of th is Act.

B. The agreement with the m unic ip alit y fu ll y binds t he in divid ual 

requesting th is exemption to connect to the municipal syst em as soon as i t 

i s available and to pay the fees sp ecifie d in paragraph C of subsection 1

of th is se ction, and

C. the sewer in to which the discharge is connected or is proposed

t o be connected w il l be serviced by the proposed sewage treatment plan t

1mmediately upon completion of co ns tru ction and commencement of opera tion 

of such treatment pla nt.

3.___Failu re to comply with any of the terms of an agreement approved

pursuant to subsection 2 of th is section sh all immediately render such 

agreement nu11 and void and discharges inc lud ed in such an agreement sh all 

inwed iately cease or sh all only discharge in accordance with the standards 

of best pra ct icable treat ment sp ec ified in section 414-A-l-D and a ll othe r 

requirements of sect ions 414 and 414-A of th is subchapter.

4 Where a discharger otherwise exempted from constr uctin g treatme nt 

fa c il itie s pursuant to th is section w il l he require d to pre treat efflu ents 

before d ischarge in to the municipal sy stem pursuant to any requirement o f st ate 

or fed eral law, such pretreatment system sh all be in sta lled not la te r than 

October 1, 1976.
64

5.___Mun ic ip a liti e s and quasi-muni ci pal e n titie s sh all assess and collect

the fees to be charged pursuant to th is section in accordance with the 

pro vis ion of Chapter 235 and Chapter 237 of T it le 30, Maine Revised Statutes

or Chapte r 11 of th is T it le as i f the planned sewage sy stem and waste tr e a tment fa c il it y were funded and under construc tio n or con stru cted and in

operatio n.
65

STATEMENT OF FACT

The exis ting sta tu te , 38 M.R .S.A., Section 451-A autho rizes the 

Board of Environmental Protection to gra nt variances from sta tu to ry 

time schedules to m unicip al ities and quasi -m unic ip alitie s. The 

auth ority 1s continued in ta ct in th is Act.

The exis ting stat ut e does not autho rize the Board of Environmental 

Protection to extend a variance to persons, indu stries or othe r e n ti ti e s 

not connected to the municipal system pri o r to October 3, 1973 although 

these e n titie s have ind ica ted th at they wish to be included 1n the 

municipal type system when 1t is constru cte d. This Act would allow the 

Board of Environmental Pr otection to include po te nt ia l users of the 

municipal type system 1n any variance provided the po te ntia l users and 

the owners of the municipal type system meet the requirements sp ecifie d 

in th is Act.

The key requirements are :

(1) A bind ing agreement 1s entered in to by a ll partie s;

(2) Po tential in dustr ia l and commercial users of the municipal 

type system have opera ting a ll pre -tre atm ent systems p rio r to 

October 1, 1976.

(3) The owners of the mun icipal type systems are charging an 

appro priate fee of users and po te nt ia l users beginning October 1, 1976; and

(4) The municipal type system qualifies fo r a variance.

Entities qualif yin g fo r a variance are also exempted from the

eff lu ent li in it ia ti o n s and best prac tic ab le treatme nt requirements of 

38 M.R.S .A., Section 414-A-l-D .
66

ONE H U N D RED AND SEV EN TH L E G IS L A T U R E

Legislative Document No. 702

H. P. 566 Ho use of Rep rese ntativ es , Feb ru ar y 19, 1975

Re ferre d to the Co mmitt ee on Natur al Re sou rce s. Se nt up for conc urrenc e

and or de red print ed.

E D W IN H. PER T , Cle rk

Pr es en te d by Mr. M cB re ai rty of Perham .

STATE OF MAIN E

IN T H E Y EA R O F O U R LORD N IN E T E E N H U N D R ED 

S E V E N T Y -F IV E

AN AC T to Allow t he Bo ard of En vi ro nm en tal Pro te ct io n to Grant 

Varianc es to Sta tu to ry T im e Sched ule s.

Be it en ac ted by the Pe op le of th e St ate of Ma ine , as fo llo ws:

38 MR SA , § 451-A, as en ac ted by PL 1973, c. 423, § 8, is rep eal ed and th e 

follo wing ena cte d in pla ce th ere o f:

§ 451-A. Time schedu le va ria nc es

1. Po wer to gra nt va ria nc es . Th e Bo ard of Env iron m en ta l Pro te ct io n 

may gr an t a va ria nc e fro m an y st at ut ory w ater po llu tio n ab atem en t tim e 

schedu le to any m un ic ip al ity or qu asi-m un ici pal en tit y, he re in after called th e 

“m un icipality ,” upon ap pl icatio n by it. Th e bo ard may gra nt a varia nce on ly 

up on a f inding t h a t:

A. Fe de ral fund s for th e co ns tru ctio n of mun ici pa l w as te w ater tr ea tm en t 

fac ilitie s are no t av ailable for th e pro je ct; a nd

B. Th e mun icipality ha s de m on strated th at it ha s comple ted pr elim inary 

plan s accepta ble to th e D ep ar tm en t of Env iron m en ta l Pr otec tio n for th e 

trea tm en t of mun icipal w as te s and for co ns tru ct io n of th at po rti on of th e 

mu nic ipa l sew age sy stem intend ed to be served by th e pla nn ed mun icipal 

tr ea tm en t plan t whe n th a t plan t first be gins oper ations; and

C. Be ginn ing on O ctob er 1, 1976, the m un icipality will col lec t fro m each 

disc ha rg er into its se wag e syste m an d each di sc ha rg er no t connected to the 

sewa ge system which ha s sig ned an approv ed ag re em en t with the mun icipa lit y pu rs ua nt to su bs ec tio n 2, an an nu al fee suf ficien t to equ al the pr ospectiv e an nu al ca pital am or tiz at io n and op er at in g co sts of the waste tr ea t-
67

ment plant and the sew age system for which prelimin ary plans have been 

completed and approved purs uant to paragraph B ; provided, however, that 

in lieu of such annual fees paid by disch arger s, other than industrial dis­ char gers , the municipality may apportion an appropriate amount from general reven ues to cove r that share of fees to be paid by nonindustrial dischargers. The funds colle cted or apportioned pursuant to this paragraph and interest collected there on shall be invested pursuant to Title 30, chapter 241, and shall be placed in an escrow account by the municipality to be 

used as needed by the mu nicipality in planning and constru cting its sewage 

system and waste treatment facility.

Variance s shall be issued for a term certain, not to excee d 3 years, and may 

be renewed, exce pt that no variance shall run long er than March 1, 1979 nor beyond the time specified for comple tion of the municipal waste treatmen t facility. Upon notice of the ava ilability of federal funds, the municipa lity shall present to the Departm ent of Environmen tal Protection for approval an implementation schedule for desig ning, constru cting and placing the was te 

collection and treatm ent facilities in operation.

Variance s may be conditioned upon terms relating to appropriate interim measures to be taken by the municipa lity to maintain or improve water 

quality.

2. Exemptions. An y person, other than a mun icipality, main tainin g a 

discharg e subject to the requirements of sections 413, 414 and 414-A shall be exem pt from the requiremen ts of section 414-A, subsection 1, parag raph D, Efflu ent Limitations and Best Practicable Tre atm ent, if, within 90 days of the effective date of this Ac t, or on the commencement of a licensed dis­ charg e, which ever occurs later, such discharger presents to the Department of Environmen tal Protection and receives approval of an agreement with the munici pali ty to connect to the exi sting or planned municipal sewage system as soon as it is available. Th e department shall approve such an agreement exempting the discharge from the requirements of section 414-A, subsection 

1, para graph D, only where the department determ ines tha t:

A. In the case of a new discharge, that such new discharg e will not cause serious water quality problems, including but not limited to dow ngra ding the receiving waters so as to make them unsu itable for currently exis ting 

uses. Fo r the purposes of this section, a “new discha rge” is a discharge 

which commences or a discha rge which changes charact eristics or increases licens ed volume by more than 10% on or afte r the effe ctiv e date of this 

A c t;

B. Th e agreement wit h the mun icipality fully binds the individual requesting this exemption to connect to the municipal system as soon as it is ava ilab le and to pay the fees specified in subsection 1, paragraph C; and

C. Th e sewer into which the discharge is connected or is proposed to be 

connected wil l be serviced by the proposed sew age treatment plant im­ med iately upon completion of construction and commencement of operation of such treatment plant.
68

3. Failure to comply with agreement. Failure to comply with any of the 

terms of an agreement approved pursuant to subsection 2 shall immediately 

render such agreement null and void and disch arges included in such an 

agreement shall immediately cease or shall only discharge in accordance wit h 

the standards of best practicable treatment specified in section 414-A, sub ­

section 1, paragraph D, and all other requirements of sections 414 and 414-A.

4. Pretreatment syste ms. Where a discha rger otherwise exempted from 

constructing treatm ent facilities pursuant to this section will be required to 

pretreat effluents before discharge into the municipal system pursuant to any 

requirement of state or federal law, such pretreatment system shall be installed not later than Octo ber 1, 1976.

5. Fees. Municipalities and quasi-municipal entities shall assess and collect the fees to be charged pursuant to this section in accordance with the 

provisions of chapter n , and Tit le 30, chapters 235 and 237, as if the planned 

sewage system and waste treatment facility were funded and under constru ction or constructed and in operation.

ST A TE M E N T OF FA C T

This Act authorizes the Board of Environmental Protection to grant variances from statutory time schedules to municipalities and quasi-municipalities. The authority is continued intact in this Act.

The existing statu te does not authorize the Board of Environm ental Protection to extend a variance to persons, industries or other entities not connected to the municipal system prior to October 3, 1973, although these entities have indicated that they wish to be included in the municipal-type system when it is constructed. This Ac t would allow the Board of Environmental Protection to include potential users of the municipal-type system in any 

variance provided the potential users and the owne rs of the municipal-type 

system meet the requirements specified in this A ct.

The key requirements are :

(1) A binding agreement is entered into by all parties;

(2) Potential industrial and commercial users of the municipal-type system have been operating all pretreatment systems prior to October 1, 1976;

(3) The owners of the municipal type systems are charging an appropriate fee of users and potential users beginning October 1, 1976; and

(4) The municipal-type system qualifies for a variance.

Entities qualifying for a variance are also exempted from the effluent limitations and best practicable treatment requirements of section 414-A, subsection 1, paragraph D.
69

ONE H U N D RED AND SE V EN TH L E G IS L A T U R E

Legislative Document No. 951

H. P. 780 House of Representatives, March 6, 1975

Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources. Sent up for concurrence

and ordered printed. ED WIN H. PER T, Clerk

Presented by Mr. Hall of Sangerville.

STA TE OF MAIN E

IN TH E YEAR OF OUR LORD NINE TE EN HU ND RED 

SE VE NT Y- FIVE

AN A C T to Auth orize the Board of Enviro nmental Prot ection to Grant a Time Schedule Variance to Users and Planned Users of Proposed Mu­ nicipal or Quasi-Municipal Waste Trea tment Facilities.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine, as follow s:

38 MRSA § 451-A, as enacted by PL 1973. c. 423. § 8, is repealed and the 

following enacted in place th ere of:

§ 451-A. Tim e schedule variances

The Board of Environmental Protection shall grant a varia nce from any stat uto ry water pollution abatement time schedule or other requirem ent to any municipality or quasi-municipal entity upon applic ation by it. Such 

variance shall be granted upon a finding th at:

1. Federal funds unavailable. Federal funds for the construction of the municipal or quasi-municipal treatment facilities are not available, and

2. No other impediments except availability of federal funds. There are no other impediments to the municipa lity or quasi-municipal entity proceed­ ing to construction of the syste m excep t the availab ility of federal funds.

Where any municipal or quasi-municipal entity has been granted a vari­ ance, the Board of Environmental Prote ction shall also grant a variance to any user, or planned user of the proposed municipal or quasi-municipal treat­ ment facility upon a finding that the discharge from the user or planned user will be serviced by the proposed municipal or quasi-municipal treatment facilities immediately upon cons truction thereof and that a binding commit­ ment exists between the user or planned user and municipal or quasi-munici-
70

pa l en tity re qu irin g said us er or plan ne d us er to utili ze th e service s of th e 

mun icipal or q ua si-m un icipal facil ities up on co mple tio n.

V ar ia nc es may be co nd iti on ed upon reas on ab le te rm s relatin g to ap pr opriat e inte rim mea su res to be take n by th e m un ic ip al ity or qu as i-m un icipal 

en ti ty to m ai nt ai n or im pr ov e w at er q ua lity.

S T A T E M E N T O F FA CT

T he pu rpose of th is bill is to- re qu ire th e Bo ard of Env iron m en ta l P ro te ctio n to gTant a tim e sc he du le or ot he r st atu to ry re qu irem en t va ria nc e to 

us er s or pla nned us ers of pr op os ed mun ici pa l or qu as i-m un icipal w ater tr e a tm en t fac ilitie s. U nd er th e pr es en t law , on ly mun icipaliti es ma y ob ta in a 

va ria nc e, an d re sid en tia l, co mmercial and in du st rial us er s or pla nn ed us er s of 

sy st em s not co mple ted by Octob er I, 1976 will be re qu ired to have co nst ru ct ed and op er at in g th eir ow n tr ea tm en t facil ities by th at dat e. The ult im at e re su lt wo uld be du pl ic at io n of tr ea tm en t facil ities cr ea ting a si tu at io n 

of bu rden so me co sts on th os e re qu ire d to co ns truc t th ei r ow n facil ities, difficu lty of de pa rtm en ta l su rv eilla nc e and en fo rcem en t of man y se pa ra te di sch ar ge s, in or di na tely high us er ch ar ge s on sm all us ers wh en the sy stem s ar e 

co m pl eted w ith ou t in cl us io n of in du stries an d ot he r la rg e disc ha rg es an d 

ne ed less use of en er gy re so ur ce s in op eratio n of man y se pa rate tr ea tm ent 

facil ities.
APP EN DIX B

LETTERS

City of Bangor, Main e,

April 16, 1976.

Hon. Edmund S. Musk ie,

U.S. Senator, SSI Old Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Mus ki e: Reference is made to your recent memorandum regarding the hearing of the Environ men tal Pollution Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Public Works which was held in Gardiner on April 5, for the purp ose of examining the problems that small com munities a nd local industries face in meeting clean water requirements. Since we in Bangor are very much inte rested in the cleanup of the Penobscot River, and since we have encountered problem s with the present Law, we would very much like to sub mit the following 

comments for the record. As you know, the City of Bangor has continually m aintaine d t hat the municipal effluent limitations as imposed by Section 301 of PL92-500 are far too inflexible, and in many cases will r esult in the expenditure of considerable sums of money with no appreciable results. Our specific objection has been the requirement th at municipalities provide secondary treatm ent by July 1, 1977, while industrial sources will be required to prov ide the best prac ticab le control technology cur­ rently available. The basis of our concern is contained in the findings of the Penobscot River Study, undertaken by the Environ men tal Studies Center at the University of Maine under a For d Foundation gran t, which was completed in 1972. This study, with which you are familiar, is focused on the segment of th e Peno bscot River between Old Town and Penobscot Bay, a 35-mile segment of the Riv er bordered by a total pop ulation of 60,000 people and three paper product mills. The Study determined the pollution load from all sources along the River (Exhibit A), and determined their effect on the dissolved oxygen content in the River und er different flow conditions (Exhibit B). The Study concluded that: 1. If all municipalities and industries on the lower River provided prim ary tre atm ent, the dissolved oxygen con tent would be above the legal minimum 97% 

of the time. 2. If the Diamond International Corp, in Old Town provided secondary tre atm ent, with prim ary tre atmen t elsewhere, the dissolved oxygen content would always be at least 10% higher tha n the legal minimum, and most of the time would be 25% higher than the legal minimum. 3. If Diamond and Bangor provided secondary tre atm ent, with prim ary tre atm ent elsewhere, there would be no measurable change in the dissolved 

oxygen con tent specified in item 2 above. 4. If the other communities and industries on the River estuar y provided sec­ ond ary treatm ent, the increase in dissolved oxygen con tent would still be not 

measurable when compared to item 2 above. The cost of secondary tre atmen t facilities for the municipalities on the lower River was estim ated at $12 million in 1972, and is proba bly at least $15 million at this time. Thus, the presen t law would require the expenditure of more than $11 million of Federal funds for secondary tre atm ent plan ts, while providing no increase in the q uality of water in the Penobscot River. In a ddition to the vast am ount of capital cost for secondary plants, the munici­ palities would be faced with considerable operatin g expense. For example, the debt service and operatin g cost for secondary tre atm ent in Bangor would be increased more than $270,000 per year—a cost which must be borne locally. Consideration should also be given to the waste of resources to operate second­ ary tre atmen t plan ts where no increase in pollution abateme nt will be realized. For example, Bangor’s prima ry pla nt uses approximate ly 900,000 KWH of elec­ tricit y per year, but is it estimated that the electircal use will rise to 2,500,000 KWH when secondary facilities are added. This power increase would equal the a nnu al requirement for approximately 300 homes. Municipal waste is the larg est source of bacte rial pollution, which has resulted in th e closing of the shellfish beds in Penobscot Bay. Previous studies by the S tate of Maine have indicated t hat municipalities contribute appro ximately 80% of the bacte ria, with th e remaining 2 0% being c ontribu ted by ind ustry. Bacteria can be removed from municipal waste w ithout resorting to the con struction of full second­ ary tre atm ent facilities. It has been roughly estimated th at bacteria removal facilities for municipal pla nts on the lower Penobscot would cost approximate ly $600,000—a considerable savings over $15,000,000 for full seco ndary facilities. 

(73)
74

With regard to dissolved oxygen and suspended soilds, the reverse is true: 

industries contribute approximately 80%, and municipalities con trib ute 20%. 

Since these typ es of pollution are responsible for th e complete loss of wa ter quality, 

i.e., smell, tur bid ity, sedimentation, and elimination of aquatic life, then it is 

apparen t th at the elimination of industrial pollution is necessary to achieve a 

significant increase in water quality. Unfortu nate ly, certain industrial waste 

tre atm ent processes are extremely expensive and are often beyond the ability 

of a partic ula r industry to achieve. This would result in either the closing of th e 

industry, or a relaxing of the tre atmen t standard s. Perhaps more consideration 

should be given to Federal financing of industrial wastewater tre atm ent facilities. 

The present Law appears to be heading in the opposite direction, since industries 

are now not allowed a cost discount for large volumes to be treate d in municipal 

plan ts bu t mu st pay the same rate as the residential user. Industries are also required to pay special charges based upon their level of BOD, COD, or other pollutants. The Federal Government to a certain e xtent subsidizes farmers, railroads, 

and airlines; possibly a subsidy should be considered for indu strial pollution aba tement facilities.

It is our feeling th at the Penobscot Riv er is typical of every oth er river in the 

Sta te of Maine, and many rivers in the Northe ast, i.e., considerable w ater volumes, 

low population densities, and high ind ustrial use. We are certain th at if studies 

similar to the Penobscot River Stu dy were conducted on other rivers, similar 

results would be shown, and the amount of money being spent for ineffective 

wastewater tre atm ent facilities would be staggering.

One other provision of the c urre nt Law which we feel may deter th e construction 

of tr eatm ent facilities is th e lack of a reimbursement provision for projects which 

are prefunded locally. The 1965 Amendment to the Water Quality Act had such 

a provision, and Bangor was able to proceed with the second phase of our inte rceptor sewer system , which we prefunded , and were lat er reimbursed for by the 

Federal Government. We recently decided to extend the Kenduskeag Stream 

Interc eptor Sewer for a distance of approxim ately 15,000 f eet to the Capehart 

Treatment Pla nt, at an estimated cost of approximate ly $700,000. However, 

since there were no Federal funds available , and since we were at least two years 

away from receiving a Federal grant, we were advised th at we would not be reimbursed if we proceeded on our own. Because the project is considered urgent, 

we have decided to proceed, the reb y losing more than $600,000 of Federal and 

Sta te funds. We could have delayed this project for approximately two years 

until fund ing was available; however, the t ota l cost would have risen to approximately $800,000, there by pu tting an additional strain on available Federal and 

Sta te funds. It is felt th at many municipalities would proceed with projects 

immediately, at current prices, if they could be assured th at the y would be reimbursed at a late r date. Not only would many millions of dollars be saved, bu t 

also clean water goals would be reached sooner.

Finally, we would like to mention a project which has produced very pleasing 

resu lts: the installation of the Kenduskeag Strea m Interc eptor Sewer. The initial 

project, which was completed in 1973, has resulted in a m ost rem arkable increase 

in the quality of the Kenduskeag Stream through the built-up area of the City. 

The smell has gone, Spring freshets have removed the scum and algae from the 

bottom , a nd the clarity of the wa ter has been restored. The City is now proceeding 

with plans for the development of a park along the shores, which will be designed 

both to restore the n atu ral beau ty of th e shoreline and to make the area available 

for recr eational use by the public.

Again, we are very much interested in th e aba tem ent of pollution in the Penobscot River, and the effect th at present legislation will have on the achievement of 

th at goal. For this reason, we are extre mely inte rested in any fut ure hearings 

which may be held relative to this ma tter, and would like very much to attend, 

eith er as participants or as observers.

Yours very truly,

M erle F. Goff,

City Manager.
75

City of Bangor, Maine,

April 16, 1976.

Hon. Edmund S. Muskie,

U.S. Senator,

SSI Old Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Muskie: In our submission to you dated April 15, relative to 

our experience with the current pollution aba tem ent legislation, we neglected to 

enclose Exhibits A & B as noted therein.

You will find these exhibits att ached for inclusion with our letter.

Yours very truly,

Merle F. Goff,

City Manager.

[Atta chments (2).]

NOTES'

tV PREDICT ED BY "WOODARD' HOC EL

aa ass um es b o o mbvl d o above ol d town

a IO M G O -L S S C E S

^ 1

PENOBSCOT R IV ER FLOW (LOWER RIV ER)

E X H I & I T 'E > '

.O '"
78

City of Brewer, Maine,

April 2, 1975.

Re Gardiner Hearing on Clean Water, April 5, 1975 

Senator Edmund S. Muskie,

Senate Building

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Muskie: The City of Brewer and Eastern Fine Paper Inc 

have cooperated in wastewater treatment from the initial planning stages through 

design, contract award and through the construction process. In September of 

1975 we will activate the wastewater treatment facility to jointly tre at all of the 

City of Brewer’s wastewater and the wastewater from Eastern Fine Paper Inc. 

Careful analysis and planning of the needs of the industry and of the City resulted 

in a plant designed to meet our joint needs. The cost of capital construction has 

been assigned based upon the design criteria for the mill and for the City and 

the industry is to pay for 45.7% of the Capital Cost of the Facility. They will do 

this by reimbursing the City 45.7% of the interest payment and principal payment on the Treatment Plant each time a payment is due. In addition, we have 

contra ctually agreed to participate jointly in the operational cost of the wastewater trea tment with costs allocated to Flow, to BOD and Suspended Solids, 

divided between industry and City, based upon continual monitoring at the plant.

After start-up of the Plant in late September, this secondary treatm ent activated 

sludge wastewater treatment plant should remove from the wastewater about 

one hundred fifty (150) cubic yards per week of material now being emptied 

into the Penobscot River. It seems that this cannot help but effect a significant 

improvement in the Penobscot River water quality.

I t is our understanding tha t our join t municipal-industry wastewater tre atment plant was the last one authorized in the country under this arrangement. 

It is our understanding tha t currently the industry must pay not only its share 

of the local cost of the facility and its operation but must reimburse the federal 

dollars which are in the form of a grant to the municipality. We think the law 

which was in effect at the time of our project approval was excellent. Since we 

have had no experience with the present law we cannot comment favorably or 

unfavorably upon it. We do believe that the present law would have made our 

pollution a batement project much more difficult to accomplish.

Very truly yours,

Arthur P. Doe, Mayor.

Town of Brunswick, Maine,

March 31, 1975.

Re Gardiner Hearing on Clean Water 

Senator Edmund S. Muskie,

Room 115, Old Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Muskie: Brunswick has not had a cooperative experience with 

industry in the matte r of combining water treatment processes because we do not 

have any large industries with waste water needing treatment. However, perhaps 

it should be noted that after some negotiations the Brunswick Sewer District 

entered into an agreement with the Topsham Sewer District under which Topsham 

will collect its sewage and pump it to the Brunswick Treatment Plant for treatment. Topsham will be billed a proportionate share of applicable costs based upon 

flow.

Also, over the past three years the Brunswick Codes Enforcement Office has 

been working very successfully to locate untreated wastes entering tidewater 

from shorefront residences and urging the homeowners to install proper treatment 

facilities. As a result of this activity, certain clam digging flats in the Mere Point 

area have been reopened to digging.

Very truly yours,

John P. Bibber, Town Manager.
79

City of Gardiner, Maine,

April 7, 1976.

Hon. Edmund S. Muskie,

U.S. Senator, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, United States

Senate, Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir : This is to acknowledge and tha nk you for your very successful “Clean Wa ter Hearing” for your subc omm ittee here at Gardiner City Hall. I am enclosing a lett er received from the Mayor, Arthur P. Doe, of the city of Brewer. I am sorry th at this lette r did not arrive in time so th at I could give it 

to you.

Sincerely, Paul H. Hermann, City Manager.

Great Salt Bay Sanitary District,

Damariscotta, Maine, April 5, 1976.

Senator Edmund S. Musk ie,

U.S. Senate, Committee on Public Works,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator M us kie: This lette r is in lieu of appearing a t the hearing of the Senate Sub-committee on Enviro nmental Pollution held in Gardiner on April 5. I represe nt the Town of Newcastle by delegation of First Selectman, Rob ert Baker, and the Great Salt Bay Sanitary District, comprising the Towns of Dam ar­ iscotta, Newcastle and pa rt of Nobleboro, of which I am a Trustee. The Gre at Salt Bay San itar y Dis trict has deta iled designs of a collection and tre atm ent facility, which meets the requirements of the Maine Bureau of Env iron ­ mental Pollution. We do no t have sufficient subsidy money to proceed with con­ stru ctio n under a scheme of financing that would result in a bearable users fee. Other than receiving sufficient subsidy to proceed with the present plan includ­ ing escalation caused by inflation, two changes in law or a dministrative procedure 

would be advantageous to us. 1. It app ears tha t a less costly remedy might be worked out thro ugh the use of a multiplicity of small tre atm ent pla nts along the lines of the plan going forward in Bridgeton, Maine. In order to be attrac tive, such a plan would have to be elegible 

for subsidy. 2. T he detailed engineering plans for a conventional facility for Great Salt Bay were paid for by the Towns of Dam ariscotta and Newcastle for which they incurred a debt currently of about $70,000. Procedures ought to be changed so th at subsidies can be evaluated on the basis of sound engineering feasibility studies, and Towns ought to be recompensed for expe nditures for detailed plans which may be useless due to obsolescence resulting from (a) new technology, (b) 

the long lapse of time between design and financing.

Your truly , E. L. Lamb,

Vice Chairman, Great Salt Bay Sanitary District.

Phil ip W. Hussey, Sr.,

North Berwick, Maine, March 28, 1976.

Senator Edmund S. Musk ie,

Senate Office Bldg.,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Ed: I note in toda y’s Por tlan d (Me) Press Herald th at on April 5th your Sub-committee on Enviro nmental Pollution is to hear testimony on Water 

Standa rds particularly in small communities. We sure have one here in No rth Berwick and try as we may we have been unab le to get the North Berwick Water Co. to renew ou tdate d filter system. And worst of all the Public Utilitie s Commission gives us only a brushoff when we have several times asked for help. Instead the y approved a 27% increase 

in rates.

Do hope you have good success.

Sincerely, Phil Hussey.
80

Senator Edmund S. Mus ki e.

Dear Sir : In answer to the memorandum received from you on Clean Water 

March 31st, the town of Guilford, Maine has made three surveys for a sewer 

treatment plant. They hired $100,000.00 to pay for it. The Government has not 

reimbursed them as they agreed to so at town meeting the town had to raise 

$5,000.00 to pay the interest on the money hired.

The Guilford Industries is working with the town on a treatment plant. They 

are a fabric industry and are h aving a very difficult time to keep going.

Yours truly,

Merwin Lander, Selectman.

167 Second Street,

Hallowe ll, Main e,

March 31, 1975.

Hon. Edmund S. Muskie,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Mus ki e: Than k you for the notice of the Gardiner Hearing 

on Clean Water, which I received today.

You r statement that "federal funds for the clean water program have been 

released” is most encouraging although confirmation of that fact (in dollars) has 

not as yet filtered down to our municipal level.

As stated in my letter to you dated 14 March, Hallowell has had its sewer 

program engineered and practically ready to go for some years now, waiting only 

for the funds necessary to get it under way. Also, as noted, we are in a bind on 

the condition of our streets, because major maintenance has been deferred in 

expectation of the sewer work. The streets are now in such shape that if the 

sewer program does not become active in the very near future, substantial amounts 

will have to be spent for repair in spite of the impending sewer work.

As regards "partnership” , you may be interested to learn that Hallowell plans 

to pump its sewage to Augusta for treatment in the plant of the Augusta Sanitary 

District. This avoids the necessity for a separate and smaller plant in Hallowell 

which would be relatively much more expensive to build and operate. When 

Augusta’s secondary treatment plant comes along that, too, will handle Hallow'ell’s 

sewage. I consider this an instance of commendable and economical community 

cooperation.

This is not yet a “ success sto ry” , but when funding becomes available and 

given time to pursue the project I assure you that every effort will be made to 

achieve that objective.

Thank you for this opportunity to again state our case. With best wishes for a 

profitable hearing on the 5th I am,

Respectfully yours,

Basil T. Payne,

(Councilman-at-large, Hallowell City Council).

Offic e of the T own of Pittsfield, Maine,

April 1, 1976.

Hon. Edw'ard S. Musk ie,

Chairman, Environmental Pollution Subcommittee,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator: In response to your request for information in respect to our 

experience concerning clean water requirements, we submit the following:

1. As a result of water qu ality improvement, Pittsfield has developed long range 

plans to include the Sebasticook Riv er as an integral part of a recreational area 

in town.

2. Engineering consultations with local industries reveal no unusual problems 

requiring special treatment or financial arrangements.

Impoundment of assistance funds has delayed the implementation of our development plans.

We wish to extend our thanks for your efforts in the release of these water quality 

funds.

Funds have been allotted to Pittsfield and necessary paper work is under way 

with construction to be started as soon as possible.

Very truly yours,

William M. Lunt, Jr.,

Tow n Manager.
Town of R ockport, Maine,

April 2, 1976.

Re Gardiner hearing on clean water 

Hon. Edmund S. Muskie,

116 Russell Office Building, U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Muskie: The Town of Roc kport has made every effort to comply with the Clean Water Act. In 1965 the Town voted to hav e a preliminary plan completed and this was accomplished. In 1974 the Town received a gra nt and we are in the process of doing a second preliminary plan, the first being 

outdated and incomplete by curre nt stan dards. It is very frustrating as a to wn official to have to continue to explain to people th at a schedule for compliance and clean-up can not be set up because of lack 

of funds. More importantly the State De par tment of Enviro nmenta l Protectio n has gran ted numerous licenses for “packa ge” treatm ent plants in Rockp ort which we will be able to supervise in the future only with difficulty and g rea t cost. Delays have caused unnecessary expe nditures by residents who want to reduce the pollution problem bu t can only solve their problem on a sho rt term basis. I hope this inform ation helps explain our difficulties.

Sincerely, E. Maynard Graffam, 

Chairman, Board of Selectmen.

South Branch Lumber Co., 

Howland, Maine, Ap ril 3, 1976.

Senator Edmund S. Musk ie.

Dear Sir : In reference to your memorandum on, the Gardiner Hearing on 

clean, water At the presen t time the Town of Howland receives the ir water supply from the 

Piscataqu is River. This supp ly wras installed in the yea r of 1924 w ith a few small pipe lines being added over the years. On the up-river side, we have raw sewage run ning into the river. We also hav e the flow from the Gre at Northe rn Paper mills and the Lincoln Pulp running into our water supply. A few years ago, our m ajor in dustry, the Tannery, closed leaving approximately 300 people jobless and loss of $2,6000 in taxes to the town. Now, we have sold the buildings to the Lincoln Pulp and Paper company and we are in hopes that this will develop into a new ind ustry for tne town. The tow n of Howland is try ing to form a water district. In 1974, we had a water survey by W right, Pierce & Barnes (at a cost of $9500) th rough our Revenue Sharing. They came up w ith a cost of $1,100,000 to give us the p roper water supply and fire protection (force and sup ply). We mention fire pro tection due to the fact th at at the present Howland has to pay 85% on insurance cost, whereas a town such as Dover-Foxcraft only has to pay 35% for their protection. The difference in r ates being th at Dover-Foxcroft does have ample force and supply. Witho ut help from some other source, small towns such as ours (1440 pop.) 

would no t be able to have the water project. I wish to thank you for notifyin g me of the Hearing and also giving me the 

oppo rtu nity to express m y opinions.

Yours truly, Eliem L. Sage,

South Branch Lumber Co.