
Brunswick’s Graham Road Landfill that had been expected to operate for another 15 years could close in 18 months due to higher than allowed levels of ammonia.
Interim Town Manager John Eldridge told the town council Monday that the town has been trying for years to reduce the level of ammonia from three lagoons at the landfill that discharge into the Androscoggin River.
Issues about ammonia discharge arose in 2004 when the town applied for relicensing. At the time, Brunswick was informed that it may qualify for a variance by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, but was informed in 2010 by the EPA that the variance wouldn’t be available.
The town underwent a pilot project to treat ammonia in 2012, said Eldridge. That project was concluded in the spring, and showed mixed results.
“It showed we could not consistently reduce (ammonia) to levels of compliance,” Eldridge said.
The landfill typically discharges up to 3.5 gallons of ammonia into the river per day, said Eldridge. Brunswick’s sewer treatment plant downstream from the landfill discharges several times that amount.
“I want to stress to you — what people have universally agreed — is that this is not a water quality issue,” Eldridge told the council, instead, likening the problem to a “technical standards” issue. “Some have gone as far as to call it bad law.”
Eldridge said that Brunswick requested help from the congressional delegation in obtaining “relief” from the EPA.
“We were unable to get relief from the standard,” said Eldridge.
Separately, in late April the town was notified by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection that levels of arsenic, iron and manganese exceeded acceptable limits in some groundwater monitoring wells.
Eldridge stated that those levels didn’t appear to pose a threat, adding, “This is not Love Canal.”
However, the groundwater issue means the town may be eligible for state funding to help close the landfill.
Closing the landfill would cost about $5 million, but the town would be reimbursed up to 75 percent, due to the groundwater quality issue.
Brunswick could treat ammonia at the landfill at a cost of $1 million to $2 million, said Eldridge. The town could also transport the lagoon water via pipe or truck for treatment at the sewer district.
Due to shifting environmental regulations, it may make more sense to close the landfill altogether, said Eldridge.
“We’re at a situation where we have reached a dead end with what can be done to get relief from ammonia issue,” Eldridge said.
Brunswick disposes of about 3,000 tons of waste a year at the landfill. At that rate, there was another 15 years of life left there. However, before the town raised the tipping fees in 2007, about 10,000 to 15,000 tons were disposed of each year.
Raising the tipping fee “drove off a number of customers,” said Eldridge, but it did allow the town to extend the useful life of the facility.
The town may want to increase use at the landfill in order to recoup as much closure cost as it can, said Eldridge.
Eldridge recommended the council establish a task force to evaluate closing the landfill or explore alternatives.
The council did not take any action on Monday.
“‘Not Love Canal’ is not going on the town’s website as our new motto,” said Council Chairman Benet Pols, tongue-in-cheek.
jswinconeck@timesrecord.com
The Times Record Sustaining Sponsor
We believe a community must be informed to thrive. bowdoin.edu
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less