Minutes of the Lamoine Board of Appeals

February 29, 2000

Chairman Fred Stocking called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM

Present were: Appeals Board Members Jay Fowler, Clif Smith, Fred Stocking, Warren Craft Sr., John Holdsworth, and alternate Melody Havey; Administrative Assistant Stu Marckoon, Code Enforcement Officer Rebecca Albright. Also, Planning Board members Perry Fowler, Karen Eaton, Bob Sharkey, David Smallidge, Douglas Coleman, Mary Ann Orzel; Selectmen Arthur Alley, Richard Davis and Glenn Crawford; Appellants Edward and Penelope Ciampa and their attorney Tony Giunta; Attorney Dale Worthen representing the Lamoine Community Association; members of the public including Heather Fowler, David Herrick Sr., Raymond & Jo Wood, Thomas & Lori Spruce, Richard Fisher, Clifton Bradford, Don & Jo Cooper, Harold Borns, Jr., and Maryann Borns, Pat Wallace, Jane Washek, Mary Alley, Donna Fennelly, Mary Henry, Chuck Weber, Thomas Keenan, Karen Blennerhassett, Beverly Coleman, Larry Winchester, Robert Giles, Barry Timson, James Hillier, W. David McCaskill, John Lalli, Carlton Johnson, Richard King, Bob Christie, Patty Murphy, Merrill Bunker, Adrienne Redhair, George Smith (Fire Chief), Charles Reynolds, Diane Sanderson, Susan Arthur, Neil Salisbury, Brenda Pinkham, Robin Veysey, Hank & Griff Fenton, Reginald Mann, Janet Mullen, Mark Haskell, and court reporter Andrea Nunn.

Conflicts -- Chairman Stocking introduced the board members and asked if any had conflicts. Mr. Stocking said he had a minor one if the proposal before the board affects the aquifer in reference to the Cold Spring Water Company, as he has done legal chores for the water company in the past. He said the water company has not consulted with him on this matter. He noted that member Melody Havey, as the alternate, will sit this matter out, but should stay to listen to the testimony.

Representation & Standing -- Chairman Stocking announced the Board of Appeals was gathered to hear the appeal by Edward Ciampa of the planning board denial of a building permit. Tony Giunta identified himself as the attorney representing the appellant; Dale Worthen identified himself as the attorney representing the Lamoine Community Association. Chairman Stocking asked if any others wished to have standing as a party in the matter. Don Cooper said he did. Mr. Stocking said to participate; one needs to show a particularized interest in the matter. Mr. Cooper said he was a member of the comprehensive plan committee which produced the plan to support the ordinance. George Smith said he was present to represent the Lamoine Fire Department. Mr. Stocking asked if he was a resource or a party. Chief Smith said he was present to answer questions. Mr. Stocking asked if members of the Planning Board were also present to answer questions. David Smallidge, chair of the Planning Board, said that is correct.

Mr. Stocking asked for comments on whether Mr. Cooper should be granted party status, noting he is not an abutter. Member John Holdsworth asked where Mr. Cooper lived. Mr. Cooper replied Marlboro. Mr. Stocking said the notion of a party is someone who would have an interest, such as an abutter, and being a member of the comprehensive planning committee is fairly remote. Mr. Stocking moved that Mr. Cooper not be granted party status. Member Clif Smith 2nd. Vote in favor of the motion was 5-0 in favor.

JurisdictionóChairman Stocking asked if there were any arguments on whether the Board of Appeals has jurisdiction in this matter. Hearing none, Mr. Stocking said it would seem the Board does have jurisdiction.

Exhibits -- (Secretaryís Note: A complete table of exhibits is outlined at the end of this set of minutes, but entry of minutes will be noted as they occurred chronologically). Mr. Stocking said he would declare the application, the decision by the Planning Board, the minutes of the Planning board, the appeal form, and a letter from Dale Worthen as exhibits. Mr. Giunta said he objects to the minutes of February 7, 2000 since theyíve not been approved by the Planning Board. Mr. Giunta said he is assuming since there are 3 sets of minutes from three meetings, the other two minutes will be included in the record. Mr. Stocking said he would remove the February 7, 2000 minutes from the agreed list.

Mr. Worthen said he would like the Comprehensive Plan and the Gerber Report incorporated into the record. Mr. Stocking said heís not sure about the Gerber report and asked if Mr. Worthen wanted the entire report included in the record. Mr. Worthen said the Gerber report speaks to the aquifer and identification of wells, and the maps are very important. He said the report is referred to in the comprehensive plan, and the Planning Board decided the application did not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stocking asked if Mr. Worthen had a copy of the Gerber Report for each Appeals Board member. Mr. Worthen said he only had two copies. Mr. Giunta said he has no objection to the comprehensive plan but heís never seen the Gerber Report. Mr. Stocking said the Board would take the Gerber report as it comes up. Board member Warren Craft said he had no letter from Mr. Worthen. Mr. Stocking provided one to him.

Hearing Procedure Ė Mr. Stocking said the Appeals Board has not had a hearing such as this and will have to caucus on procedure. He asked the board if it was agreeable to have the appellant present his case then move to the opposition. That was agreeable to the board and the parties. Mr. Stocking noted that David McCaskill of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has come a long way, and he might ask the indulgence of the Board to hear testimony out of order.

Mr. Giunta said it has come to his attention that the spouse of an Appeals Board member has solicited names in opposition to the permit. Mr. Stocking asked what the question would be about that. Mr. Giunta said he has no problems with a spouse having an opinion on the matter, but itís an area of legitimate concern, and he doesnít want a board member with bias. Mr. Giunta said he was told Rose Holdsworth was circulating a petition. Mr. Holdsworth said thatís false, and if itís so, itís news to him. Mr. Giunta indicatd he was satisfied and had no objection.

Public Hearing Ė Mr. Giunta called Edward Ciampa as his first witness. Mr. Ciampa introduced himself and said it was his intent to provide gasoline and diesel at the Lamoine General Store. He said he checked the zoning, and found it was a permitted use in the zone in which the store is located. He said he started a wish list among the stores patrons and found many would stop at another store if they wanted to buy fuel. He said to be a convenience store, you need to sell gas. He said the proposal is in compliance with the setbacks. He said geologist Barry Timson, installer Larry Winchester, and site contractor Bob Giles will show no pollution will result. He said Sprague Oil will sell Gulf gas at two pumps with a canopy and fire suppression system. He said double-hulled steel tanks with alarms would be placed in the ground. He said the application met or exceeded all state and federal standards.

Mr. Giunta provided packets of materials for the board including the deed to Mr. Ciampa, the DEP Permit, and the proposal to be addressed, and he wanted to enter those into the record. Code Enforcement Officer Rebecca Albright noted that the DEP does not approve tank installations, but merely registers them. Mr. Stocking said he would call the submissions Ciampa 1, 2 and 3. Mr. Worthen said he had no objection. Four copies were supplied to the Board. Mr. Giunta said he would like to introduce the minutes of December 6, 1999 and January 3, 2000, but he only has one copy and assumed the board had those. Mr. Worthen said he has not seen copies of those minutes yet, and is not sure of the relevancy, as the decision was made at the public hearing in February. Mr. Giunta said the minutes speak for themselves. Mr. Worthen said the December meeting minutes have no application and are not pertinent. Mr. Stocking said heís inclined to let the minutes be entered as Ciampa 4 & 5. Ms. Albright made photocopies for the board.

Larry Winchester Ė Mr. Winchester said he is a certified tank installer and has been doing installations since the early 1970ís. He became licensed in 1986. He said installers have a bible to follow, Chapter 691 of the DEP regulations for all tanks. He said everything in this proposal is double walled and showed various items of piping. He said tank installations have improved over the past 20-years. He said fittings are clamped on to flexible piping after the system is put in place, then itís hooked into entry boots and tested at 5 p.s.i. to make sure the connection is tight. He explained the testing process further at 50 p.s.i.

Mr. Stocking asked if the material he was showing is the piping. Mr. Winchester said it is flexible double walled piping. Mr. Stocking said the DEP certificate called for flexible single walled piping. Mr. Smallidge and Mr. Ciampa said the proposal was upgraded to double walled at the last Planning Board meeting. Mr. Stocking asked if the single walled is no longer the proposal before the town, though it was the proposal presented. Mr. Ciampa said the Planning Board asked him to upgrade. Mr. Smallidge said that is correct, it happened at the public hearing.

Mr. Winchester continued, distributing pictures of the tank and showing where connections come into the tank and explaining how they are sealed and tightened. He said an alarm is inside the boots and between the walls of the tanks. He said the State of Maine wants evidence of any leaks and showed the alarm. Mr. Stocking asked if that was between the 2 walls where nothing is supposed to be. Mr. Winchester said on the inside of the tank. He said itís a tank inside a tank, and there is another float to sense liquids. He said itís a sealed up system, with no way to leak without an alarm going off, and the alarms are tested annually.

Mr. Stocking asked if there is a system for policing the tanks and alarms. Mr. Winchester said the tests are required annually to be done by a certified tester or installer. He said if there is a problem, the facility is notified and a report submitted to the state to see that it is corrected. Mr. Stocking asked if there is an irregularity, the tester notifies the state. Mr. Winchester said that is correct.

Mr. Giunta asked about warrantees. Mr. Winchester said there is a 30-year warranty, and things have improved a lot. He said itís a tight system, and the state has thinned out the bad installers. He said if the system is installed per specification there will be no problems. He explained pictures of the setup to the board. Mr. Giunta noted the system comes with a 15-gallon overspill. Mr. Winchester said the DEP requires a 3-gallon, but this system calls for 15-gallons. He explained the pictures of the overfill system, which is designed to catch drippage from tankers filling the tanks.

Mr. Giunta asked about the alarm system. Mr. Winchester said there was an automatic tank gauge to measure any loss. Mr. Giunta said the alarm goes to Mr. Ciampaís house and to a security company. He asked about a ridge around the tank. Mr. Winchester said there is a concrete mat in the travel and pumping areas so any gas spilled can evaporate and not sink into the ground.

Mr. Giunta asked about the site plan. Mr. Winchester walked the board through the plan. Mr. Stocking asked if there are 3 tanks. Mr. Ciampa said the proposal is for 9,000 gallons, and two 3,000-gallon containers. Mr. Winchester said the underground tanks have a double bulkhead between the gas and diesel compartments. Mr. Giunta asked if it is virtually impossible to have a spill from a tank. Mr. Winchester said yes. Mr. Giunta asked if there were spills from pumping gas. Mr. Winchester said yes. Mr. Giunta asked him to characterize a spill if a gallon fell on the ground. Mr. Winchester said 99% would evaporate. Mr. Giunta asked how thick the cement pad is. Mr. Winchester said 6-inches. Mr. Holdsworth asked how much p.s.i. the concrete is. Mr. Winchester said 4000 psi.

Mr. Giunta asked Mr. Winchester to run through the site proposal from Harold MacQuinn, Inc. Mr. Stocking noted this is exhibit #3 dated January 4, 2000. Mr. Winchester explained the tank installation plan, highlighting the concrete settings, tie downs, piping, the pressure pumps and leak detector. He said the flexible pipe will slow the flow. He highlighted the caps and venting for the overfill prevention devices, the pumps, the island system, inventory control, spill and leak sensors, an intercom, fire suppression system over the pumps, signs and lighting. There were questions about the dead-man anchors on the system.

Board Member Smith asked to explain how leaks are prevented when a tanker fills the tanks. Mr. Winchester said itís gravity fed, and the truck drivers carry a 5-gallon pail and when they disconnect the truck they make sure all the material is drained from the hose. Mr. Smith said heís seen a number of news items, and wanted to know what happens when a car hits a pump. Mr. Winchester said there is a containment bucket under the pumps and a shear valve that activates. He said they would be hard pressed to spill a gallon of gas.

David McCaskill said at the last Planning Board meeting, the proposal was for a suction system. He said heís seen two sites with pressurized systems where the sump and pipe leaked and they lost 6-thousand gallons of material. Mr. Stocking asked if this was a different proposal than what was presented to the Planning Board. Mr. McCaskill said yes. Mr. Holdsworth said the Appeals Board has to determine if the Planning Board decision is correct. Mr. Stocking said heís baffled by new evidence not presented to the Planning Board. Member Jay Fowler said the early proposal was going to be a suction system. Mr. Smallidge said the applicant did not discuss a pressurized system. Mr. Stocking said the Planning Board has not discussed a pressurized system. Mr. Giunta said the court reporter needs a break. Mr. Stocking declared a short recess at 8:02 PM. (Recording Secretaryís note: audio tape was stopped during break, it was not immediately restarted when the session resumed)

Session resumed at 8:09 PM. Mr. Stocking asked Mr. Smallidge if the proposal as explained by Mr. Winchester resembles what the Planning Board considered. Mr. Smallidge said itís considerably different, pressurized is different than what the Planning Board heard. Mr. Stocking asked if the hearing should continue or go back to the Planning Board to consider the new plan. Mr. Giunta said he doesnít know the appeals board position regarding a trial de novo. He said there is new evidence from his side and Mr. Worthen has witnesses. Mr. Giunta said if the Appeals Board wants to send this back to the Planning Board, itís fine with him and his client. Mr. Stocking said heís trying to show whether this is new evidence or a new plan.

Mr. Worthen said his clients have gone to considerable time and expense to present the case against a gas station being located in the aquifer. He said heíd like to get that issue before the board to support the Planning Board decision. He said if the applicant accepts that the Planning Board has killed their proposal, they should withdraw the appeal and put together a new proposal. Mr. Stocking asked how this should be resolved on behalf of Mr. Worthenís client. Mr. Worthen said if the appellant accepts the decision of the Planning Boardís denial of the permit and withdraws the appeal, they can move forward with a new proposal. Mr. Stocking asked if that means Mr. Worthen wants to move forward unless the appeal is withdrawn. Mr. Worthen said yes. Mr. Giunta said Mr. Worthenís argument is about the aquifer. Mr. Giunta said heís willing to go back to the Planning Board, but not willing to withdraw the appeal.

The Appeals Board caucused. Mr. Stocking asked what they want to do, as there are a lot of witnesses and concerned townspeople. He said the appellant does not wish to withdraw. Mr. Craft asked if the planning board would change its decision. Mr. Stocking said they might be hearing a new application. Mr. Holdsworth read from the appeal application that an error was made in the denial of the permit. He said the board is here based on 3 reasons given by the Planning Board to deny the permit. He said if the 3 reasons had a basis for appeal, it should be granted, but if one of the three reasons for denial by the Planning Board is legitimate, they must deny the appeal. (The room became quite loud with conversation and it was impossible to discern further discussion among the Appeals Board members). Mr. Stocking called for quiet in the room.

Mr. Holdsworth said the appeal as it was made claims an error by the Planning Board. He said if there was not an error on all three reasons stated by the Planning Board, then the Appeals Board must deny. Mr. Stocking asked if the Appeals Board wanted to consider this a new proposal. Mr. Holdsworth said no. Mr. Stocking asked if there were a motion to remand this to the Planning Board because a new application is being considered. Mr. Holdsworth moved to remand the case to the Planning Board on the basis new information was presented, and it was not the application before the Planning Board. Mr. Fowler 2nd.

Board member Mr. Smith said the other side has not had a chance to present evidence. Mr. Stocking said a vote in favor would mean the hearing loses that participation. Ms. Albright said if the board proceeds and the appeal is granted, how could it come back to the planning board to grant for a different proposal. Mr. Fowler said theyíre talking an entirely different plan, and the Appeals Board is supposed to determine whether the Planning Board acted correctly. Mr. Smallidge said heís glad itís the Appeals Boardís dilemma. He said if they grant the appeal, itís not the plan theyíve seen, and heíd like to look at the plan.

Mr. Worthen said the notion of remanding bothers him. He said all the parties were here for the Planning Board denial. He said if the Appeals Board says a party has changed its mind regarding the nature of what they put in, the Appeals Board may penalize the wrong party. He said if the appealing party cannot present the information they gave to the Planning Board, thatís their problem. He said remanding would reward the applicant for coming in with improper information.

Board member Mr. Smith said he thinks the Appeals Board should deny the appeal and the applicant should come back with the new proposal. Mr. Stocking asked Mr. Giunta if he is prepared to proceed. Mr. Giunta said he was not at the Planning Board meeting, and the change is not a significant change.

Mr. Holdsworth asked if Mr. Giunta was withdrawing the appeal, because the Board must act on the appeal. Mr. Craft said the only thing that has changed is the way of getting gas from the pump to the car. Mr. Fowler said the only difference is there is more potential for a problem with a pressurized pump. He said itís a day and night difference, and he would feel a lot better with a suction system. Mr. Stocking said he would like to go forward, but the change of proposal is grounds for denial. He said he would vote against remanding because the Appeals Board has been asked to make a decision, and the appeal has not been withdrawn. Mr. Giunta said if Mr. Worthen would assure no collateral estoppel, he would file a new application with the Planning Board.

Mr. Stocking called for a vote. Vote on the motion was 1-4, Holdsworth in favor, motion was defeated.

Testimony of Larry Winchester, continued

Mr. McCaskill of the DEP said there is a big difference when weighing the risk regarding the system. Mr. Worthen said in the registration form from the state, it notes the tank is within 300í of a private water source. He asked what the source is. Mr. Winchester said itís the ownerís well. Mr. McCaskill explained the monitoring situation, and the note means little regarding the siting of a tank, but audits of the tank would be done in geologically sensitive areas.

(Recording secretaryís note: audiotape was restarted at this point)

Clif Smith asked if anyone knew where the well was located for the house on the hill (Sanders home). Stu Marckoon said itís across Route 184 where the pump house is located. Mr. Holdsworth asked about the store itself, and whether thatís a public water supply. Mr. McCaskill read the definition of a public well, and discussion followed about the numbers of connections. There was discussion whether the town office well is a public water supply. Jim Hillier said any operation that serves 25 people over 6 months is a public water supply. Mr. Worthen said information on the registration form should have indicated a public water supply. He showed the certification form (one of the exhibits). Mr. Worthen said the registration form is inaccurate if it does not show a public water supply. Mr. Winchester said he doesnít know if itís inaccurate. Mr. McCaskill said itís common that the registration forms are not filled out correctly.

Testimony of David McCaskill Ė Mr. McCaskill said he was present to answer technical questions. He said heís glad people are interested in ground water. He said when the underground tank rules were developed, the legislature was lobbied hard not to exclude tanks from any location. He said they can be any place, and some are in places they shouldnít be. He said the tank design rules are in place to protect those areas. He said sometimes the rules are inadequate or not implemented correctly. He said a wellhead protection task force was recently formed. Mr. Stocking asked if Mr. McCaskill had looked at the aquifer maps. Mr. McCaskill said heís not a geologist, but the aquifer is long and skinny, and there are not a lot of sand and gravel aquifers along the coast. He said his presentation to the Planning Board was about risk. He asked if the aquifer in question was a potential future water supply for Lamoine. He said heís done lots of new water supplies and a lot of aquifers have been contaminated by gas. He asked how much Lamoine wants to protect a possible future water supply. He said this would be a no-brainer if the public wellhead was nearby. He said itís an untapped long skinny resource that may cross town boundaries.

Mr. Stocking asked what the risks are. Mr. McCaskill said the system as proposed is pressurized, so any leak would spew out. He said there are some safeguards, and if they all work, they should be able to catch a leak. He said he had a problem where a sump leaked, and one lost 6,000 gallons in 1998. He said another lost 4,000 gallons in Yarmouth in 11 days. Mr. Stocking asked if safety checks solve the problems. Mr. McCaskill said if they monitor the sump under the dispenser, it might, unless the sump leaks faster than the material coming in, in which case itís defeated. He told a story about the Christyís leak in Windham. He said there are better detection devices which shut the system down. He said a problem is a truck driver who circumvents the system. Mr. Stocking asked if the better protection devices were in the design the Board has. Mr. McCaskill said he was asked what would make the system safer, and he didnít hear it.

Mr. Stocking asked how tricky maintenance is, given a good installation. Mr. McCaskill said there are limited things you can do, such as test monitor annually, and put water in sumps to see if they leak out. He said there are line leak detector checks. He said the DEP may make it mandatory to send all checks to them. Mr. Stocking asked if the tests are public record. Mr. McCaskill said the DEP can check them, and that could be made a requirement in the permit.

Mr. Holdsworth asked if Mr. McCaskill saw a map of the aquifer if he could see where potential contamination goes. Mr. McCaskill said they should talk to a geologist. Mr. Holdsworth said there are three present tonight. He said the Gerber maps show the aquifer and heís concerned with the area under the store and how it affects other areas. He asked if the three geologists could look at the map and tell the Board whatís affected.

Mr. Craft asked how safe the tanks and equipment are. Mr. McCaskill said in the past, leaks were from corrosion, but theyíre designed differently now. He said inter-tank corrosion is an unknown. He said the tanks are safe; the problem is piping, and activities on the side. Mr. Craft asked if the gas coming through the pipes gets into the ground instead of the spillways. Mr. McCaskill said when itís a pressurized system, it can cause a lot of problems. He said pressurized delivers product faster and is preferred, but he canít say theyíre all set. Mr. Fowler said the quality of the installation has lots to do with problems. Mr. Craft asked if junctions from pipes are a problem. Mr. McCaskill said with the flexible piping, the only joints are now at the sumps. He said he doesnít have as much faith in a new gas station in the countryside. He said there are problems of shallow bedrock and leakage can get into bedrock fractures. He said they donít clean up many underground tanks, but theyíre still cleaning a site in Central Maine. He said they havenít cleaned out all the bad installers, yet. Mr. Stocking asked if what he was saying is when they have a problem, itís a system like this one. Mr. McCaskill said pressurized system.

Mr. Winchester said he is not the installer for this job. He said if itís properly installed there are no problems with them. Mr. Fowler said it depends on the quality of contractors. Mr. Giunta asked Mr. McCaskill if that is true. Mr. McCaskill said if everything is perfect and there is no failure with gaskets it is true, but that doesnít address site activities. He said even the best station in the world 500 feet from a town well head would be a no brainer. Mr. Worthen asked what he means by site activities. Mr. McCaskill said deliveries, and gave the Christyís example. Mr. Worthen asked if two wells for the City of Portland were shut down by that? Mr. McCaskill said yes. He said there are better detective and safety devices than ball float valves. Mr. Stocking asked if there is any way to prevent delivery problems. Mr. McCaskill said vigilance on the part of the owner. He said gas goes on the road all the time. He said transport trucks roll over on occasion. Mr. Fowler said he thinks Mr. McCaskill is getting carried away. He said he drove for oil companies, and the biggest problem is untrained sub-contractors. He said if a reputable company does the job, itís not a problem. Mr. Winchester said there could be a leaking tank in the parking lot here tonight. Mr. McCaskill said heís not trying to blow things out of proportion.

Testimony of George Smith Ė Mr. Giunta called George Smith, Lamoineís Fire Chief. He asked from the point of view from the fire department is there any problem or concern with the plan. Chief Smith said he had no concern. He said the fire protection system is standard. He said the fire department has the capability to clean up small spills and a foam system on the trucks. Mr. Stocking asked whatís a big spill. Chief Smith said 100 gallons. Chief Smith said with Ellsworth and Lamoine, they can handle an ordinary spill. He said he thinks there is more problem from a leaking carís gas tank than from a gas station.

Mr. Stocking said he would accept as evidence 5 manufacturers booklets, 3 physical samples and the site map. The map is Ciampa #6; the Booklets are Ciampa # 7, and the physical samples Ciampa # 8.

Testimony of Barry Timson Ė Mr. Giunta called Mr. Timson, a consulting geologist. Mr. Timson said heís studied the aquifer maps prepared by the Maine Geological Survey and the Lamoine Gravel Aquifer is a small part of a large system that extends to Amherst. He said there are several other aquifers on the map, and Lamoineís extends down from Ellsworth. Mr. Stocking asked if the two maps on the presentation were the same scale. Mr. Timson said yes. Mr. Stocking asked him to explain the gray and dark gray. Mr. Timson said itís a significant sand and gravel aquifer. He said the lighter gray is a delivery of 10 gallons per minute, and the darker gray is 50 gallons per minute, based on yields from wells. He said Mr. Ciampa asked him to look at the number of petroleum stations in the aquifer. He said there are a number of stations in Ellsworth, including the Webber bulk storage facility. He said there are several facilities on the aquifer. He said the deposits theoretically link up, but there is no data under lakes. He said Lamoineís portion of the aquifer is located at the very end.

Mr. Timson said someone said significant sand and gravel aquifers are rare, but heís not sure if heíd use that term. He said he studied the impact of a spill at the Lamoine General Store using figure 4 from the Gerber report. He said the mapped groundwater table shows flow from the north toward the store and flow from the south toward the store, and water will not flow up hill. He said the water from where the store is located flows west toward a creek on the other side of Route 184, and there is a discharge of the aquifer into the creek. Mr. Craft asked if he means the Jordan River. Mr. Timson said yes.

Mr. Timson said heís not a tank installer, but inspected both the plans presented to the Planning Board and to the Appeals Board. He said itís all double walled. He said he reviewed the townís comprehensive plan, and the only recommendation was that any toxic chemicals located on top of or within 100 feet of the aquifer be double walled. Mr. Stocking asked for a citation on that. Mr. Timson said page 50.

Mr. Timson said when he heard about the concerns about MTBE, he found the state survey results interesting. He reviewed the synopsis and MTBE is a small component in all gas Ė approximately 2%. He said the study showed a correlation of private wells and MTBE contamination, but no correlation to the proximity of underground tanks and MTBE contamination. He said there is a high correlation to backyard disposal of fuel. He said he does a lot of environmental assessments and tank closures. He said he looks at spill records within a mile of a site, and feels there are no underground tank failures now that the old tanks are removed. He said the problems come from overspills from tank filling operations or people gassing up cars. He said thatís what to expect, not the catastrophic failure. He said a major catastrophe is probably not going to happen.

Mr. Worthen asked about item #4 in Mr. Timsonís report which said maintenance and replacement requirements virtually eliminates the threat of a large-scale loss. He asked if there is no way to eliminate contamination. Mr. Timson said yes, you can never eliminate it. Mr. Worthen asked what kind of contamination comes from piping and related activity, and if any private wells would be affected. Mr. Timson said it depends on how much product gets into the aquifer. He said the probability is very small. Mr. Worthen asked if there is a statistical analysis. Mr. Timson said there are no longer any reports of 500 gallon leaks from tanks. He said itís only 20 to 40 gallons from operators filling up. He said the DEP concludes that with a cleanup of soil, and much of the product is evaporated. Mr. Worthen asked if there is anything to stop the gas from getting into the groundwater through porous sand and gravel. Mr. Timson asked how much. Mr. Worthen said 10-to-20 gallons. Mr. Timson said he didnít think that would get into the aquifer, but would get into the soil and is removed.

Mr. Stocking asked how far down the aquifer is. Mr. Timson said the water table west of the site is 5 feet below the surface. He said Mr. Ciampa has a piezometer 16 feet below surface and never hit groundwater. Mr. Stocking asked how much groundwater fluctuates. Mr. Timson said about 5-feet, peaking in spring. Mr. Worthen asked about #5 in Mr. Timsonís report that said the threat is localized to the store site and west of the site and asked him to mark it on a map. Mr. Timson said the map scale is too big. He said as you face the general store, take the width of the parking area and move west about 100 feet, and thatís the contamination area. He said without doing field work, itís an estimate. Mr. Worthen said page 32 of the comprehensive plan discusses water supply. Mr. Timson said he read that.

Mr. Stocking declared a break at 9:30 PM. Resumed at 9:45 PM.

Testimony of Bob Giles Ė Mr. Giunta called Bob Giles, a project manager with Harold MacQuinn, Inc. Mr. Giles said his company would do the site work for the store. He said the site is paved, and the plan shows concrete slabs and bituminous pavement. He said traffic will be on concrete pads where the gasoline is pumped, and a bituminous surface when the vehicles enter and exit the fueling area. He said besides being nice to drive on, the concrete and pavement protects the product and allows spills to evaporate. He said most filling stations have such paving in place, and state rules now require it. He said his company has done such site work for 40-to-50 years. He said heís worked with almost every major local oil company, and theyíve never been called back because of a faulty installation. He said the goal is to give customers and the public the best product they can give. He said this is not a tremendously large site, some filling stations put in 30,000-gallon tanks, and this is 9,000-3,000-3,000. He said his company is here as a long-term local contractor. He said this job is not out of the ordinary, and his company is always up front about such jobs.

Mr. Worthen said that Mr. Giles said MacQuinn would do the site work, but not the tank installation. Mr. Giles said they would work under him as a subcontractor. Mr. Worthen asked who that would be. Mr. Giles said LCD tanks. Mr. Worthen asked who is LCD? Mr. Giles said a licensed tank installer in Athens, Maine. Mr. Ciampa said the owner is Leonard Carr.

Mr. Stocking said the Board received the MacQuinn five-page proposal indicating standards and conditions on the back, but did not get copies of the back. Mr. Giles said the conditions mean they can charge more money if they run into ledge and the like, there would be no lower quality of work. Mr. Giunta asked if Mr. Winchester is familiar with LCD tanks. Mr. Winchester said his company (Gould Equipment) would have its name brought in if there is a problem. He said Leonard Carr does a very good job. He said there is several tank installers he would not hire, but heís never had a problem with any of his jobs.

Testimony of Edward CiampaóMr. Giunta called Mr. Ciampa, owner of the Lamoine General Store. He asked Mr. Ciampa about the security system discussed at the Planning Board level. Mr. Ciampa said the Planning Board wanted the alarm to go to his home and a security company, and he agreed to that. He said heís agreed to store spill pads and speedy-dry at the store. Mr. Giunta asked why he changed the proposal from a suction system to a pressurized system. Mr. Ciampa said he was told to upgrade to double hulled piping. Mr. Stocking asked if the suction system did not provide double walled pipe. Mr. Ciampa said it was an upgraded system.

Mr. Winchester said the sumps can be monitored. Mr. Craft asked what is monitored. Mrs. Ciampa said spills. Mr. Craft asked how long it would take the Ciampas to arrive. Mr. Ciampa said 4-minutes. Mrs. Ciampa said the monitor tells you if you have a rupture in the tanks. Mr. Winchester explained the system is de-pressurized after itís shut down at night. There was a brief discussion about the amount of pressure on the system versus the volume of a spill.

Mr. Fowler said if they do sense a leak, there is no way for it to escape into the ground, because the tank is all self contained, and there is plenty of time to respond. Mr. Giunta said he had no further questions.

Mr. Worthen asked if the security system deals with leaks in the tank. Mr. Ciampa said yes, they were asked to. Mr. Worthen said if there is a leak in the piping, what happens? Mr. Winchester said there are several sensors, including piping sumps and sumps under the fueling island pumps, and any one sensor would send an alarm to wherever Mr. Ciampa wants. Mr. Worthen asked if the current proposal has no sump sensor. Mr. Winchester said it could be added; itís not a big expense. Mr. Worthen asked if Mr. Ciampa had reviewed Mr. Timsonís report. Mr. Ciampa said he had briefly. Mr. Worthen asked if Mr. Ciampa was familiar with the part that read it would not eliminate potential contamination. Mr. Ciampa answered that Mr. Timson said nothing would eliminate that.

Presentation by Dale Worthen Ė Mr. Worthen, the attorney for Lamoine Community Association, submitted copies of memoranda and other documents to the Appeals Board. Mr. Worthen said he represents the Lamoine Community Association, a newly organized non-profit corporation concerned about water quality and the aquifer. He said he has letters and petitions indicating people want to affiliate with that organization. Mr. Worthen said he wonders about the documents in record. He asked if the Gerber report is in. Mr. Stocking said no. Mr. Worthen said the Gerber report is referred to extensively in the testimony and in the comprehensive plan. He said it seems to him, given its use, it should be in evidence. Mr. Stocking said if itís unprocessed, the Board would make less good use of it. Mr. Worthen said the Gerber report talks about the importance of the aquifer. Mr. Stocking said the Gerber report is exhibit LCA # 1.

Mr. Worthen handed out packets to the Board. He said it sets out the position of the Lamoine Community Association. He said there is a letter from Andrews Tolman of the Maine Department of Human Services Maine Drinking Water program, and he wanted to read portions. Mr. Giunta said he objects on the grounds that the statement is irrelevant and it is difficult to cross-examine a letter. Mr. Stocking asked if itís the February 24, 2000 letter. Mr. Worthen said yes. Mr. Giunta said he objects to the petitions. Mr. Stocking said he wants to take the letter first. Mr. Worthen said the letter is highly relevant as it talks about the aquifer and water supply. He said he has no ability to compel Mr. Tolman, a state employee, to attend the meeting. He said Mr. Tolman has reviewed the Gerber report, and the issue of admissibility is different for an Appeals Board than it is in court. Mr. Stocking said itís his recommendation as chair to let the letter in and let the parties argue the parts that conflict with Mr. Timsonís testimony. Hearing no objection, he admitted the letter from Mr. Tolman as LCA#2.

Mr. Worthen said exhibit LCA #3 is a letter from Robert Gerber who did the Gerber Report in 1983. Mr. Stocking asked why that is relevant. Mr. Worthen said for the same reason as Mr. Tolmanís letter, and Mr. Gerber is very familiar with Lamoine and gas contamination. Mr. Stocking asked Mr. Giunta if he has the same objections. Mr. Giunta said yes, Mr. Gerber is a private consultant whom he cannot cross-examine. Mr. Worthen said Mr. Gerber did the 1983 report. Mr. Stocking said the report was just admitted as evidence. Mr. Worthen said the letter brings his report up to date. Mr. Stocking asked if the letter talks about work done since 1983. Mr. Worthen said no, heís giving an opinion. Mr. Stocking asked why Mr. Gerber is not here. Mr. Worthen said he tried to get him, but Mr. Gerber could not attend for personal reasons. Mr. Holdsworth said he know the Department of Human Services thinks highly of Mr. Gerber and uses him often.

Mr. Stocking said if we let in more, the record must be kept clear of irrelevant material. He said if we canít accept Mr. Gerberís report, we canít accept the comprehensive plan. He said theyíll take it, but it may not be worth much. Mr. Giunta said he has one more objection to the Gerber letter, that if someone can show where he talks about the aquifer after the first paragraph, the letter seems not relevant. Mr. Stocking said itís in, but the Board should not pay much mind except for the aquifer issue. Mr. Fowler said whoever hired Mr. Gerber will influence whatís in the letter. He asked if there is still MTBE in use. Member Clif Smith said yes, the board will have to take that into consideration.

Mr. Stocking said theyíre down to the February 21st letter. Mr. Worthen said that goes with the petition. Mr. Stocking asked why the board should consider the petition, as itís not a political decision being made. Mr. Worthen said it represents concerned Lamoine Citizens, and demonstrates a level of public involvement. Mr. Stocking asked all the signers of the petition are members of the Lamoine Community Association. Mr. Worthen said yes. Mr. Giunta asked if the Board has a copy of the MMA handbook. Mr. Stocking said parts. Mr. Giunta said the book says the decision must be made on facts, and that a petition of 200 people is not relevant. Mr. Stocking asked if Mr. Giunta and Mr. Worthen would agree to accept the petitions as evidence for the sole purpose to show that Lamoine citizens belong to the Lamoine Community Association. Mr. Giunta said he has no objection on that basis. Mr. Stocking said the Board will not take opinions of the public into account. Mr. Worthen said the petition was for the purpose of showing whoís concerned. Mr. Stocking said it creates substance for Lamoine Community Association only.

Mr. Stocking said itís now 10:20 PM, and asked how long weíll be here. Mr. Worthen said he had two witnesses

Testimony of Dr. Harold Borns, Jr. Ė Dr. Borns identified him self as a glacial geologist with the University of Maine who holds a doctorate and is a certified Maine geologist. He said he mapped Lamoine to Calais by reconnaissance and produced the maps Mr. Timson submitted. He said heís worked all over the world. He said heís read the Gerber report and chastised Board members for not having read it, despite it being in town for years. He said itís very readable.

Dr. Borns said the issue is dealing with risks. He said listening to the mechanics of a gas station, it has the potential of destroying a large section of a natural resource. He said the risk could be eliminated by locating 1,000 feet in another direction. He said the systems leak, and if it leaks into the aquifer, you can never recover it. He said he doesnít think itís worth the risk. Mr. Worthen asked him what the significance of the aquifer is. Dr. Borns defined an aquifer and said the store sits on top of a big esker. He showed a picture of an esker to the Board. He said the sand and gravel deposit is contained by marine mud, so whatís put into the esker will stay in it without a flow through. He said the esker will collect contaminants over time. He said drops of oil over time will settle into the esker and will wreck the water supply. He said the risk factor is very high. He said there are lots of water resources, but not many eskers. He said an esker is a water pipeline for the future, and one person shouldnít risk it for the whole town.

Mr. Stocking asked why another location would be safe. Dr. Borns said if a gas station were located in silt and clay, there would be virtually no risk of it running into the esker along the contours. He explained the map. Mr. Stocking asked about Mr. Timsonís comment that contamination would only move about 100 yards to the west. Dr. Borns said the slope on the water table will have it flow to the west, it would not run to the end of Lamoine or toward Ellsworth. He said heís talking about a large section of water. He said weíre dealing with a non-renewable resource.

Mr. Giunta said Dr. Borns doesnít disagree much with Mr. Timson, and asked where he does disagree. Dr. Borns said he sees this as a high risk of contamination. Mr. Giunta asked as opposed to what. Dr. Borns said no contamination. Mr. Giunta asked if this is low risk contamination. Dr. Borns said the Gerber conclusion is the water will go into the area by the store and move to the west. Mr. Giunta asked if unless a person is living to the west, will it not get contaminated to the east? Dr. Borns said itís very clear the water flows to the west, but that includes a whole series of houses. He said wells would be contaminated. Mr. Giunta asked if Dr. Borns was saying some will go east. Dr. Borns said it would go to the entire resource. Mr. Giunta asked if Dr. Borns was interpreting what Mr. Gerber is saying. Dr. Borns said yes. Mr. Giunta asked if Dr. Borns had an opinion on how far east it could travel. Mr. Giunta asked if Dr. Borns agreed with Mr. Timson when he said it will move west. Dr. Borns said it will move other directions too. Mr. Giunta asked if Dr. Borns cannot give his professional opinion on how far east. Dr. Borns said yes, and pointed to a location, saying he was not sure of the scale. Mr. Giunta asked Dr. Borns if he had any opinion the distance of contamination easterly from the point of contamination. Dr. Borns said a good quarter of a mile. Mr. Giunta asked if it is Dr. Bornsí opinion that contamination would go eastward ľ mile. Dr. Borns said westward and ľ mile east.

Mr. Fowler said Dr. Borns referred to drops of oil contaminating the esker. He said many more cars use the intersection in front of the store with that problem. Dr. Borns said oils from those cars go into the subsurface. Mr. Fowler asked if itís more likely cars at the intersection will cause contamination. Dr. Borns said he agreed with that, but one more wrong doesnít make it better.

Testimony of James Hillier Ė Mr. Hillier introduced himself as a certified geologist and a water treatment plant operator with Hillier and Associates in Augusta. He said he worked for Mr. Gerber 1Ĺ years after the Lamoine report was prepared. He said his specialty is contamination from oil and gas. He said heís worked for the DEP and Department of Transportation. He showed a map of the aquifer in the esker system. He said marine clay has low permeability. He said the quality of water is close to the highest quality of drinking water you can find. He said Perrier looks for water like this and Lamoine is lucky to have this aquifer.

Mr. Hillier said because so many aquifers are contaminated, you donít have to live on it to consider it important. He said such resources are becoming valued by townspeople who take a personal interest in it. Mr. Stocking asked if there is any information on how many people get water from this aquifer. Mr. Hillier said he has not counted them. He showed the board a flow chart on how to deal with a fuel oil leak. He said for sand and gravel aquifers they try to respond quickly to give well head protection. He said no land uses should put the town in this position. He said where it pays off is when you decide the aquifer is a valuable resource.

Mr. Stocking asked if a release has a minimum threshold. Mr. Hillier said no, maybe in the 5-to-10 gallon range. He explained the process for cleaning up an aquifer. He said the DEP is still involved in many sites. He said it the proposal were located on different soil, there are different opinions, but a spill would be containable. He said there is a stringent cleanup standard rule for sand and gravel aquifer and land use guidelines should reach accordingly. He told of a site in Readfield which has cost $420,000 and many sites are like that. He said the quality of the water Lamoine has is selling for about the same amount as a gallon of gas.

Mr. Stocking asked who spends the money if there is a spill. Mr. Hillier said there is an oil cleanup fund financed by public money available to fueling operators. He said the insurance covers fuel operators not in compliance. He said itís not a great insurance policy; he doesnít want to say if something goes wrong there is insurance.

(Recording secretaryís note: at this point the audiotape ends, and no other tape was available to continue taping of the hearing).

Mr. Hillier said the contours of the water table indicate flow from North and South toward the intersection. He said contaminants would not travel up gradient. He said the contours are pretty flat in the store area, or the middle zone. He said he presumes there are seasonal changes in water levels, that will cause any pollution plume to move. He said more wells hooked into the aquifer will influence where the water goes.

Mr. Worthen asked what is the area of potential contamination. Mr. Hillier showed the area where water is discharged through either side of clay, and the travel is more to the west toward the creek. He said no one could say for sure. He said there would be more contamination beyond the 100 feet referred to by Mr.Timson.

Mr. Holdsworth asked about the soils under the clay. Mr. Hillier said aquifers sit on bedrock, and some water will move into the bedrock or till and itís more difficult to predict where that will go and to clean it up. Mr. Holdsworth said the Gerber report says both sides of Douglas Highway have underlying material of glacial stream deposits. Mr. Hillier drew a picture of materials and explained esker formation. He said springs leak out of the esker and natural springs come out of clay. He said the consequence of putting contaminants is that they will move around seasonally and go into the bedrock. He showed a drinking water supply map, and noted a number of dug and drilled wells were in the vicinity of the gradient that would be potentially affected. He said it would impact public and private water supplies, certainly within the area. He said some contamination will occur, and said he expects spills of 10 to 20 gallons. He said one gallon of gas contaminates 1-million gallons of water beyond drinking water standards. .

Mr. Hillier said a lot of people say it evaporates, but gas stations are graded to shed water. He said the vast majority of gas that enters the ground is absorbed in soil but this is granular material. He said despite best intentions, spills will happen and trucks overturn. Mr. Worthen asked in terms of gas stations, what does he see for the system described here. Mr. Hillier said theyíve come a long way but accidents still occur below ground. He said installations are not perfect. He said there is an ongoing backlog of work to un-contaminate. He said it goes on all the time despite everybodyís best work.

Mr. Giunta had Mr. Timson cross examine Mr. Hillier. Mr. Timson asked Mr. Hillier how many sand and gravel aquifers have been contaminated. Mr. Hillier said he doesnít think anyone has a real number, but he recognizes itís an increasing problem. Mr. Timson asked if Mr. Hillier doesnít have a number. Mr. Hillier said he doesnít have one. Mr. Timson said heíd made a fairly significant statement. Mr. Hillier said the MTBE study found 10-percent of water supplies had MTBE. Mr. Timson said they were private wells, not aquifers. Mr. Timson asked how come the MTBE study found no correlation of under ground storage to contamination. He said he got that from the DHS web site. Mr. Hillier said the MTBE study illustrates that incidental spills on private property are significant and such small spills which can occur at a gas station is significant.

Mr. Timson said Mr. Hillier said potential contamination might be influenced by a change in pumping wells. He asked drilled or dug. Mr. Hillier said both. Mr. Timson asked if a casing into the bedrock would change the aquifer level. Mr. Hillier said absolutely, a government study shows it. Mr. Timson asked about what pumping rates are significant. Mr. Hillier said no one has the answer to that. Mr. Timson asked if Mr. Hiller knows. Mr. Hillier said itís not productive to guess. Mr. Timson asked if Mr. Hillierís statement as to where contaminants would go is a guess. Mr. Hillier said heís hired by MDOT and MDEP to use models, and pumping wells influences the direction. Mr. Timson asked about the number of gas stations on sand and gravel aquifers. Mr. McCaskill said there are some. Mr. Timson asked how many. Mr. Hillier said itís not useful to speculate. Mr. Timson said Mr. Hillier gives the impression that a gas station on an aquifer will contaminate, and asked if he knows of any that have not. Mr. Hillier said he only comes in after a problem has occurred. Mr. Timson said he wants to know if there was anywhere contamination has not occurred, and said he wanted Mr. Hillier to tell about the clean stations. Mr. Hillier said that was Mr. Timsonís job.

Mr. Worthen asked what Mr. Hillierís expert opinion is on the probability and risk to the aquifer if the gas station is build as proposed. Mr. Hillier said once it opens, itís a factor of time if it operates for decades. He said spills occur. He said there is an increase in the number of fuel trucks over time and there will certainly be some contamination. Mr. Worthen asked if it will have an adverse impact on groundwater. Mr. Hillier said yes.

Mr. Stocking asked about two maps handed to the Board by Dr. Borns. Dr. Borns said they are basic geology maps. Mr. Stocking said if they are useful, he will give an exhibit number of LCA 6. Mr. Hillier left a color-coded large aquifer map and three other large maps to be exhibit LCA # 7. Mr. Giunta said he thought he saw letters from other individuals. Mr. Stocking said they are part of the LCA petition to show membership, and he decided these are add ons to the petition. Mr. Giunta said he objects to the letters as irrelevant. Mr. Stocking said he accepts the letters on Mr. Worthenís good faith they are to show membership to LCA only.

Mr. Stocking asked if members of the public would like to speak. Thomas Keenan indicated he would.

Mr. Stocking said he would proposed adjourning until two weeks from today to hear any additional arguments, make findings of fact and law, and then deliberate in public with no public input. The meeting date was set for March 14, 2000 at 7:00 PM.

Testimony of Thomas Keenan -- Fr. Keenan said many in town government have lived without the appreciation of what an aquifer might be. He said machines have been invented to remove risk to the planet. He said Mr. Ciampa bought his business in good faith, but did not realize the store was located over an aquifer. He said heís privileged to see citizens learning what they have around them. He said the struggle in the Middle East is over water. He said we can buy Poland Spring water because they didnít contaminate their source.

Fr. Keenan said itís up to us whether to risk and trash it or make as good a use of a resource as we can. He said there is tremendous potential to make good use of the resource. He said the experts say the resource is there. He asked if the town is going to come up with a new land use program. He said it was very enlightening to be here. He said the resource is ours and part of our responsibility is to make the best use of it we can. He said itís not as simple as letting them put tanks in and hoping for the best. He said maybe we do have to change things.

Chairman Stocking adjourned the meeting at 11:37 PM until 7:00 PM on March 14, 2000.

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Stuart Marckoon, recording secretary

Administrative Assistant to the Lamoine Board of Selectmen

 

 

 

 

Table of Exhibits

Exhibit Number

Item

Appeals Board 1

Application to Planning Board

Appeals Board 2

Decision by Planning Board

Appeals Board 3

Letter from Dale Worthen

Appeals Board 4

Comprehensive Plan

Ciampa 1

Deed from Keene to Ciampa

Ciampa 2

DEP Registration Permit

Ciampa 3

Proposal for gas tank & pump installation

Ciampa 4

Planning Board Minutes 12-6-99

Ciampa 5

Planning Board Minutes 1-3-00

Ciampa 6

Site Plan Map

Ciampa 7

Booklets of Manufacturers items

Ciampa 8

Physical samples

Ciampa 9

Report of Barry Timson

Ciampa 10

Excerpt of Gerber Report

Ciampa 11

Large map of aquifers

LCA 1

Gerber Report photocopy

LCA 2

Letter from Andrews Tolman

LCA 3

Letter from Robert Gerber

LCA 4

Arguments from attorney Worthen with 2 maps

LCA 5

Petitions and Letters from Lamoine Community Association

LCA 6

Geology Maps from Dr. Harold Borns Jr.

LCA 7

Four large maps from James Hillier