AUBURN – If the state really wants to improve the Androscoggin River, “It will deal with non-point sources” of pollution, Jay mill lawyer Jamie Kilbreth said Wednesday during the first day of water-quality hearings.

Kilbreth, a lawyer for Verso (formerly IP), told members of the state Environmental Protection Board at the Hilton Garden Inn that data used for pollution limits is flawed and doesn’t consider non-point pollution – dirt, debris and nutrients – that runs into the river from farms, homes and other non-mill sources.

The state comes up with ways to address non-point pollution “all the time,” Kilbreth said. There ought to be a concerted program to identify and reduce non-point pollution for the Androscoggin, he said.

Kilbreth was testifying before the EPB on the first of six days of hearings about a pollution license the state has given the mill, more stringent pollution standards the state has recommended, plus objections and appeals to both. Some consider the hearings historic, saying the river has waited “for years” for new regulations that will make the river fishable and swimmable, finally complying with the federal Clean Water Act.

But a scientist testifying for the Natural Resources Council of Maine said non-point pollution isn’t a significant problem, a conclusion shared by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

“I do agree there are non-point sources of pollutants coming in, as there are in any river system,” said Deborah French McCay of Applied Science Associates, a marine science consulting firm with headquarters in Rhode Island.

“However, this river system is 90 percent forested. So it’s not like it’s got lots of urban development, lots of urban runoff,” she said. “It doesn’t have animal feed lots. It doesn’t have cultivated agriculture upstream. This is forestry, natural land, primary.”

And the best remedy for non-point pollution, McCay said, is trees and shrubs along the water. “Well, it already has that.”

Other rivers in Maine, such as the Kennebec, have forested watersheds similar to the Androscoggin, “and don’t have problems with non-source pollution.”

McCay argued that both existing and recommended pollution limits from the DEP would mean Verso would not have to reduce any of the thousands of pounds of wastewater it discharges each day in Jay.

That’s because, McCay said, the mill is already discharging below those limits. For the river to come into federal Clean Water Act compliance, it needs less pollution, she said.

Before McCay gave her testimony, opening statements were offered by the Natural Resources Council of Maine, the Conservation Law Foundation representing citizens groups, Florida Power and Light, which operates the Lewiston-Auburn hydro dam on Gulf Island Pond, the Rumford paper mill, and Verso.

Each organization offered its views on what should be done. Environmentalists called on the state to change Verso’s permit to ensure that less wastewater is dumped into the river, the dirtiest in Maine, said Steve Hinchman of the Conservation Law Foundation.

FPL said it should not have to share costs for a multimillion dollar “bubbler” device that would put more oxygen in Gulf Island Pond. The Rumford mill said it has done its share, has significantly reduced its pollution, and has already accepted DEP’s recommendations for less pollution, Rumford mill lawyer Virginia Davis said. Like FPL, Rumford does not want to share costs for a second bubbler.

Verso isn’t contesting its existing permit, but is opposed to DEP recommendations that it pollute less.

Environmentalists say the Androscoggin is “the dirtiest river around. Nothing’s happened. That’s completely wrong,” said mill lawyer Kilbreth. Solutions should be “based on science, not emotions; analysis, not rhetoric.”

The problem in Gulf Island Pond, a part of the river that does not meet federal or state standards, “is a few days of non-attainment of dissolved oxygen at depths of about 50 feet. That is just not the kind of problem that mirrors the rhetoric that you get,” Kilbreth said.

If the Jay mill were shut down and discharged nothing, “You’d still have that problem. There’s a simple reason. There’s a dam there.” The dam creates a pond, slows the river down, “and you have a tremendous influx of non-point sources,” Kilbreth said.

The hearings continue today at the Hilton Garden Inn. Tonight, the public can offer comments beginning at 6:30.

Another important issue is what the mill is licensed to pollute versus what the mill actually is discharging, Kilbreth said. His mill needs wiggle room.

“Every mill in the country has a permit that has higher limits than its actual discharges,” because, Kilbreth said, “mills want to be 100 percent compliant. Things happen in mills,” such as a machine going down that could alter discharge.

If a pollution license only allows discharges on a mill’s best days, “you’re going to have violations,” Kilbreth said. “Now, if you have to be at that level to achieve water quality, OK. But that’s not the case here.”

The hearings continue today at the Hilton Garden Inn. Tonight, the public can offer comments beginning at 6:30.

Copy the Story Link