VOLUME I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF FEDERAL PERMITS TO THE PITTSTON COMPANY OF NEW YORK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 250,000 BARREL/DAY OlL REFINERY AND MARINE TERMINAL EASTPORT, MAINE PREPARED BY: U,S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION I, BOSTON, MA 02203 ------- VOLUME J EXECUTIVE SUMIIARY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF FEDERAL PERMITS TO THE PITTSTON COMPANY OF NEW YORK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 250,000 BARREL/DAY OIL REFINERY AND MARINE TERMINAL - EASTPORT, MAINE PREPARED BY: U,S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION I, BOSTON, MA 02203 ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction 1 II. History of the Project 3 III. EPA’s Decision on the Permit Application 5 IV. Description of the Proposed Action 9 V. Need for the Proposed Action 11 VI. The Environmental Setting and Impact of the 13 Proposed Project A. Socio-Economic 13 B. Air and Meteorological Factors 20 C. Aquatic Resources 24 D. Terrestrial Ecology 30 E. Noise 31 F. Relationship to Other Federal Activities 32 VII. Major Alternatives Considered 33 A. Alternatives Available to the Federal 33 Agencies B. Alternatives Available to Pittston 34 C. Alternatives Available to Eastport 38 VIII. Adverse Impacts Which Cannot be Avoided and 39 Mitigating Measures Which Will be Employed IX. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the 43 Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Beneficial Uses X. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of 45 Resources ------- I. INTRODUCTION This document provides a summary of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region I, on the proposed construction of a 250,000 BPD (barrel per day) oil refinery, storage facility, and marine terminal at Eastport, Maine. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, P.L. 91-190, requires all Federal agencies to prepare detailed environmental impact statements prior to the implementation or construction of any “major actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has served as the lead Federal agency in preparing both the draft and the final en- vironmental impact statement on the proposed Pittston Oil refinery in Eastport, Maine. EPA has, however, received extensive coopera- tion from several other Federal agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy, (formerly FEA), the U.S. Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation Administration in prepar- ing these documents. The environmental impact statement is required by two of the agencies, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in order to make specific determinations on permit applications from the Pittston Company. The Federal Aviation Administration will base its final decision on whether or not to release the City of Eastport from its commitment to maintain the airport on the analysis presented in the final environmental impact statement. The procedures to be followed during the final decision making process for each of the Federal agencies differs. EPA’s regulations require that following a careful review of all public comments on the draft environmental impact statement the agency include in the final EIS the agency’s proposed decision on the permit applications. A final decision cannot be made on the permits until the public has had an opportunity to review the final EIS for 30 days. However, by informing the public of the proposed permit decision, the public can focus its reaction and comment during the 30 day comment period. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s regulations require that the final environmental impact statement be circulated for a full 30 days before any decision is made on the applicant!s request for a permit. Therefore, at the conclusion of the 30 day comment per- iod and following its public interest review, the Corps of Engineers will make a decision on the final disposition of the applicant’s request for a Section 10 permit pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The Federal Aviation Administration will reach a final de- cision on the disposition of the airport following the 30 day re- view period on the final environmental impact statement. 1 ------- The draft EIS included a detailed description of the pro- posed action and the need for it; identification and analysis of alternatives, including no-action; discussion of the proposed action’s impacts; evaluation of any adverse impacts which cannot be avoided and possible mitigating steps; assessment of the rela- tionship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and an analysis of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources resulting from the action. The final EIS includes the above as well as a discussion of the issues raised by Federal, State, and local agencies as well as private organizations and individuals during the review of the draft EIS. Approximately 320 comments were received on the DEIS. All of these comments were reviewed and consequently extensive revisions were made to the DEIS in the areas of air quality, marine biology/ oil spills, and socio-economics. Only minor changes were made in the remainder of the DEIS text. All comments are addressed in de- tail in Volume Iv of this FEIS. The Final EIS is a document which will be used by the ap- propriate Federal agencies in their decision making process. In response to the comments received on the draft EIS, several issues received major attention in the preparation of the final EIS. These issues include: 1. The risks and impact of a major oil spill from a tanker accident 2. The impact of the refinery’s effluent discharge on water quality 3. Alternate refinery locations and delivery systems for crude oil and refined product 4. The impact of the refinery on the Passamaquoddy Tidal Power project 5. The impact of the refinery on air quality in the region 6. The need for this refinery in achieving secure domestic supplies of petroleum products 7. The position of the Government of Canada with re- gard to this proposed facility 8. The economic impact of this proposed facility on Eastport and Washington County. 2 ------- II HISTORY OF THE PROJECT In April 1973, the Pittston Company filed an application with the State of Maine to construct an oil refinery and marine terminal in Eastport, Washington County, Maine. Hearings by Maine’s Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) were begun on June 18, 1973 and suspended the same day due to expressed opposi- tion from the Canadian Government concerning the passage of tankers through Canadian waters. Pittston was instructed to resolve the problem of tanker access with Canada; however, upon order of the Maine Superior Court, the Board resumed the hearings on July 16, 1973 without resolution of the access problem, con- tinuing through January 23, 19711. However, prior to making a decision on the application, the Board was advised that, in the opinion of the Attorney General, based on a recent Supreme Court decIsion (Walsh v. City of Brewer, MaIne, 315 A. 2d 200 (197 4)), “title, right and interest” by an applicant to the property to be developed is a necessary prerequisite to administrative review by the Board. On July 10, 19711, Pittston moved to dismiss the pending application, requesting permission to file a new appli- cation which complied with the requirement for “title, right and Interest”. Permission was granted the same day. Hearings were reopened on August 19, 19711 and suspended the following day when it was determined that Pittston did not have adequate control of those portions of the site presently used as the Eastport Municipal Airport. The issues included: (1) whether or not the FAA could release the City from the terms of a grant agreement which required the City to operate and maintain the airport throughout the useful life of the facilities constructed under the grant or until March 19, 1979; and (2) If’ FAA did release the City, would that action be considered a major Federal action significantly affecting the environment. On September 20, 19711, the CEQ advised FAA that It could make a tentative determination on the matter which would become final only after consideration of the final EIS. Subsequently, EPA, Region I, was named lead agency for such an EIS. The Board resumed hearings on January 6, 1975, concluding on January 29, 1975. On March 12, 1975, the Board Issued a conditional approval of all aspects except the crude transport system. Hearings were, therefore, reopened, and after two days, a conditional approval of the crude transport system was granted on June 11, 1975. The Maine BEP has completed its permitting process on this project. Copies of the Waste Discharge License, t’he Air Emission License, and the Wetlands Permit (all issued May 25, 1977) are contained in Appendix A. 3 ------- Pittston then requested a meeting with the Federal agencies involved, including: EPA, Region I, to consider the issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the discharge of wastewater into Deep Cove; the FAA to deter- mine whether the City of Eastport could be released from its commitment to continue operation of the municipal airport; and the COE to consider the issuance of permits to construct piers at Broad Cove, and to dredge over one million cubic yards of material form these coves. Several other Federal agencies pro- vided both assistance and advice during the evaluation of the project proposals. On October 13, 1976, Region I EPA issued a draft EIS and distributed same in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and scheduled a public hearing in accordance with this Act. On December 3, 1976, Region I EPA held a public hearing at Eastport, Maine pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. At the meeting and subsequent to it, several hundred comments on the Draft EIS were heard and received. These comments and responses to them have been incor- porated in the Final EIS. On April 25, 1977, Pittston Company applied for its PSD permit. In light of the Clean Air Act Amendments, the Pittston Company submitted a revised PSD application on November 18, 1977. On January 16, 1978, EPA issued a notice of proposed issuance of the PSD permit. The comment period was extended to April 15, 1978. It is anticipated that the PSD decision will be made on or about June 13, 1978. The PSD process is separate from the NPDES process and this EIS. The two processes have been coordinated to the maximum extent feasible. However, the final PSD decision and rationale appears as a separate document. 4 ------- III. EPA’s Decision on the Permit pplication Pursuant to Section 511(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and EPA’s Regulations for the Preparation of Environmental Impact State- ments, Region I of the Environmental Protection Agency has evaluated all potential impacts of the Pittston proposal on the environment in deciding whether to issue the permit and in prescribing its terms and conditions. Upon consideration of the information presented in the Environmental Impact State- ment (EIS) and extensive comments from the public and other governmental agencies, it is EPA’s determination that an appropriately conditioned NPDES permit can be issued; however, the final determination on the permit will not be made for at least 30 days after publication of the Final EIS in order to ensure that the views and comments of interested parties and agencies accompany the proposal through the agency decision process. The applicability of NEPA to issuance of permits to certain new sources requires EPA to consider the complete range of environmental impacts in acting on an application for an NPDES permit for a particular facility. The impact of the water pollution discharge is only one of the impacts to be assessed. EPA interprets its duty under NEPA to mean that all impacts must not only be evaluated in an EIS but also that the results of that evaluation be acted upon in deciding whether to issue a permit and in prescribing the terms and conditions necessary to assure that significant adverse impacts are minimized. Thus, it is EPA’s opinion that NEPA requires EPA to condition the terms of a permit to mitigate any un- acceptable environmental impacts or to deny a permit to a facility found to be environmentally unacceptable even after the imposition of conditions to mitigate environmental harm. The Agency’s interpretation of NEPA’s mandate is set forth in an opinion of the General Counsel dated September 23, 1976 and is reflected in the applicable regulations, 40 CFR Section 6.918. As proposed, the tentative NPDES permit would be conditioned on the satisfaction of certain requirements be- yond the requirement to achieve the effluent limitations specified for the proposed refinery’s wastewater discharges. These conditions, principally related to minimize the risk from tanker transit to and from the proposed facility and the establishment of approved air quality and marine biology monitoring programs, are addressed in a stipulation setting 5 ------- forth requirements to be met before construction of the facility commences. EPA will consider failure to meet the terms of the stipulation as resulting in a change in conditions sufficient to warrant modification, suspension, or revocation of the permit pursuant to Section 125.22(a) (2) of the NPDES regulations. Summary of Conditions for Issuance of the NPDES Permit The conditions for issuance of the permit and operation of the proposed refinery are set forth in a stipulation to be executed by EPA and the applicant and in the permit itself. The stipulation contains requirements which must be met before construction of the refinery begins. These conditions are imposed under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act for a new source of water pollution. As stated earlier, failure to comply would be considered by EPA to cause a change in conditions warranting modification or revocation of the permit. 1. Preconstruction Conditions of the Stipulation The stipulation contains two conditions related to assuring the safe navigation of tankers to and from the proposed refinery. The first requires the successful completion of the “real time simulation” studies six months before construction and their review by the Coast Guard, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection, and EPA. The second condition calls for a survey to confirm the depth of Head Harbor passage and, if necessary, plan for remedial measures. Programs for marine biological monitoring must be developed and approved before construction, and a meteorological station must be sited and constructed, with EPA approval. A dredging schedule, avoiding prime spawning or migration seasons must be submitted to EPA and the Corps of Engineers for approval. The stipulation also provides for development of a landfill site, approved by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, to dispose of ash, sludge, and oil or oil—caked debris from any oil spill cleanup operation. Following identification of on—site disposal sites for ash, sludge, or dredged spoil, the company is to conduct a groundwater survey. Finally, the stipulation requires ittStOfl to provide a vocational training program for ;ashington County residents, subject to aoproval by the plojment Security Comnission of the Maine Department of iar power Affairs. 6 ------- 2. Permit Conditions a. Limitations on the Discharge of Wastewater from the Refinery According to the refinery description presented by Pittston in the “Environmental Impact Assessment” dated March 8, 1976, and updated August 25, 1977, the Eastport refinery falls in the “Topping Subcategory” of the Effluent Guidelines for the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category. New Source Performance Standards for the Topping Subcategory were published in Section 419.15 of the Federal Register dated May 9, 1974 and updated May 20, 1975. Effluent Guideline limitations applicable to Pittston’s proposal include requirements for process wastewater, ballast water, contaminated and uncontaminated stormwater runoff and non—contact cooling water discharges. Section XI of the “Development Document” defines New Source Performance Standards for petroleum refineries as best practicable control technology currently available (BPCTCA) being applied to the wastewater flows used as the basis for best available technology economically achievable (BATEA). To develop BATEA, a flow of about 10.5 gallons/barrel of throughput was assumed for this type of refinery. EPA’S definition of BATEA resulted in proposed effluent limitations presented in the draft EIS. However, the State of Maine has provisions in its statutes requiring a State determination of best practicable treatment technology for each industry. Pittston’s proposal estimates a wastewater volume substantially less than the 10.5 gallons/barrel used by EPA as an industry average. Use of Pittston’s estimates of wastewater volume to compute the effluent limitations results in lower estimated pounds ir. most cases than those proposed in the draft EIS. Consequently, the State of Maine has issued a State discharge license with these lower pound limitations and has indicated in its Section 401 certification to EPA that these stricter limitations should be used. The final NPDES permit, therefore, contains limitations based on the State of Maine’s definition of “best practicable treatment”, as a condition of State certification. b. Other Permit Conditions The NPDES permit to be issued contains monitoring requirements to verify compliance with the effluent limitations as well as a special requirement to monitor the quantity and composition of sludge. Provisions to prevent erosion are also included. In addition, the permit includes special terms imposed by the State of Maine as a condition of 7 ------- certification of the NPDES permit under Section 401(d) of the Act. The permit calls for the use of a submerqed diffuser outfall located a minimum of 3 feet below low tide and providing no contact between the discharge and surrounding shorelines. It also incorporates by reference the Order of the Maine Board of Environmental Protection No. 29—1466—29210 of March 12, 1975, as amended on June 4, 1975, which set forth detailed limitations and requirements for the construction and operation of the refinery arid the conduct of the crude oil transport system. 8 ------- Iv DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Pittston Company proposes to construct and operate an oil refinery and marine terminal on a site located in Eastport, Maine. The facility will receive crude oil from tankers of the VLCC (Very Large Crude Carriers) class, refine the crude oil into fuel products, and offload the products into medium sized tankers and barges for transport to product distribution terrainals on the Northeast Coast. If local inland markets develop, a portion could move by either rail or road. The project proposes to refine 250,000 BPD of high sulfur content imported crude oil. The proposed process scheme is uncom- mon in the United States since it will provide primarily low sul- fur home heating and industrial fuel oils. Gasoline production will be limited. The output of products will be similar to the Northeast’s current petroleum consumption pattern which is about 75 percent fuel oil and only 25 percent gasoline. The principal products to be made are: 96,’ 00 BPD of No. 5 industrial fuel oil; 00,500 BPD of No. 2 heating oil; L19,600 BPD of gasoline; and 7,700 BPD of propane and butane. In addition, 50 tons per day of pure sulfur will be made as a saleable by—product. The sulfur content of the finished industrial fuel oil will be 0.3 percent by weight. The heating oil will contain 0.19 percent by weight of sulfur. The refinery itself will consist of: 1. process units to separate and refine the crude oil into finished products; 2. storage tanks and associated pipelines for conveying the oil within the complex; 3. ancillary facilities to generate and/or distribute the steam, electricity, and compressed air needed to provide heating and lighting on the site, and to power and service machines and equipment in all operations, Including safety and emergency systems; and L . waste disposal facilities by which gas, waste and ballast water, heat, and solids are treated and disposed of in compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations. The marine terminal will have two separate pier structures, each equipped with the piping systems and controls necessary to handle cargo transfers and service the berthed vessels. Spill contaInment and recovery units will also be included. One pier will be for loading products into barges and tankers of up to 70,000 DWT capacity; the second pier will be primarily for 9 ------- unloading tankers of up to 250,000 DWT capacity. Both piers will be located adjacent to natural deep water channels so that all required dredging will be confined to the berthing areas along- side the pier structures. The dredged material will be used on the refinery site. The marine navigation system will include a control guid- ance and communication system and a fleet of tugs to assist in the maneuvering of vessels between the open sea and the two piers. 10 ------- V. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION In response to a request from EPA Region I, the Federal Energy Administration (FEA) evaluated the “need t ’ for the project in light of the national energy situation. A brief summary of FEA’s analyses is presented below: Security of Supply The strongest argument for locating sufficient refining capacity in the U.S. to satisfy U.S. demand is that it provides increased national security in the event of another embargo. Domestic refining capacity provides more assurance of con- tinuous product supply when normal sources are cut off be- cause alternate sources of imported crude oil are more readily available than alternate sources of refined products. In addition, the development of domestic refining capacity to meet essential U.S. demand is consistent with the Stra- tegic Petroleum Reserve Program. The cost advantage of storing crude oil over storing products is significant. However, storage of crude oil requires, in turn, that re- fining capacity be available to supply refined products during a supply emergency. U.S. Demand for Petroleum Products A further justification for new refining capacity is the Nation’s increasing need for petroleum products despite conservation efforts and other measures designed to reduce ccnsumption. In 1985, petroleum products will supply nearly 42 percent of the U.S. energy needs. Although this is about the same proportion as in 1975, the increased overall require- ments for energy will result in a 1980 demand for nearly 2 million BPD more of petroleum products and nearly 4.5 million BPD more in 1985, an increase of 12 percent and 27 percent, respectively, over 1975 consumption. Economic Benefits Further advantages of the development of needed refining capacity in the United States are derived from the retention of investment and jobs in this country. By 1980, construc- tion in the United States of a new 250,000 BPD refinery will cost up to $645 million in materials and labor, and employ up to 3,000 workers for one to three years. Thus, building this same refining capacity in foreign countires would re- suit in the loss of this substantial investment and sources 11 ------- of jobs to the U.S. economy. In addition, although refin- eries are not labor intensive, for each job provided directly by refinery operations, another three to four jobs are typ- ically provided in associated industries and services. Location of refining capacity in this country also has a balance of payments benefit. In general, the net savings in dollar outflow approximates the value added to crude oil refined in foreign locations plus the marginal cost of ship- ping products over crude to ports in the United States. Developing U.S. Refineries In recent years, the development of U.S. refining capacity sufficient to provide a secure, domestic supply of petroleum products has been a national energy policy objective. Current Situation Although a surplus of refining capacity currently exists in the “island refining centers” of the world, the United States does not have sufficient refining capacity to meet its needs. Until 1960, U.S. refining capacity was adequate to meet dom- estic demand; however, by 1975, the 16 million BPD demand for petroleum products exceeded the output of domestic refin- eries by 1,884,000 BPD. Therefore, 1.9 million BPD were im- ported to make up this deficit. Amount of New Capacity Needed As noted previously, current U.S. policy supports the devel- opment of domestic capacity to meet increased demand. If this development is to occur, the U.S. will need to construct new refinery capacity equivalent to 4,440,000 BPD by 1985. Planned new capacity through 1980 presently totals only 2,288,000 BPD. Type of New Capacity Needed New environmental standards require the burning of low-sulfur fuels, particularly the residual oil used by utilities and industry. However, existing U.S. refineries were built largely to handle low-sulfur crude oil produced in this coun- try and have sufficient capacity to produce only about 50 percent of our demand for residual oil. Since the supply of domestic crude is limited, any increased increment of crude oil to be refined must be imported, and would likely be pre- dominantly high-sulfur crude oil from the Middle East. Thus, new capacity, of an entirely different design, incorporating extensive desulfurization facilities, is required both to pro- cess high-sulfur crude and to produce low-sulfur products, especially residual fuel oil. 12 ------- VI THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. Socio—Economic Factors 1. Current Setting Location The proposed project site, as shown in Figure 1, is lo- cated on Moose Island within the territorial limits of the City of Eastport, County of Washington, and State of Maine. Seven miles from the open Atlantic Ocean, it is located at the extreme eastern end of Maine’s sparsely populated Washington County and is one of three major islands near the Canadian border. The island is connected to the mainland by a causeway built in the 1930’s. Population Both the City’s and County’s populations have steadily declined since the turn of the century. However, a slight in- crease of about 6 per cent has occurred since 1970, due mainly to an influx of retired couples. The 1973 population figures for Eastport and Washington County were about 2,100 and 31,700, respectively. Employment The major proportion of the area’s labor force is employed in manufacturing, particularly the food processing industry. A large proportion is also directly employed in commercia] fishing. The seasonal nature of these industries, together with the down- turn in the Northeast’s fishing industry, have resulted in both the County and the City having one of the highest unemployment rates and lowest average family incomes in the State and in the Nation. The new 200 mile fishing limit may increase the fishing industries in the Northeast. Land Use The major portion of Eastport’s 6,700 acres - over 65 percent — is water bodies, including portions of Cobscook and Passamaquoddy Bays. The City’s rural character is evident, with dispersed, older single-family homes predominating. The majority of its residents live either in the City’s center at the south- western end of the island, or in Quoddy Village at the opposite end of the island. The proposed refinery site consists of about 625 acres of land on the western portion of Moose Island. Most of the area is a mixture of timber, grassland, and scrub brush. This 13 ------- / CANADA /MONTREALmJ N TED STATE SO STRAIT SABLE ISLAND FIGURE I REGIONAL LOCATION MAP ( PRINCE / / I ’ NEW SYDNEY 3 ’ . ST. I JOHN DARTMOUTH EAST PORT MAINE N U NEW YORK ATLANTIC OCEAN 14 ------- is shown in Figure 2. Utilities and Municipal Services Municipal utility systems are also available through- out the developed areas of the City. A wastewater collection system serves the City proper,: the Redoubt Hill area, and Quoddy Village. Fresh water is supplied to the City’s resi- dents by a privately owned utility, the Eastport Water Company, whose source of supply is Boyden Lake. Solid wastes are cur- rently disposed of in a new 200-acre regional landfill site in Edmund. Access to the area is provided by highway, rail, water and air. Eastport is located only six miles east of U.S. High- way No. 1, which is the major regional highway through Washing- ton County. Eastport has ready access to the open sea and surrounding bays. Today’s ship traffic consists almost entirely of small fishing crafts and some pleasure boats. The largest commercial vessel regularly using these waters is a 3,000 DWT (dead weight ton) coastwise tanker carrying oil products to Pembroke. A 1,500 DWT sea-going barge also frequents the area. The nearest regularly scheduled air carrier service is to Bangor, Bar Harbor, or Houlton. There are presently two elementary schools and a high school in Eastport. The high school is shared with the nearby communities of Perry, Pembroke, Charlotte, Robbinston, and Dennysville. Two of the area’s 13 physicians practice in Eastport’s 35-bed hospital. In addition, Eastport has a full-time police department and a volunteer fire department. Historic Sites Washington County has 12 landmarks listed in the July 6, 1976 National Register of Historic Places. One of these - the Barrack’s Building of Fort Sullivan built in 1808 — is in Eastport. Two others are nearby: the Mansion House (c. 1800), 17 miles away in Robbinston; and the St. Croix Island National Monument (1604), 20 miles away on the international boundary between Canada and the United States. In addition, Eastport’s Central Congregational Church, dating back to 1829 , may be nominated. 15 ------- FIGURE 2 SITE LOCATION MAP 16 ------- 2. Impacts of the Proposed Action Land Use Construction of the refinery will require closing of two facilities located on the site: a camping area and the East- port Municipal Airport. According to the FAA, the useful life of the Airport has already expired. Five seasonal houses located on the site may also be dis- placed. A 100-foot buffer zone of trees along the site boundary will shield the refinery from surrounding land uses. Income and Employment Construction of the refinery will generate a total net gain of between $17,000,000 and $17,500,000 in income in Wash- ington County over a three-year period. This is translated in- to a net gain of over 1,150 man-years of work, whi’ch should also be generated within the County. A large part of these total gains will occur during the second year of the period. Operation of the refinery will generate an annual income gain within the County of $5,200,000 to $5,400,000. The re- finery will directly employ 300 workers, of which 200 are ex- pected to be Washington County residents. Because of direct, in- direct and induced employment gains, the operation of the re- finery should result in a total net gain of 540 jobs for Washing- ton County residents. Eastport residents are expected to obtain between 10% and 15% of the total income and employment gains fron refinery con- struction and operation. Taxes The construction cost of the refinery is estimated to be approximately $650 million. The assessed value of the refinery is expected to be approximately $350 million. It is impossible to predict the future levels of the tax rates of the City of Eastport or Washington County. However, based upon the above assessed value, each mill of tax rate imposed will generate revenues of $350,000 annually. The addition of the refinery to the local tax base should allow the City and County governments to decrease the tax rate and/or improve local services. 17 ------- Housing _ Most construction workers will be housed in temporary housing and trailers provided by Pittston. The remaining workers will reside in spare rooms or trailers provided by county residents. It is expected that the housing supply will be sufficient to meet demands but that there may be some as- verse impacts on local renters who do not have leases. Since operation of the refinery will involve importation of only 100 refinery operators and their households, no long- term pressure on the local hcusing supply is expected to de- velop. The refinery’s operation is not expected to encourage additional migration into Washington County. Transportation During the peak hours of the day the refinery’s construc- tion will cause Route 190 and the intersection of Route 190 and U.S. 1 to operate at or near capacity. During the operation of th refinery, travel is not expected to be adversely affected. Solid Wastes Solid wastes generated from the refinery (process solids, solids generated from effluent treatment facilities and wastes from general plant operations) will be disposed of on-site by Pitt- ston. This disposal facility will be operated in accordance with permit conditions specified by the State of Maine. With careful operation and monitoring, the solid waste from the refinery is not expected to generate any adverse impacts. The construction derived solid wastes will be recycled or transported to appropriate sal- vagers where possible. Commercial and household refuse generated by the construction force and by new families expected to move into the area will be the responsibility of the community. However, the new regional solid waste disposal site can accomodate these wastes without significantly affecting its useful life. Sewage Collection and Treatment Development of the refinery is not expected to affect the amount of untreated sewage discharged within the Eastport area. The refinery will have its own secondary wastewater treatment facility, and population growth induced by the refinery is not expected to be significant. However, based on Eastport’s present position on the state’s priority funding list, it is anticipated that Eastport will commence the planning of a wastewater treat- ment facility in 1978. Water Supply Development of the refinery will require the EaStpOrt Water Company to lay a new 12-inch water main, install additional 18 ------- pumping equipment, and make repairs to reduce leakage from Boyden Lake dam. It is expected that these improvements would be paid for largely by the Pittston Company, regardless of the ownership of the water system. The existing local water supply is large enough to satisfy the refinery’s needs. Police During refinery construction, the Eastport Police Depar— ment may require an expansion of their present force by five additional officers and a police cruiser. This increase would more than double the annual budget (to $120,000). It is possi- ble that these manpower levels will be maintained after the construction phase ends. Fire Since the refinery will have its own internal f ire- fighting capability, and Eastport’s volunteer fire department currently possesses modern equipment, development of the refinery should not necessitate any increased expenditure in this area. Schools Pittston Co. will provide temporary classroom space for the 225 additional pupils expected during the refinery’s peak construction period. Approximately 50% of the total additional school operating expenditures necessitated by these pupils should be paid for by the State of Maine. Therefore, the additional costs to be incurred by th City will be approximately $74,000 annually. During the operation of the refinery, additional p pils will intensify overcrowding in Eastport’S high school, but are unlikely to necessitate its physical expansion. Additional staff is expected to cost the City of EastpOrt $33,000 annually. Highways and Bridges Traffic during the refinery’s construction may necessitate improvements to the intersection of State Route 190 and U.S. 1. Medical A first aid station and ambulance will be provided by Pittston Co. for refinery construction workers. Additional space required in the Eastport Hospital may be made available through the use of trailers on the hospital parking lot ad- jacent to the building. This expansion could be financed through loans which would be amortized through increased patient revenues. Historical Sites It is not anticipated that there will be any adverse impacts to the nearby landmarks. 19 ------- B. Air and Meteorological Factors 1. Current Setting Climate Although Eastport is the northernmost city on the East coast, the coolness of the climate is moderated by the prox- imity of the Atlantic Ocean. Ocean breezes blow several miles inland, bringing cooling trends in the summer and warm- ing trends in the winter. The Labrador Current flowing south- ward along the Nova Scotia coast brings cold water into the Gulf of Maine. This current contributes to the area’s weather pattern, which is characterized by an abundance of precipita- tion, prevailing westerly winds and average temperatures of 60 degrees F in the summer and 25 degrees F in the winter. One of the area’s most notable characteristics is the frequent occurrence of fog, which can vary in both density and duration. The densest fogs are encountered during the dark hours of the sumxne months. Air Quality The proposed refinery site is located within Maine’s Downeast Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) III, which includes Washington, Hancock, and Penobscot Counties. In such areas, where air contaminant emissions are low and do not cause vio- lations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the EPA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations insure that ambient levels will not greatly increase and approach the ambient standards. The Downeast AQCR III is designated a Class II area for the purpose of non-degradation of ambient air quality. This means that a new source contri- buting SO 2 (sulfur dioxide) or TSP (total suspended particu- lates) may be constructed in the Eastport area as long as the resulting emissions do not exceed the allowable amount for a Class II area. However, Campobello International Park, which is approximately three miles from the proposed facility and the Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge, approximately eight miles away, have been designated Class I areas. Limits for pollu- tants in a Class I area are significantly more stringent than in Class II areas. A recent air-monitoring program at the Eastport site did not indicate SO 2 or TSP levels in excess of State and Federal ambient air quality standards. Ozone levels were found in excess of the one-hour standard less than 2 percent of the time. These violations do not, however, appear to be due to the local formation of oxidancs. Rather, it appears that the ozone violations in the Eastport area are due to the transport of oxidants into the area from more urbanized areas to the south. At the present time, there are several sources of strong odors in the Eastport area, including a fish processing/fire retardant foam plant. 20 ------- 2. Impacts of the Proposed Action Air Quality - Refinery Emissions . The proposed refinery will emit various quantities of pollutants, including particulates, ni- trogen oxides, nonmethane hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides, and trace amounts of mercury, beryllium, and lead. In order to assure that the proposed facility, if approved, would not adversely affect human health or welfare, a continuous emissions monitoring pro- gram will be required during operation. In order to estimate the impacts of the refinery’s emissions on the existing air quality, extensive computer analyses were performed independently by the Pittston Company and EPA, Region I. It appears that, although the project will significantly affect the levels of pollutants, particularly sulfur and nitrogen oxides, the final concentrations of these pollutants in the area should not exceed either the Maine or Federal ambient standards. The proposed facility must use Best Available Control Technology for SO 2 , and will burn low- sulfur fuel oil, in order to avoid the deterioration of the air quality at nearby Campobello International Park. — Photochemical Oxidants . Currently, during the summer months, the Federal standard for ozone is exceeded in the East- port area. Ozone, formed by the interaction of precursor poi- lutants such as nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons, is unlike primary pollutants in that it can be formed during transport over long distances. Thus, it is likely that the high ozone levels presently being experienced in Eastport are the result of emissions from several of New England’s larger urbanized areas. EPA is presently undertaking several programs to reduce emissions from both stationary and mobile sources throughout the Northeast corridor. The refinery’s contribution to the regional ozone problem is expected to be very small. - Acid Mist and Other Sulfate Emissions . There is a possibility that the sulfur dioxide and other pollutants emitted by the refinery will react with fog in the Eastport area. This interaction causes the formation of sulfuric acid as well as several other sulfate compounds. Recent studies have indicated that sulfates may have an adverse effect on human health. The refinery’s impact on sulfate levels is expected to be very low. However, the regional rain acidif i- cation problem is expected to be aggravated to some extent. - Odor . The refinery will emit small amounts of odor- producing substances. At the present time, however, there are several fish processing plants in the area which emit strong odors. In comparision, the refinery odor emissions should be low. 21 ------- - Air Quality Impacts of Construction . (onstruction im- pact on air quality is generally of a temporary and localized nature. Since the background values for particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide are so low, construction impacts are not significant. The principal sources of air pollution during construction may include fugitive dust and emissions from construction vehi- cles and equipment. The area of impact will be immediately adjacent to the construction site and on the access roads appro- aching the site. There are sensitive receptors, such as homes, immediately adjacent to the refinery site. Impacts could be mini- mized by implementing applicable control measures. - Regulatory Issues . The Clean Air Act Amendments of August 7, 1977 modified the Prevention of Significant Deterior- ation (PSD) program in several important areas. Regulations were promulgate’d implementing certain of the new requirements on November 3, 1977 and on November 18, 1977, EPA received in- formation from the Pittston Company updating and modifying their application in response to these new requirements. A major change of significance for this project is the designation of Roosevelt-Campobello Park and the Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge as Class I areas. This means that the refinery will have to meet the most stringent PSD requirements for total suspended parti- culates and sulfur dioxide. EPA’s preliminary determination of January 16, 1978 has been subjected to further review as part of a public comment process. If the refinery is considered to satisfy the requirements of the PSI) regulations, refinery emissions will use up essentially all of the allowable air quality increment within the Class I area. This will mean that no future major emitter could he located in the area of influence. A complete discussion of the PSD issues appears in a separate document. A final air quality issue concerns the effect of EPA’s policy concerning the location of major new sources of air pollution in non-attainment areas, the so—called “Offset Policy”, or “Interpretative Ruling”. See the Federal Register , December 21, 1976, p. 55524 et seq. The most significant aspect of this policy is the requirement that the issuer of a new source per- mit (here the Maine Board of Environmental Protection) may not allow a source to exacerbate an ambient air quality violation. A source which would lead to such exacerbation may be permitted only if offsetting emission reductions are obtained so that there will be a net air quality benefit at the time the source 22 ------- co nmences operation. The Maine license did not require offsets, even though there have been occasional violations of the oxidant standard in the Eastport area. EPA feels that this is acceptable since it is expected that due to 3dditional controls which are required by the 1977 Clean Air ? ct Amendments the Eastport area will not be in violation of zhe oxidant standard at the time the refinery goes on line, nor will the refinery cause such a violation. 23 ------- C. Aquatic Resources 1. Current Resources Freshwater Resources Moose Island is surrounded by two large bays: Cobscook on the west; and the lower portion of the Passamaquoddy, at Western Passage, on the east. The tributary areas to these bays, include the watersheds of the Magaguadavic, Digde- guash, St. Croix, and Dennys Rivers as well as numerous small streams. They consist of gently rolling lowlands with a few higher hills stretching along the divides between the watersheds. Marine Waters The bay waters around Eastport are classified, in accord- ance with the Marine Water Quality Standatds, as Class SA and SB-i to the north and west of Shackford Head and Class SC to the south and east. Class SA and SB—i waters are defined as “satis- factory for recreation except primary contact”. Those waters are classified SCas a result of the City’s raw sewage and industrial waste discharges. Marine Ecology The marine ecosystem in the Quoddy region is composed of islands, salt marshes, subtidal ledges, finger bays, and high velocity passages. The topography, bathymetric hetero- geniety, and high tidal amplitude of the region interact to pro- vide diverse aquatic habitats. The diversity of habitats, ef- ficiency of nutrient distribution by strong vertical mixing of the water column, and the relatively minor human impacts on the environment have resulted in a diverse and abundant marine biota. A high species diversity of marine benthic communities is found in these waters, including many species of crabs, shrimp, lobster, clams, and barnacles. Commercially, the important species are soft-shell clams - particularly in the Eastport-Passamaquoddy area — lobsters, shrimp and scallops, as well as such finfish as cod, haddock, herring, hake, redfish, pollock, and flounder. In addition, such sport fish as salmon, striped bass, and brook trout may be found in the area’s waters. Several species of aquatic mammals, including harbor pro— poises, both white-beaked and white-sided dolphins, and harbor and gray seals may be seen in Cobscook Bay and Head Harbor Passage. In fact, the population of harbor porpoises of the northeastern coast is believed to be centered in the Quoddy region where as many as 200 porpoises may be seen at one time. In addition, small numbers of such “great whales” as finback, minke, and right whales 24 ------- are found with some regularity in the Bay area. Except for the minke whale, all of the species of “great whales” are on the Department of the Interior’s Endangered Species List. The coastline areas of Eastport and the surrounding com- munities are important feeding and breeding areas for marine birds. Migrating birds, resident birds, and shore birds, in- cluding the wintering populations of black and common eider ducks, the northward migratory brant geese,scooter ducks, puf fins, phalaropes, and Bonapartes’ gulls all use these areas for at least part of their life cycle. 2. Impacts of the Proposed Action Freshwater There will be no significant impact on freshwater bodies, ground water or wetlands. Marine Water - Impact from Routine Refinery Discharges . The period of greatestimpact will occur when the refinery’s ballast water stormwater runoff, and process wastewater are discharged simul- taneously. Although this discharge must comply with the terms of EPA’s NPDES permit and Maine’s Water Quality Standards, it must be recognized that the proposed discharge does represent the introduction of new pollutants to Deep Cove, including small quantities of oil and grease. This will result in a chronic accumulation of oil deposits in the sediments near the discharge diffuser which will ultimately lose their potential for supporting benfhic life. However, the overall impact on the marine community of Deep Cove is not significant. - Oil Spills During Routine Transfer Operations . It is estimated that chronic oil spills at Eastport from all sources, except unusual or severe incidents, will probably be between 20 and 86 barrels per year.* Booms should control much of this spillage so there would be very little effect on the environ- ment resulting from dockside spills. - Oil Spills Due to Tanker Accidents . The potential of a larger, catastrophic spill due to a tanker grounding or collision is relatively small but very difficult to actually quantify. How- ever, the possibility (and probability) of severe spills always exists near oil refineries. The proposed Eastport refinery ultimately will experience its share of severe spills as have other comparable refineries. * Based on a comparison with other modern ports. 25 ------- In compliance with the Maine BEP order, Pittston will perform real time simulation studies and test voyages using ballasted tankers to evaluate the possible navigation prob- lems. However, even with this information, the only con- clusion that can be drawn is that the regular passage of tankers to and from Eastport will directly expose the area to a spill hazard which may have a potentially catastrophic effect on the marine resources of the Quoddy reqion. - Potential Effects of a Spill . In order to predict the potential effects of an oil spill in the project area, the many variables (environmental and engineering) which com- prise “existing conditions” at the time of a spill have been evaluated. The variables that were selected in- clude spill location, spill volume, characteristics of materials spilled, size of the intertidal zone, tidal range, and current velocity. Five oil spill scenarios were chosen to represent severe spill events involving spills of both crude oil and product for different volumes and locations. The scenarios evaluated are: CASE # SIZE (gals) MATERIAL LOCATION 1 80 million Crude Oil Casco Bay Island in Head Harbor Passage 2 20 million Crude Oil Casco Bay Island in Head Harbor Passage 3 20 million Crude Oil Treat Island at mouth of Cobscook Bay 4 13 million #2 Fuel Oil Casco Bay Island in Head Harbor Passage 5 3 million #2 Fuel Oil Treat Island at mouth of Cobscook Bay The following assumptions were made in evaluating the im- pacts of an oil spill in the Eastport area: 1. Oil will be discharged from tankers over a number of tidal cycles. 26 ------- 2. Impact evaluations were based on the assumption that the majority of spilled oil has either reached sections of shore line within the passages and inner bays or washed out to the Bay of Fundy. 3. Severe or catastrophic impacts to aquatic biological resources occur when the volume of a spill is suffi- cient to coat 25% of the intertidal area with a 1” thick layer of crude oil and a 1/4” thick layer for product oil. However, severe impacts may result from thicknesses less than those selected for scenario evaluation. 4. Arbitrary widths of intertidal zones were selected for areas that would be impacted by a spill. 30 yards 10 yards Cobscook Bay Head Harbor Passage Passamaquoddy Bay East Shore of Campobello Island 5. The Aquatic resources evaluated in each of the four areas were phytoplankton, zooplankton, macrophytes, invertebrates, fish, avifauna, and mammals. Aesthetics of the area also were evaluated. 6. Impact values were: Severe = 3 Moderate = 2 Slight = 1 No Impact = 0 The highest impact value an area could receive is 24. The results of the impact evaluation for the five Scenarios are summarized in the following tables: 27 ------- Table 1 Predicted fates of oil spilled under five scenario condicions near Eastport Maine. Scenario Volume 6 Spilled (10 gal) Distribution of S pilled Oil (106 gal) Cobscook Passages Passamaguoddy Carapobello 1 80 (lO0)* 24(30) 8(10) 8(10) 40(50) 2 20 (100) 6(30) 2(10) 2(10) 10(50) 3 20 (100) 14(70) 4(20) 2(10) O( 0) 4 13 (100) 3.9(30) 1.3(10) 1.3(10) 6.5(50) 5 3 (100) 2.1(70) 0.6(20) 0.3(10) 0( 0) percentage ot ttie total volume *Numb r i [ ) represent tti spilled. Table 2 impact area. Summary of weighting code totals for each scenario and Cobscook Passamaquoddy East Shore Scenario Bay Passages Bay Campobello 1 15 17 10 17 2 8 17 6 17 3 13 17 6 0 4 13 18 6 18 5 8 18 6 0 28 ------- The impact of oil spills upon various marine species and activities is summarized below: 1. Groundfish - Unaffected except in the case of a massive oil spill which would reach sediments where they feed. The greatestrisk is to winter flounder. 2. Shellfish — Shellfishing is the most directly affected activity although the extent depends on the nature and size of the spill. The softshell clani would be the most commercially important species affected. Lobsters in pounds would also be vulnerable, but Pittston plans to protect them with booms. 3. Fish & Birds - Fishprocessing plants could be adversely affected by a reduction in the volume of fish available to them during the period of impact. For example, the herring fishery, which is of commercial importance to the region, could be adversely affected for two to four years in those areas directly impacted by an oil spill. Obviously, a major oil spill would impact on local employment since the catching and processing of marine life is a major local industry. Birds would be damaged, especially the swimming and diving species. Dredging The removal of 1.45 million cubic yards of material would result in the direct removal of plant and animal species in the dredge area but should have little de- leterious effect on either the subtidal or intertidal areas beyond. There will be no impact on the benthic or algae productivity of the area. 29 ------- D. Terrestrial Ecology 1. Current Environmental Setting No examples of endangered flora were found on the site. Fauna observed on the site consisted mostly of porcupines, Eastern gray squirrels and striped skunks. It is reported, however, that two endangered species, the Arctic Peregrine falcon, and the northern bald eagle — are sometimes observed in the area. 2. Impact of the Proposed Project Except for the flora and habitat located directly on the site, there will be no direct impact on the local terrestrial ecology. 30 ------- E. Noise 1. Current Setting A noise-monitoring program shows that the existing noise climate can be classified as very quiet. The major source of daytime noise is traffic along Route 190 and the local roads. At night the background noise level is set by distant seagulls, wind in the trees and other low-level natural sources. 2. Impact of the Proposed Project The noise impact analysis shown in the table below in- dicates the possible increase in noise levels nearby the re- finery. TABLE 3 TABULATION OF IMPACTED RECEPTORS RECEPTORS EXTENT OF IMPACT Five single-family residents on Approximately 60 ciBA due to south side of Route 190 operation of refinery 10 houses on both sides of 55 to 60 cIBA due to refinery Route 190 operation Approximately 20 houses 50 to 55 dBA due to refinery operation Approximately 50 houses 45 to 50 dBA due to refinery operation Marine Trade Training Center 60 dBA due to refining operation Note: EPA has identified a day—night equivalent Sound level (Ldn) of 55 dBA as requisite to protect the public and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. It is a recommended level only. The very quiet, almost pristine nature of the existing acoustic environment in the vicinity of the proposed refinery will certainly be disturbed by the introduction of the refinery. But how this disturbance will be viewed by the nearby receptors, and the community at large, is difficult to quantify on a nu- merical scale. The extent of the noise impact must also be interpreted in terms of the relatively few receptors which are heavily impacted. These, and perhaps other, qualitative factors should be considered along with the quantitative evidence pre- sented in judging the environmental acceptability of the pro- posed project. 31 ------- F. Relationship to Other Federal Actions 1. Current Projects and Programs The Corps of Engineers Is reevaluating a proposal to construct an International Tidal Power Project at Passama— guoddy and Cobscook Bays . The proposals which have been under study since the 1920’s are fora 500 & a 1000 MW project. The Corps is also studying all—American Tidal Power projects at Cobscook Bay. The Pleasant Point Passamaquoddy Tribal Council is proposing a small demonstration type tidal power project (1I_12 KW) and a mariculture development in Half Moon Cove. Maine’s Coastal Zone Management Program is In the 1 Ith year of the planning phase. The Governor’s Advisory Committee on Coastal Development and Conservation is charged with ad- vising the Governor and State agencies on Issues concerning coastal planning and use. On December 20, 1976, Tenneco At1antI Pipeline Co.* filed an application with the FPC for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the importation of natural gas at Calais, Maine for transport through Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York to a point near Mllford, Pa. 2. Impacts of the Proposed Action The Passamaquoddy Tidal Power Project would appear to be compatible with the Eastport project. However If the power project is constructed, there will be operational and water— borne navigational constraints on the shipment of crude and finished products. This Is due to the dam system and naviga- tional lock proposed In Head Harbor Passage. The lock, which will be a considerable engineering and construction accomplish- ment, is necessary to ensure passage. The locks will cost between $22—1 0 million. The proposed All—American Tidal Power Projects will produce land use conflicts with the oil refinery and will require locks for the passage of oil refinery traffic. However these conflicts can be easily resolved. The Tribal Tidal Project would not be affected by the re- finery project. The Maine Coastal Zone Management Program is aware of the refinery project. The TAPCO gas pipeline Is total- ly independent of the refinery project. * The Federal P er Ca nission filed a Final EIS on this project in September 1977. It reccxai r ed that the St. John terminal and pipeline to I 4i1ford, Pennsylvania “.. .cannot be rejected on the grounds that a significantly superior alternative exists... these conclusions are made without any knowledge of the conditions the Canadian Governuent may place upon this project. (page 284) 32 ------- v i i. MAJOR ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED A large variety of alternatives have been evaluated in this FEIS. Among those considered are the following: A. Alternatives Available to the Federal Agencies 1. Available to EPA and COE a. grant Pittston the permits b. deny Pittston thepermits c. grant Pittston the permits with conditions 2. AvaIlable to the FAA a. denial of Eastport’s petition to shutdown the airport until license expires on March 19, 1979 b. denial of Eastport’s petition and attempt to force City to rehabilitate airport facility c. grant Eastport’s petition subject to locating a replacement facility d. grant Eastport’s petition without condition B. Alteriiatlves Available to Pittston (provided appropriate BEP licenses are obtained) 1. Other locations a. Machias, Maine b. Penobscot Bay/Blue 11111 Bay, Maine c. Portland, Maine area 2. Modifications at Eastport a. Pipeline Delivery from Canada b. Monomooring Berth off Lubec c. Varying Tanker Size d. No action C. Alternatives Available to Eastport 1. Alternative Economic Development Plans 2. No action The consequences of the above alternatives are summarized below: A. Alternatives Available to the Federal Agencies 1. Available to EPA and COE 33 ------- The impacts of these agencies approving the appli- cations of the Pittston Company have been presented in this summary and in the FEIS. The consequences of denying the permit are discussed under the “Needs” (page 11) and “No Action” (page 38) sections of this summary and in the FEIS. 2. Available to the FAA The first option, denial of the petition to Eastport, seems feasible but the airport has essentially been abandoned and there is no indication of an existing or projected aero- nautical need in the Eastport area. The Federal government does not have the authority to pursue option two without the full consent of the City and the City has indicated that it does not wish to retain the airport. The viability of option three depends upon the growth of aeronautical demands in the region. The FAA cannot impose this development on other communities. The impact of option four, which would permit, together with other actions, the project to go forward, has been spelled out in this summary and in the FEIS. B. Alternatives Available to Pittston 1. Other locations In developing their own criteria, Pittston established the following requirements for a marine terminal and oil refinery site: — A very deep, natural sheltered harbor, with excel- lent channel approaches as regards its width, depth, straightness, and length; — A logistically excellent location in relation to water distances to foreign crude supply points as well as to product markets, and the size of tankers that can be accommodated; - A location on the United States mainland, which reduces the risk of unilateral actions by other governments. Such actions could adversely affect the economic viability of the project and the reliability of production necessary to supply the United States markets; — A receptive local community, with an historically in- dustrial/commercial orientation and essentially no tourist, recreational, or summer residential develop- ment to endanger; — An adequate site which has been acquired or is under binding options. 34 ------- Three other areas, all in Maine, (Machias, Portland, and Penobscot/Blue Hill) have been evaluated with regard to the impact of a refinery on the area. The Table below summarizes this analysis: TABLE 4 Impact in Comparison to Impact at Eastport Parameter Machias Penobscot/ Blue Hills Portland Current Air Quality S W MW Impact on Air Quality S W MW Water Quality Impact S S S Current Land Sea Uses S More industrial— ized; still rural and resort areas Highly indus— trialized, with some resot t areas Noise Impact S S S Terrestrial & Aquatic Flor and Fauna S S Center of Maine’s lobster, clam and fishing_industry L Aesthetics S S L Oil Spills W More ex— posed passage W Long passage, near commercial fishing grounds W lust use monomooring, xposed to open oceai r must use a narrow Leep channel Soda—Economic S Less benefit since tax base is larger Much less benefit since larger pop— ulation, smaller unemployment, more people Same as Eastport = S Worse than Eastport = W Much worse than Eastport = MW Less severe than Eastport = L 35 ------- 2. Modifications at Eastport Pipeline Delivery from Canada This proposal, which involved the construction of a 670 mile pipeline from Lorneville, New Brunswick, to re- fineries in New York State has been dropped because of the cancellation of plans to construct a refinery at Buffalo, New York. Monomooring Berth off Lubec for Crude Oil Tankers This alternative would have several advantages including the following: — Reduction or elimination of dredging; - Elimination of crude oil vessel traffic close to shore, thereby reducing the potential for grounding; — Reduction of traffic density, thereby reducing collision hazard; — Location of oil transfer operations further away from shore areas, thereby reducing risks to sensitive coastal ecology. Offsetting these advantages are the following dis- advantages: - A greater risk of minor spill accidents; — More frequent operation interruptions; and - Higher safety risk to personnel. The Maine Board of Environmental Protection requested Pittston to study the possibility of a monomooring berth. The results of these studies are as follows: - It is technically feasible to construct a mono- buoy off Lubec in the Grand Manan Channel. - It would not cost more than a shore based facility. 36 ------- — Delays due to weather conditions’ would be significant. — Oil spills would be more req’uent and more difficult to contain. In summary, the environmental consequences of single point mooring for crude oil tankers, as compared to on shore berthing and unloading at Eastport, appear to be comparable. There would be further environmental risks if monobuoys are considered for product loading. One or two additonal mono- moorings would be needed because of the frequency of product tanker traffic and the need for multiproduct and ballast water transfer operations. The buoys would be more heavily utilized due to the relatively small size of the product tankers. The exposed position of the buoys in Fundy Bay could cause delays due to weather conditions. In addition, product spills are more damaging than crude oil spills, and available data indicates that there is a greater frequency of spills at product loading buoys than at crude buoys. Varying Tanker Size The advantages of limiting tankers to less than 150,000 DWT rather than using ships of up to 250,000 DWT were fully discussed during the BEP hearings. The central issue was whether the decrease in the project’s spill potential resulting from the superior handling characteristics of the smaller ships would outweigh the decrease resulting from a reduction in the number of larger ships required. In applying for its Federal permits, the Pittston Company proposed facilities to serve ships up to 250,000 DWT. Therefore, the EIS did not limit its considerations to 150,000 DWT ships or less. In operating their facility the company would be bound by conditions set forth by the Maine Board of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Coast Guard. Although the total amount of spillage would be greater from a 250,000 DWT tanker, on a tanker—for-tanker basis, the potential for spills from a 250,000 DWT vessel is approximately equal to that for 150,000 DWT vessels because they are compart- mentalized into the same sized tanks. Additionally, since use of the 250,000 DWT vessels would result in fewer transits of the passage, they could theoretically have more flexibility to choose the most favorable tide and weather conditions without endangering the refinery’s supply of crude. The BEP is requiring that two other pre-operational conditions relating to tanker movement be met prior to com- mencing construction. These are: 1. Perform real time simulation studies of tanker passage through Head Harbor Passage waters. 2. Conduct actual traverses by tankers and tugs in a ballasted condition similar to anticipated fully loaded conditions. 37 ------- No Action The “no—action” alternative would eliminate current plans for development of a 250,000 BPD oil refinery and marine terminal at Eastport. To Pittston, this would result In their continuing to purchase refined products from domestic and foreign refineries constructed and operated by their competitors. This no—action alternative would also continue the energy demand and supply situation currently existing in the United States, New England and Maine by eliminat- ing the only presently proposed, and actively pursued, application for refinery construction In the area. Like- wise, no action would eliminate a source of low sulfur home heating and light Industrial fuel oils which are in demand In the New England area and must presently be im- ported. C. Alternatives Available to Eastport Because of Eastport’s remote location, it would appear that any future development, should it be desired, would be based on its use as a deep—water port or on the marine resources of the area. Attempts to revitalize the marine Industry have not succeeded to date and, be- cause of Its remote location, a deep—water port would not appear to be of’ value except as an oil port. Therefore, for Eastport, abandonment of the project could mean a continuation of Its existing soclo—economic status without the economic benefits which could accrue from the construction and operation of the refinery. If constructed, the much discussed Passamaquoddy Tidal Power project could provide a short—term soclo—economic boom very much similar to the Impacts associated with the re- finery construction. It might also provide for an in- creased marine—based industry due to aquaculture. 38 ------- VIII. ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED AND MITIGATING MEASURES WHICH WILL BE EMPLOYED The following summarizes the adverse impacts as discussed in previous chapters and which are expected to occur If the proposed project Is constructed. In addition, the mitigating measures which the Pittston Company has agreed to employ to alleviate these Impacts are also summarized. 39 ------- TABLE 5 ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES Adverse impacts which cannot be avoided Mitigating measure 0 1. An essentially rural site will be converted to heavy i iidus t r i. I u ;ag’ 2. Construction impacts — during construction, there will be: .i. An increase in truck tr .tfIie!; b . An increase in .iinb ient 110 I se I evcl s as .i result of truck tr iffic .ind the pl.iccment of facilities; c. An increase in dust as a result of the movement of construction vehicles and equipment. d. An influx of construction workers placing a demand on existing goods and services within the community; e. The removal of vegetative cover and loss of habitat for small birds and animals; f. An increase in erosion; g. Dredging of approxLmately 1.45 m cu. yd. in the vicinity of the product and crude oil tanker berths which will destroy exist- ing benthic habitats, as well as associated flora and fauna. In addition, there will be some sedimentation of adjacent areas and additional, but probably small, loss of marine life from blasting. h. The demolition of summer homes. The site will be landscaped to the extent possible and a 100—ft buffer zone built around the site. All of the impacts associated with construction will be temporary, lasting about 24 months. Truck movements will be scheduled to minimize interference with local traffic. Traffic to and from the site as well as construe— tion activtties will be limited to the daytime hours and truck speeds limited. Trucks will be covered. Dust control methods will be employed at construction sites and on haul roads. The company will provide some facilities for the workers including housing. Erosion control measures will be employed. To the extent possible, dredging will not be done during the prime spawning periods of marine species. The dredged material will be used on the construction site. A marine archaeological survey will be done by a qualified archaeologist for Pittston prior to any dredging. Owners will be reimbursed fo: their property. The compensation should enable the owners the replace the dwellings with other suer homes in the same general vicinity, should they so desire. ------- TABLE 5 (Continued). ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES Adverse impacts which cannot be avoided 3. Operation Impacts — as a result of the refinery’s operation, the following impacts will occur: a. Incremental decrease in the area’s air quality due to the refinery’s discharge of particulates, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and trace quantities of mercury, lead and beryllillum. b. Discharge of large quantities of treated san- itary and industrial process water to the marine environment viii result in a chronic accumulation of oil deposits in the sediment near the diffuser. Consequently, these sediments will lose the poten- tial for supporting benthic life. c. An accident during the transport of either crude oil or refined products to or from the re- finery could result in significant adverse impacts to the marine environment, the extent of which would depend on the size and location of the spill, the time of year and the material spilled. Mitigating measures The refinery will use “best available control technology” to minimize emissions. The low sulfur fuels produced by the refinery will be used to reduce the total amount of sulfur emitted. The complex will meet all ambient air quality standards for particulates, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides including applicable nondegradation requirements as well as the performance standards for heavy metal emissions. To assure the facility’s compliance, an emissions monitoring program will be required. The quality of these discharges will comply with EPA effluent standards of performance for New Petro- leum Refining Point Sources. The water quality will continue to meet Maine water quality standards. A sonar survey will be conducted to prove the channel to a depth of 75 feet. Pittston will conduct Real Time Simulation Studies simulating the navigational condi- tions of the channel before operations. Based on real time simulation studies and other information, the U.S Coast Guard will promulgate regulations to control the port. An electronic navigation system will augment shipboard systems. VLCC’s and other classes of tankers will have tug assistance required. Qualified pilots will be on board. VLCC’s will move only at times of low currents and nc other ships will move when VLCC’s çperate. The U.S. Coast Guard, the Pittston port officer, the tanker captain and the pilot must all agree on the decision to move a tanker in or out of the facility. An adequately equipped oil spill containment and cleanup force will be available. Bootns will be provided to lobster pound owners. Booms will surround the tanker berthing areas during transfer operations. ------- TABLE 5 (Continuerl). . .DVCRSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES Adverse impacts which cannot be avoided Mitigating measure d. Spills may occur during routine refinery An operating plan and a spill containment and operations. countermeasure plan will be developed. Drainage of the refinery where spills could occur will be piped to an oil water separator system. Operating procedures will be designed to reduce spillage to negIig. b1e amounts. i. Adverse socio—economic impacts due to thc Sound advance planning. Eastport has faced this mu IIX ol con-mL rtp( t I on fllon(y .In(l w(lrkc r ‘ I tim t ion he fore, so has experience with it. rcdring a “boom—bust” situatton. Oilier Maine towns have more recent experience due to construction of power plants and paper mills which can be utilized by Eastport. f. increased truck traffic. Truck movements will be scheduled to minimize potenti .il interference with local traffic. ------- Ix. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM RENEFTCIAL USES The short term impacts from the proposed refinery will occur mostly from the construction of the refinery. They include the following: — Increased noise levels due to construction and traffic; — Removal of vegetation from the site reducing habitat for birds and animals; — Increased erosion and dust; — Dredging of 1,450,000 cubic yards in Broad and Deep Coves and the associated loss of existing benthic habitats and associated flora and fauna; - Increased short term demand for housing and community services; and — Loss of five houses on the site. The long term impacts are both beneficial and adverse. The most Important Impact to this largely rural area would be its use asa marine terminal for the refinery. This would result In a change from an economically depressed coastal community to an active oil port. This would impact and change the life style of many people In Eastport and change the community’s dependence from a renewable resource — marine life — to a nonrenewable resource — oil. Long term adverse Impacts include: — Introduction of a continuous source of air, water and noise pollution which would be kept to a mini— mum through application of State and Federal laws. — Exposure of the marine environment In the U.S. and Canadian waters to the potential of a serious oil spill. 43 ------- Long term beneficial effects are: — Increased productivity of Eastport’s commercial district; — Increased employment, tax revenue and investment in Eastport; — Retention of investment and jobs in this country; - Increased national security in the event of another embargo; — Improved national balance of payments; and - Meeting the nation’s increased need for petroleum products. 44 ------- X. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Those resources which will be irreversibly and irretriev- ably committed by this project are the following: The Character of the Community The character of the comnfunity which has been constant except for a declining level of employment will be greatly changed during the three year construction period with the substantial influx of construction workers. The operation of the refinery, with its much lower level of employment will significantly increase Eastport’s tax base and will slightly increase the cost of public services. Vegetative Cover The vegetation and associated wildlife habitat at the refinery site will be lost. However, the impact on the wild- life will be minimal since these species can easily move to adjacent similar habitats in this largely rural region. None of the species are considered endangered. Airport The Eastport Municipal Airport will be permanently closed and the runways removed. Camping Area A small camping area on the site will be permanently closed. Port The character of the port will change as the installation and operation of a complex navigational aid system will permit it to handle large oil tankers, some of the largest ocean-going ships afloat, as well as the current traffic of small fishing boats and an occasional fuel oil barge. Thus the port’s emphasis will shift from fishing to oil and marine operations. Marine Resources The refinery will require the commitment of the community, region, and the state to accept the risk, however small, that an accident could affect some or all of the diverse and abundant marine life in the area. The commitment to this industrial activity could force the suppression or even elimination of a renewable resource, thus resulting in the potential elimination of the fishing industry in the region. 45 ------- |