PERMITS TO
                  PREPARED BY:
                  REGION I,  BOSTON,  MA  02203


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
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

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.

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
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.

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.

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.

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
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
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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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
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

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.

A. Socio—Economic Factors
1. Current Setting
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
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,
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

I ’
3 ’
. ST.

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
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
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


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.
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

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.
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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

B. Air and Meteorological Factors
1. Current Setting
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.

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.

- 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
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

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.

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

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
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.

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
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:
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.

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:

Table 1 Predicted fates of oil spilled under five scenario
condicions near Eastport Maine.
Volume 6
Spilled (10 gal)
Distribution of S
pilled Oil (106
Cobscook Passages
24(30) 8(10)
6(30) 2(10)
14(70) 4(20)
O( 0)
3.9(30) 1.3(10)
2.1(70) 0.6(20)
0( 0)
percentage ot ttie total volume
*Numb r i [ ) represent tti
Table 2
impact area.
Summary of weighting code totals for each scenario and
Scenario Bay Passages Bay

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.
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.

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

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-
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
Approximately 50 houses 45 to 50 dBA due to refinery
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
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.

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)

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,
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

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
— 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.

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:
Impact in Comparison to Impact at Eastport
Blue Hills
Current Air
Impact on Air
Water Quality
Current Land
Sea Uses
More industrial—
ized; still rural
and resort areas
Highly indus—
trialized, with
some resot t areas
Noise Impact
Terrestrial &
Aquatic Flor
and Fauna
Center of Maine’s
lobster, clam and
Oil Spills
More ex—
Long passage,
near commercial
fishing grounds
lust use monomooring,
xposed to open oceai
r must use a narrow
Leep channel
Less benefit
since tax base
is larger
Much less benefit
since larger pop—
ulation, smaller
unemployment, more
Same as Eastport = S
Worse than Eastport = W
Much worse than Eastport = MW
Less severe than Eastport = L

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-
- 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.

— Delays due to weather conditions’ would be significant.
— Oil spills would be more req’uent and more difficult to
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.

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-
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.

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.

Adverse impacts which cannot be avoided
Mitigating measure
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
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
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.

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
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.

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.

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
— 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

Long term beneficial effects are:
— Increased productivity of Eastport’s commercial
— Increased employment, tax revenue and investment
in Eastport;
— Retention of investment and jobs in this country;
- Increased national security in the event of another
— Improved national balance of payments; and
- Meeting the nation’s increased need for petroleum

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.
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.
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.